LETTER

Secularization bill should be dropped 

I’d like to agree with Fred Ryan [editorial of April 3] on some aspects of his “Nationalism and religious symbols”. The separation of church and state as a bulwark against religious persecution is part of where I agree. 

However Ryan calls the new CAQ proposed law on secularism a progressive act. The case against the CAQ proposed law is that there was no movement in our public schools forcing children to be indoctrinated by any particular religion. Not only that, enforcement of it is ill defined, and this will cause headaches in all manner of ways. It will need further clarification and enlightenment down the road.

The law has the effect of banning certain groups of people from working for the state; this intention in keeping with right-wing zealots, appalled by the Hijabs they see in Muslim immigration. There being no imminent threat to the children in schools, the law tackles a problem where none existed, and is in fact creating a new social problem, in an attempt to please the social palate of a few zealots. Considering much of civil society prides itself on inclusion, the government should be fostering diversity. The CAQ law should be dropped. 

Carl Hager, 

Pontiac, QC

NOTE: Mr Hager, in claiming there is “no imminent threat to the children in schools” ignores events just across the river: a coalition of religious groups, evangelicals, and “right-wing zealots” was able to kill Ontario’s mild sex education reforms and reinstate a 50-year old program that ignores problems faced by today’s kids and families. History is constant with efforts by religious groups to set social policy – abortion,   gay marriage, blood transfusions, classroom content, tax exceptions, etc. On a personal level, religious beliefs can be profound; on a social and political level, they are often totalitarian. 

Other claims that secularization attacks general freedom of conscience and of faith are not only untrue but devious arguments presented by undemocractic forces themselves. Bill 21 would allow anyone to continue believing what they wish. Belief is one thing, proselytizing is different. Secularization prohibits proselytizing. Even so, this ban is only for public servants, and only while at work.  Ordinary citizens can wear, believe, and promote what they wish. 

Lastly, the argument that the CAQ is right-wing and, thus, all of its proposals are unprogressive is plainly silly.  Their election platform would have been considered “far left” in much of the USA!    - FR