“We will allow the wearing of religious symbols so that everyone can work in Quebec, regardless of their faith,” Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois said in yesterday The press.
Québec Solidaire therefore opposes the ban on showing a religious symbol currently imposed on teachers, peace officials, prosecutors, etc.
The only criteria for a ban would be safety and inability to perform one’s job properly.
Nadeau-Dubois then stated that he would stick to the obligation to keep the face uncovered, and illustrated this with two examples: a teacher and a police officer.
At the founding congress of QS in February 2006, the party adopted a policy statement, a passage of which read: “Our party advocates the full secularization of the state and civil service, the judiciary and education”.
This completes the flip-flop.
QS now turns a blind eye to the deeply documented importance of the Islamic veil, even when a woman chooses to wear it voluntarily.
QS is turning its back on the millions of women around the world who are being forced to wear veils, and many of whom are struggling to do so.
Not bad for a party that calls itself “feminist”.
QS wants to believe that secularism prevents work. fake. Anyone can work in Quebec and believe in what they want.
Secularism restricts religious manifestations during working hours, that’s all, and for good reason.
Let’s take the case of an elementary school teacher.
Does she have authority and influence over the children? Yes of course.
Does its religious sign carry a message? Yes of course.
By definition, a sign is made to send a signal.
And what about the freedom of a child not to be unduly conditioned and of the parents who have chosen public school over denominational private school?
QS doesn’t care, nor does it care about the legal principle that appearances of neutrality are as important as neutrality.
QS invents a right that doesn’t exist anywhere: the right to dress as we see fit, in any place and under any circumstances.
In the name of freedom of belief, would we accept an official wearing a political button or a risqué outfit? No, obviously.
By using the example of the teacher and the policewoman to illustrate the need for an uncovered face, one inevitably also asks oneself in the name of safety and efficiency: Would QS allow the citizen to have an operator who does not see that his face is completely veiled?
If you disagree with his views, QS will consider it “racism” or “xenophobia” and equate religions with race, which is absurd.
How can the about-face of QS be explained?
Pure choice clientelism: QS knows that its electorate is primarily federal, multicultural, urban and young.
look no further