Quebec's Monumental Hypocrisy

"It would appear that the government is planning to give the Jewish General Hospital its original raison d'etre, which was to allow identifiable Jews to practise their profession at a time when they were not welcome in other hospitals in Montreal. This is a step backward."
David Ouellette, associate director, Centre for Israel & Jewish Affairs

It's become a political hot coal, tossed around for effect and denunciation. Quebec, like its mentor-country France, is a strictly secular 'nation'. No religious symbols, please, unless they can be excused on the basis of 'national' heritage significance. Flamboyantly large crosses make the grade. But no other public excesses of religious devotion, thank you very much. Equality, fraternity and the liberty to make laws that resonate with a separatist government, overall.

So when the Liberal house leader in the Quebec National Assembly rose to commemorate the 75th anniversary of Kristallnacht, the Nazi German pogrom heralding the Holocaust, and Jean-Marc Fournier related a story he had heard emphasizing just how vital certain cultural-religious symbols are to others, he earned the opprobrium and irate condemnation of Quebec Premier Pauline Marois, for ostensibly equating the Parti Quebecois' values with that of the Third Reich.

Apologize, she thundered "for his completely inappropriate comments that leave the impression that there could be a similarity between the horrible events of the Holocaust, of Kristallnacht, and the charter of secularism project". Which demonstrated her sensitivity to public, and very wide-spread criticism over the proposed bill to ban the wearing of 'conspicuous' religious symbols by public servants.

His intention was clear enough; to point out the hypocrisy of the proposal. And the stress it has placed, unduly, on religious communities, with an especial emphasis on a religious community that has been a part of Quebec culture for well over two centuries. And whose religious symbols -- most commonly a skullcap - are as worthy of retention as, say, a cross in the National Assembly.

Certainly for the Jewish health professionals practising in an originally Jewish-built-and-staffed  hospital when prejudice in the province wouldn't allow Jews to attend medical school other than by restricted quota or to practise their profession at public hospitals, their professional status at Montreal's Jewish General Hospital wasn't threatened by wearing a kippah.

Not according to a PQ candidate for a Montreal byelection who endorsed removing "Jewish" and just leaving the hospital named General Hospital, and while at that little amendment, circumscribe circumcision, another nasty Jewish practise. Smear campaign! claimed Tania Longpre, she said no such thing, besides which she was a victim of misunderstanding.

"We're shocked at the ignorance of the PQ candidate, who doesn't seem to realize that Quebec Jews are a historical community in Quebec that has been here for 2-1/2 centuries, and that we have institutions", chided David Ouellette, associate director of the Centre for Israel & Jewish Affairs. "Ms. Longpre is an ardent supporter of the so-called Charter of Quebec Values, and we find it extremely disturbing that she believes this proposed legislation gives her license to attack the legitimacy of Jewish institutions."

As for the Jewish General Hospital; it has given notice of its intention to defy Bill 60 if it does pass into law. Executive Director Lawrence Rosenberg warned the institution has no intention of using an legislative exemption allowing hospitals to avoid the ban on religious symbols.

"This bill is flawed and contrary to Quebec's spirit of inclusiveness and tolerance. Since the bill is inherently prejudicial, there is no point in taking advantage of any clause that would grant us temporary, short-term relief . If approved, this offensive legislation would make it extremely difficult for the JGH to function as an exemplary member of Quebec's public health-care system."

Fact is that the PQ is cowardly. Its focus is not the Sikh turban, the Jewish kippah, the Muslim hijab. It should come right to the point instead of cowardly sheltering behind the pretext of equal treatment. Put into law, if needed, a distinct provision as France did, that the alienating anonymity of face covering is societally unacceptable.

A head cover like a kippah, a turban, a scarf, reveals the individual beneath, smiling or scowling, a person.

A niqab, a burqa, a total head and face covering presents as hostile and alienated. It has no place anywhere in Canada.