SEEMS THE WRONG FOLKS ARE COVERING THEIR FACES.

When the Province of Quebec first floated the idea of banning from the public service “conspicuous” religious symbols (large crosses, turbans, hijabs, kippahs, etc.) the predictable reaction focused on individual human rights. These concerns are legitimate, but there is another concern that’s receiving less attention than it deserves. What happens to a society when it systematically excludes portions of the population from full public participation?

This banning will have little effect on Christians who, generally speaking, are not obliged to wear “conspicuous religious symbols”. Monks and Nuns dress in habits, and priests in clerical collars, but these symbols have become optional.  Most Christian clerics, and almost all Christian lay people are free to dress in “secular” garb. The few exceptions – Amish Mennonites and Hutterites are the only ones that come readily to mind – are expressions of their own desire to stand apart. So this ban will effectively exclude only non-Christians.

For a practicing Sikh, an orthodox Jew, a committed Muslim, these symbols are not optional. They are required expressions of their devotion. Excluding these symbols will exclude these people, not just from working in a given milieux, but from participation. Why would a Muslim mother want to send her child to a school where she would not be welcome to teach? Why would a Sikh father wish take his child to a clinic where he would not be welcome to work?

When we see a turban-wearing Sikh teaching in a school, or working in a government office, we don’t see a school system or government promoting religion, but a religiously committed citizen being included in the life of the community. And when we see this we recognize that the community is larger than our community. We see ourselves as part of a province, a nation, a state.

When a province, nation or state practices exclusionary politics, it invites disaster. It encourages bigotry and prejudice (suspicion of the other). It disrupts social cohesion and systematically fosters fragmentation, rivalry and misunderstanding. As a non-Quebecois I realize that Quebec may have reasons for doing this that I can’t understand, but I still wonder if they really see what they are doing.

As a Sovereignist, of course, I remain confident that the Quebecois can work all this out. They are as smart in their peculiar way as we are in ours. And, if they do happen to screw it up, the Rest of Canada will gain the benefit of a powerful experiment in social engineering, not to mention an influx of very capable Quebec refugees.

For us, at least, it’s a win/win.