If the law was meant to prevent proselytizing by teachers, here’s a case that shows it clearly hasn’t worked.
Article content
More than six months after an investigation by Radio-Canada revealed that a Quebec teacher uttered discriminatory remarks with “Islamophobic and racist stereotypes” toward students — and who later justified them by saying “the more Muslims there are in Quebec, the more they will want to implement the value of Islam to the detriment of our Christian and Jewish heritage” — the educator continues to teach.
Advertisement 2
Article content
Some Quebecers are now questioning Education Minister Bernard Drainville’s response to the incident. His ministry has said “comments like these are unacceptable and have no place in our schools” — but no tangible action has been taken to discipline or prevent the educator from teaching. Instead, an investigative committee was struck.
Contrast this with Drainville’s quick action after learning that some Montreal-area public schools were permitting Muslim students to gather for prayer during Ramadan. He immediately moved to ban prayer rooms, stating they run counter to Quebec’s policy of official secularism. Only “silent” prayers would be allowed.
Secularism is not only separation of church and state, but also the absence of bias toward any one specific religion. If Muslim prayers must be “silent,” because they contravene state secularism, discriminatory remarks uttered loudly against the Muslim faith should elicit equal concern and swift action from the government, should they not?
Only a week before the prayer-room incident, Premier François Legault tweeted in support of Catholicism and how it “engendered a culture of solidarity that distinguishes us on a continental scale.” Not exactly what one would call religious neutrality.
Advertisement 3
Article content
For a minister usually quick to defend the government’s desire to maintain strict separation of religion and state (and also the man behind the Parti Québécois’ proposed “Charter of Values,” which called for an even stricter ban on religious symbols), one might ask why Drainville hasn’t shown more urgency on this file.
I can understand parents’ concerns, as they face protocol that may be taking longer than some would want. Eighteen months after the incident took place — and six months after the investigative committee submitted its report concluding it was serious misconduct — the Education Ministry still hasn’t decided whether to sanction or revoke the teacher’s licence.
But it’s Bill 21 we should be questioning, more than the slow progress on the file. The incident is proof this law doesn’t actually prevent or provide any sort of solution to potential proselytizing by teachers, no matter what they choose to wear — contrary to Legault’s argument that religious symbols “can send a message that some religions are more important than others.”
Bill 21 pre-emptively and needlessly discriminates against those who wear religious symbols. Yet, as Montreal North high school teacher Vincent Ouellette demonstrated in 2020, the presence of religious symbols is no more proof of zealotry than their absence is proof of impartiality.
Advertisement 4
Article content
In 2020, Ouellette was secretly filmed by a student repeatedly hurling the N-word during an online class. After the video went viral, many of his students came forward with accusations of racism, Islamophobia, bigotry and anti-immigrant sentiments over his 20-year career. Despite repeated complaints to authorities, Ouellette passed under the radar for years.
If a Muslim teacher had been accused of proselytizing (which is what this unnamed teacher was doing — attempting to change people’s beliefs), would they have quietly been transferred to another school where they would continue to teach the same ethics and religious cultures course while the ministry seemingly dragged its feet? Allow me to have my doubts.
While it might be concerning that an unrepentantly intolerant educator continues to teach until a decision is made, these delays might not be the ministry’s fault. There are unions and appeals processes involved, after all.
What this case does illustrate, however, is that if Bill 21 was meant to prevent proselytizing, it clearly doesn’t work. What can work are procedures, even painfully slow ones, already in place.
Toula Drimonis is a Montreal journalist and the author of We, the Others: Allophones, Immigrants, and Belonging in Canada. She can be reached on X @toulastake
Recommended from Editorial
-
Allison Hanes: Bill 21 appeal court decision will embolden bullies
-
CAQ blasts EMSB, Ottawa over Bill 21 Supreme Court challenge
Advertisement 5
Article content
Article content