The Last Word On The Charter

My girls attend a school called Beth Jacob. It’s a private Jewish girls’ school. Every year they do a musical, and every year I am barred from attending the performance because I am male. This bothers me. I do not understand the “religious” reason they use to justify this and I don’t care what it is.

I’ve heard that Hatzalah, the Jewish paramedical organization, does not permit women to join as paramedics. This bothers me. I do not know whether they use a “religious” reason to justify this nor do I care.

I know for a fact that in certain Hassidic communities, women are not allowed to drive. I also know that in Haredi communities generally, women do not have the same career opportunities as men, though, to be honest, the opportunities for both men and women are limited, as secular college  / university is considered out of bounds. All of this bothers me.

I do not speak here of gender separation, nor of gender differences in the context of religious services. That’s a whole other discussion. We leave that for another day.

I now quote from the preamble of the English version (surprised that there is one? So am I) of the Parti Quebecois’ Charter of Values:

The purpose of this bill is to establish a Charter affirming the values of State secularism and religious neutrality and of equality between women and men…

Later on it says:

…obligations are set out for personnel members of public bodies in the exercise of their functions, including a duty to remain neutral and exercise reserve in religious matters by, among other things, complying with the restriction on wearing religious objects that overtly indicate a religious affiliation.

There’s been a lot of ink spilled about the charter, about its discriminatory attitude, and about its divisiveness. The response seems to be:

1.        Gender equality is already entrenched in Quebec law
2.        The “religious symbols” provision is an instance of unjustifiable discrimination, and contrary to Quebec’s values, and the values of western society as a whole.

But let’s do a little bit of thinking here and see if we can come up with a way to make sense of this. I mean, we know that discrimination is bad. Despite the untold numbers of people among us who continue to practice it, nobody seriously argues in its favour. And yet, religious groups (I cite Jews as an example because that’s the group I belong to and that’s what I know best, but other groups have their own issues) seem to do it with impunity.

So maybe, just maybe, the PQ has a problem with groups that practice gender discrimination, and maybe that’s why they don’t want people advertising their allegiance to such groups on their turf. And I’m not sure I totally blame them.

If that’s the case, then I’d say that Marois and her useless band of lowlifes actually have a case. And if so, then I wish they’d be honest, say what they mean, discuss the problem openly, and let’s find a solution we can all live with. Taking a heavy-handed approach to anyone who wears a kipa or a hijab or a crucifix or a shtreimel for that matter will make the situation worse, not better. Discrimination can’t be fought with more discrimination. But it ought to be fought. Marois knows this. But if she were smart, she’d find a better way to do it. I don’t think she’s very smart.

There is, of course, also the reality that not all religious groups are equal. And not all adherents to any one group agree with every value of the group. There’s much that needs to be discussed, but nobody is discussing it, because the (now defunct) government is hiding behind the façade of “neutrality” and “secularism,” neither of which is an accurate description of the real issue.

So let’s be honest...

And I think next year I’ll make an issue out of that musical. BJ, you’ve been warned...