Like many citizens of Quebec, we were shocked by the decision of the Autonomous Federation of Education (FAE) to resort to Canadian justice to demand regulation of the exemption provision. If the appeal were upheld, it would lead to the disarmament of Quebec in the defense of Bill 21, the law which sets the rules for applying secularism and, ultimately, would complicate the defense of all Quebec laws which conflict with the Canadian constitutional framework. in promoting the rights of the Quebec people. We see there on the part of the FAE a great incomprehension of the nature of this constitutional clause, its history and the consequences of this political gesture.
The override provision is a request from some English-speaking provinces of Canada in the constitutional negotiations of 1982. It was for these provinces a bargaining chip in return for their signature at the bottom of the new Canadian constitutional law imposed on Quebec without its agreement. This clause was to allow English Canada to resist, depending on the circumstances, any centralizing offensive by the federal government. Quebec was not one of the provinces that requested this clause, consistent with its decision to refuse to agree to the new constitutional law of 1982.
Claiming, in this context, the framing of the derogation provision means that, consciously or not, the FAE approves the 1982 coup, that it adheres to the constitutional law despite the fact that Quebec rejected it and that it assumes through this decision that our people must transform themselves into a cultural community among several hundred other cultural communities living on Canadian territory. The FAE thus openly defends multiculturalism which was designed as a weapon against the existence of Quebec as a nation.
By calling for the framework of the derogation provision to reduce its scope, the FAE means not only that, in defense of the right to self-determination, it has chosen its side, that of the federal government, but also that it claims to replace the Quebec people, who are the only ones authorized to decide their future as a nation. Even more serious, if it is possible, it would like to recruit the workers’ movement, which is one of the components of the nation, against its own people, thus betraying the historical resistance that the Quebec nation has led against its assimilation to a country which has was imposed by violence.
The FAE’s request amounts to demanding from federal institutions, including its courts of justice, a unilateral change to constitutional law in order to prevent the government of Quebec from exempting Bill 21, a legitimate law passed, from the requirements of multiculturalism. and assumed by the Quebec Parliament, against the attacks of those who deny Quebec the power to legislate on the way of designing its collective life.
This new attack by the FAE management against Law 21 demonstrates the weakness of the main argument it formulated against the law, namely that it would be an attack on labor law. In doing so, the FAE would like to subject the working conditions of its members to the requirements of total religious freedom, opening the door to a return of the domination of religious corporations over public schools.
Law 21 is not an attack on labor law. It sets the rules that ensure the neutrality of the Quebec state in the provision of public services. Among other things, it imposes limits on religious freedom in public schools, necessary to establish a distance between faith and the transmission of knowledge which is the heart of the teaching profession. That being said, everyone makes their choices.
In closing, dear FAE colleagues, we do not deny your union federation’s right to intervene in the public debate on democratic, social or political issues. This is part of the responsibilities of a democratic organization that defends work. Like all other democratic organizations, in fact. Above all, we do not associate ourselves with those who use demagoguery to prohibit unions from intervening in democratic life.
However, the choice you made to go over the heads of the people of Quebec and over the heads of your members to defend the idea of unlimited religious freedom, by calling on the federal state rather than the The Quebec state has serious consequences with regard to the history and future of the Quebec people. This choice requires a broad and well-organized democratic debate for all the members of your unions, a debate whose guidelines should be sufficiently transparent to prevent the results from being called into question. Respectfully, and looking forward to discussing it.
