Remove the crucifix from the National Assembly

There is a recognizable shadow in the elaborate wood paneling in the main courtroom of the Quebec Court of Appeal on Notre-Dame. Because it was until fairly recently covered with a cross, the wood paneling has not aged at the same rate. A crucifix-shaped outline is clearly visible.

This central icon of Christianity has been removed from the courtrooms of Quebec. For the same reasons, the crucifix should be removed from behind the Speaker’s chair in the National Assembly and placed elsewhere, among other artifacts that recall Quebec’s heritage.

We were extremely dismayed when, under the “leadership” of Premier Jean Charest, the National Assembly voted unanimously to reject the recommendation of the Bouchard-Taylor commission on reasonable accommodation almost as soon as it was made public. We heartily support the idea that, to underline the secular nature of our most important political body, the artifact be moved from where it  was set in the mid-1930s. After all, separation of church and state is basic to any liberal democracy.

The commission, among its 37 recommendations, said it should be relocated in the legislature building to a place that emphasizes heritage value. That is where it belongs.

Nobody is denying that the first Europeans to colonize Quebec – and subdue the native inhabitants in paternalistic, abusive and often inhumane ways – were from France. No one is denying the role played by the Roman Catholic Church and its religious orders in providing some education and health care.

But Quebec has changed and the roles have changed. The Quiet Revolution recognized the inadequacy of this system. And since the 1960s Quebec has become the most secular province in Canada, with a massive rejection of the Church, in part because of the abuses some of its institutions and clerics inflicted on innocent believers.

The Quebec Charter of Rights and Freedoms has replaced religious dogma as the guarantor of each individual’s standing in society. Quebec was a leader in granting women the right to decide if they want to go ahead with unwanted pregnancies. Quebec pioneered gay-marriage rights. Quebec has the highest rate of common-law unions in Canada. Retaining the crucifix is an anachronism that contradicts of all of these fundamental changes.

But more importantly, today’s Quebec is a diverse community of communities. Maintaining a religious icon in our legislature sends the wrong message to our lawmakers. With our need for continuing high levels of immigration, the time is coming when there will be a Muslim premier. Or a Jew or atheist or agnostic may fill that role. Future leaders and legislators should not have to face a religious icon when making decisions that affect a multi-faceted and diverse population.

The unanimous vote in the National Assembly was an obvious pitch for old-stock Quebecers’ sentiment. The front-page story in La Presse on a recent Saturday featured a smiling farmer beaming beside a dairy cow. “The Quebec we love,” said the headline. But we know that this bit of happy nostalgia is largely mythical. That Quebec was a place of limited education and opportunity, banned books, misogyny, ostracism for what used to be known as unwed mothers, xenophobia and economic and cultural stagnation. The quarter-century spent under strongman Maurice Duplessis, who had the crucifix installed, was known as the Great Darkness.

The new Quebec is one of openness to the world, of safe haven for immigrants, of individual rights and freedoms, a rainbow of beliefs and respect for all. It is unfortunate that, among all the recommendations made by the commission, the first thing our politicians did was to pounce on the crucifix-removal recommendation and reject it. It does not bode well for the other proposals, such as speeding up steps to recognize foreign university diplomas so that qualified physicians don’t have to drive taxis while our emergency rooms continue to be overcrowded and understaffed.

The commission suggested the Quebec Charter of Rights and Freedoms be amended to ban public incitement to discriminate, and urged “exceptional initiatives” to fight anti-Semitism and Islamophobia and discrimination faced by all racialized groups, particularly Blacks. We urge the Quebec government to get on the case and in doing so pay homage to some of the lessons we should have learned from the crucifixion.

Iraq war deserters merit sanctuary

Some 40 years ago, then Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau opposed the U.S. war in Vietnam and, like many Canadians, was openly sympathetic to the thousands of young Americans who crossed the border into Canada to evade the draft. Trudeau said at the time, "Those who make the conscientious judgment that they must not participate in this war … have my complete sympathy, and indeed our political approach has been to give them access to Canada. Canada should be a refuge from militarism."

Those were heady days and the Vietnam War had galvanized the young around the world into a spirit of revolt. Canada then received from 50,000 to 100,000 Americans, draft dodgers and deserters alike. The draft is no more, but similar issues of conscientious objection to an illegal war have now come to the fore with the arrival of an estimated 150 American soldiers in Canada in search of asylum. The question is, should those who signed up for service in the U.S. Armed Forces and gone AWOL be granted refuge?

Many who first supported the U.S. invasion accepted the fact that the war was illegal but believed what is now known as trumped up evidence that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling Weapons of Mass Destruction. The world now knows this was a fabrication. Others believed the U.S., as sole super-power was being the world's police officer in ridding the Iraqis of its murderous tyrant, Saddam. But knowing now how badly the post-invasion was mismanaged, it is perfectly reasonable on a moral level that those who enlisted have seen the horror of it all and are being asked to redeploy for a third and fourth tour of duty can legitimately refuse to take part in an illegal war and occupation.

With a civil war raging, at least 90,000 Iraqis killed, possibly many more, and more than 4,000 U.S. military dead, is it not legitimate for soldiers to reject the effort and renege on their contracts on moral grounds? Canadian courts in dismissing refugee claims in two cases have set aside the issue of the war's legality. Justice Anne Mactavish of the Federal Court wrote in the case of Jeremy Hinzman in 2006 that the legality of the war "is not before the court and no finding has made in this regard." The Supreme Court of Canada has refused to hear appeals in Hinzman's case and that of deserter Brandon Hughey. His lawyer, Jeffry House, noted that in 1995 the Federal Court granted refugee status to a deserter from Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait, accepting the argument he should not be compelled to take part in an illegal war. The difference, of course, is that deserters returning to the U.S. face court martial, dishonourable discharges and possible jail terms of five years or so, while an Iraqi deserter forced to return home would have faced torture and death.

Former prime minister Jean Chrétien wisely led a government that refused to participate in the U.S. led invasion and subsequent occupation. In so doing he signaled Canada's unease with the justification, moral underpinning, and dynamics of what is now a bloody quagmire. As such, we regret the Harper government is so supportive of U.S. policies that it will not emulate Trudeau's example in showing the moral and political courage and progressive leadership to challenge American policy by offering refuge to U.S. draft evaders and war resisters on moral grounds. They deserved it then, they deserve it now.