Skip to main content

A participant throws a ball towards a picture depicting Russian President Vladimir Putin with make-up during the Prague Pride Parade where several thousand people marched through Prague's city centre in support of gay rights on August 17, 2013.

DAVID W CERNY/REUTERS

Philosopher Charles Taylor hit the mark when he used the term "Putinesque" to describe a plan being considered by Quebec Premier Pauline Marois to ban individuals from wearing conspicuous religious symbols in the public-sector workplace. The ban would be an exercise of state power that is the farthest thing from the supposed goal of state neutrality on religion. Instead, it deems a set of deeply personal freedoms to be unworthy. That is much the same as what Russia's President Vladimir Putin has done by banning "gay propaganda," whatever that means.

What sort of democracy tells religious minorities – Jews with their yarmulkes, Sikhs with their turbans and kirpans, and Muslims with their headscarfs – that they and their rights are less valued than other people and their rights? (Christians would be permitted to wear crosses, as long as they aren't too large.) A Putinesque one.

This society doesn't really include you, the government is saying, unless you decide to give up on who you are and come along with us.

Story continues below advertisement

Can anyone make a case that a doctor or secretary with a head covering means the state isn't neutral in some way? And if minorities are deprived of this basic religious freedom in the public workplace, as broadly defined, how would minorities be treated in the private sector? The message of being second-class citizens would not stop at the border of government workplaces.

It was Mr. Taylor who, as co-chair of a Quebec commission on reasonable accommodation, once urged the province to remove the crucifix from the National Assembly. The assembly immediately voted unanimously not to, because it knew how deeply people are attached to that particular religious symbol – sorry, historical artifact. Justifying that one on a vital legislative building, while denying individuals their right to wear a religious symbol, is absurd, hurtful and bullying; in short, Putinesque.

Note to readers: This editorial has been updated to reflect a change made in the print version that wasn't made in the online version. The change reflects the fact that the Marois government is considering banning conspicuous religious symbols in the public sector workplace, not all workplaces.

Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Comments

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed.

If your comment doesn't appear immediately it has been sent to a member of our moderation team for review

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.