A direct contradiction of Charest’s newfound ‘religious freedom defender’ image.
During the first CPC leadership debate, former Quebec Liberal Premier Jean Charest attempted to recast himself as a defender of religious freedom.
Charest expressed his opposition to Bill 21 in Quebec, and attempted to chastise his opponents on the issue.
This is a typical political tactic: Generate a wedge issue, place yourself on one side of the issue, and use that wedge to gain votes and group your opponents on the other side to generate a favourable contrast.
Charest’s attempt to do this on the issue of religious freedom is contradictory to his own record as Premier of Quebec.
In 2010, Jean Charest proposed legislation that would have required Muslim women in Quebec to remove face coverings in some circumstances when interacting with state authorities:
“Muslim women or others who wear face coverings in Quebec will have to remove them if they want to work in the public sector or do business with government officials, according to legislation tabled on Wednesday.”
The legislation was called Bill 94, and was divisive at the time.
Widely known as the ‘Niqab Ban,’ it was praised by some who supported the secularity of the state and opposed the Niqab on feminist/integration grounds.
Others criticized the potential unintended consequences, such as Don MacPherson in the Montreal Gazette:
“Could the Charest government’s proposed “Naema law” be invoked to refuse emergency medical treatment in a non-life-threatening situation to an injured woman wearing a niqab? Or to bar a girl from publicly-funded schools if she starts to wear the face veil when she reaches puberty, as some Muslim women do? Taking Bill 94 literally, as laws are meant to be taken, the answer to these questions appears to be “yes.” What’s more, that’s what Premier Jean Charest and his justice minister, Kathleen Weil, have implied is the intent of the bill.”
1/2 Did you know: #Bill21 was not the first proposed Quebec legislation targeting clothing worn by some Muslim women. That was the anti-niqab Bill 94, proposed in 2010 by the Liberal government of Jean Charest. #qcpoli #charest #cpcldr #cdnpoli https://t.co/tMG4HsdnGF
— Don Macpherson (@DMacpGaz) March 10, 2022
Hypocrisy
This article isn’t about whether people agree with legislation like Bill 94 or Bill 21 or not.
The issue is the hypocrisy of Jean Charest, and the complicity of the establishment media in that hypocrisy.
We see this over and over again:
When the establishment feels threatened by someone who questions the status quo – like Pierre Poilievre – they will rewrite the histories of those who want to keep the status quo – like Jean Charest.
Charest and the establishment press are trying to rewrite his narrative, casting him as a defender of religious freedom, when he was more than happy to implement Bill 21 style legislation as the Liberal Premier of Quebec.
The only reason Bill 94 didn’t pass is that Charest and the Quebec Liberals were defeated in the following election. Otherwise, it seems quite clear that he would have implemented the Niqab Ban.
This hypocrisy is similar to how Charest is attempting to cast himself as an opponent of Huawei, despite having worked for the Communist-China controlled company.
For Canada to get back on the right path, it is essential to reject the hypocrisy and historical revisionism of politicians like Jean Charest.
Spencer Fernando
Photo – YouTube
***
I am funded by people like you, not the Liberal government. If you value my work, you can make a contribution through PayPal, or directly through Stripe below.
[simpay id=”28904″]
