Photo: Jacques Boissinot The canadian Press
Jagmeet Singh accompanied him Tuesday to Alma the candidate néodémocrate Gisèle Dallaire.
Jagmeet Singh has it all. It moves on to a bicycle or motorcycle. He dresses like a real card mode thanks to the tailored outfits that he creates for himself. It grows even the originality until you do not wear socks, unlike Justin Trudeau, who chooses them meticulously, and, in fact, a coquetry. Sikh orthodox, such as its 460 000 fellow canadian, he wears long hair held by a comb, because his religion forbids him to cut. He also wears proudly a turban, kirpan and flowing beard, and a gold bracelet and the underwear prescribed by this religion without a clergy, which is the fourth religion of the book.
Jagmeet Singh says it is progressive in political matters. Rightly or wrongly, he insists on the fact that the religious beliefs to which it adheres are converging with the ” canadian values “, among others, the equality of men and women, the right to abortion, the equal rights of people based on sexual orientation.
However, while taking a stand against the project of law no. 62 of the government Couillard aimed at forcing any person to receive the services of the State face to face, Jagmeet Singh proclaims that he is completely agree with the separation of Church and State. This is not a minor paradox. Because it could not have escaped to anyone that the very first mark of identity that this canadian politician wishes to put forward is of a religious nature.
Separation between politics and religion ?
Certainly, any person, and of course, any politician, has a perfect right to join any religion, or no, and to practice his religion as he sees fit. There is not the question. What I tarabuste, is that Jagmeet Singh claims to be fully supportive of the separation between politics and religion : now, the thing is impossible, just as much as secularism seems unworkable for all muslims of strict observance.
Moreover, mpp néodémocrate in Ontario since 2011, Jagmeet Singh, stood out by opposing more than one occasion in the bill to introduce the compulsory wearing of a bicycle helmet. Again, it is his most basic right. But don’t we see emerging here a position with a religious into a political discussion ? To all those who see in this opposition a clear link with the obligations that he made his faith, Jagmeet Singh replies that he is nothing and that it is in virtue of the canadian Charter of rights and freedoms it defends this policy option. This argument is, to say the least misleading.
Of course, any canadian citizen, reminds us that he has the right to reasonable accommodations related to his religion, and this is his basic argument. This argument is of a nature that juridical-political is no less motivated by a concern, first and foremost, religious. We can not deny the obvious.
If, under the canadian Charter, which takes precedence over the Constitution itself — but also of the quebec Charter of rights and freedoms of the individual, it may be legally acceptable to a sikh orthodox, to ask for his confession for a waiver of the requirement to wear a safety helmet for riding a bike in the streets and on the roads in canada, it is easy to imagine countless situations where an accommodation similar will be required. There are already also other cases of the same kind — for example, in RCMP, or even the port of Montreal, where a similar request has been made, and with success. Claim that this policy approach has no inherent religious is misleading.
We believe we live in a secular society when, in fact, religion is trying to interfere subtly in all spheres of social and political life. This is clearly a legacy deplorable of canadian multiculturalism. As a political leader leading his public life in religious costume does not recognize it immediately, and intend to in any way conducive to secularism has something mystifying.