Leslie Rosenblood
The constitutionality of Quebec’s Bill 21, which (among other things) bans provincial government employees from wearing of “ostentatious” religious clothing and symbols, is heading to the Supreme Court of Canada.
No issue has split the secular community of Canada like Bill 21. Several organizations, including CFIC, Canadian Secular Alliance, and BC Humanist Association, have come out strongly against the legislation. Humanist Canada has not taken an official position on the bill (though it did host a four part webinar series on the topic). The Mouvement Laïque Québécois – which stood staunchly against prayers to open municipal council meetings – is a major proponent of Bill 21.
CFIC has covered the progress of this legislation extensively. CFIC came out against the bill back in 2019. In May 2020, Critical Links described the unsuccessful court case to suspend the bill until the full challenge could be heard. In November 2020, CFIC reported on the case as it was heard at the Quebec Superior Court, and again in April 2021 when the Quebec Superior Court rendered its verdict. The third and fourth episodes of Podcast for Inquiry were dedicated to secular arguments in favour (Caroline Russell-King) and against (Catherine Francis) the bill in early 2022.
From the April 2021 Critical Links article: “The ruling largely upholds the provisions of Bill 21, with two notable exceptions: The bill would be “inoperative” for English school boards in the province, and restrictions would not apply to sitting Members of the National Assembly.” Many groups still affected by Bill 21’s provisions appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, as did the Quebec government, which was unhappy with the exemption for English school boards.
The Supreme Court of Canada will hear the case later this year or in early 2026. The BC Humanist Association and Canadian Secular Alliance have filed a joint application to be interveners in the case. (The CSA was an intervener in the Saguenay (municipal prayers) and Trinity Western University (see here and here for details) cases.) Both organizations, like CFIC, believe that Bill 21 is an unjustified infringement on religious expression, and will argue that Bill 21 should be struck down.
There were a large number of organizations that applied for intervener status in this case, and typically only a few such requests are granted. A decision is not expected for several months; Critical Links will keep you up to date on this case.
I find that Quebec’s use of the concepts “lay” and “secular” are strictly for self-serving political ends. I think that those of us who are truly secular need to understand that, by supporting the freedom OF religion, we are supporting freedom FROM religion.
Not so fast! What you affirm is actually a sophism, precisely the NON SEQUITUR one. There is no guarantee that insuring freedom of religion(s) protects citizens from religions abusing non-religious people, especially atheists. The historic precedents are telling: even so the Letter Concerning Toleration of John Locke was clearly a step in the right direction, Locke could not admit that complete freedom of belief was a good thing. He did advocate freedom of religion for everybody but … the Catholics and the Atheists ! Now, even Voltaire despised atheists …
There are good reasons and bad reasons why Canada is not, actually, a secular state notwithstanding Justin Trudeau bombastic declarations. David Rand studied the phenomenon : why there is no clear separation of state and churches in Canada. See his book «Still birth, The Failure of Secularism in the English-Speaking World».
I think that humanist groups which objected to Bill 21 were misguided, most likely by the heavy misinformation buzz in English Canada against what was perceived as a political stunt by a party they don’t like much. However Laïcité was not at all a last minute breathing straw for a drowning party (CAQ) in 2019. First, CAQ was not threatened at that time and, second, this was the result of a slow march toward a really secular state that started 50 years before.
If CFIC is interested: I have already presented two lectures:
– History of Laïcité in Canada, presented to the French Association of Free Thinkers in Marseille,
– History of Laïcité in France, presented to the Association humaniste du Québec.
Both were well received.
I can do similar lectures in English, either in person or via Zoom.
Michel Virard, pres. Association humaniste du Québec. (AHQ)
PS The AHQ has been a successful supporter of Laïcité in Québec. Also, we have produced vidéos (in French) of interviewed people from our local ethnic diversity. Essentially asking: what is your opinion on Laïcité in principle and in Québec ? They are on Youtube AHQ channel .
I have no objection to bill 21. This should apply to any public facing government employees on any level: municipal, provincial, and federal.
If you work in an office and don’t deal with public, wear whatever you like.
If you are a pastafarian nurse treating patients, leave your colander at home.
This article is remarkable for what it leaves out. Here is a sampling of what the author does not say:
— The exemption for English school boards (established by the 2021-04-20 decision of Quebec Superior Court) was struck down by the Quebec Appeal Court in its decision of 2024-02-29.
— In December 2020, the organization Atheist Freethinkers (AFT, http://www.atheology.ca) intervened in support of Bill 21 before Quebec Superior Court.
— In 2021, AFT, with which I work, challenged CFIC to a public debate about Bill 21. CFIC refused the invitation. No reason was given for the refusal, but I think we can easily guess.
— I wrote a book about the very different approaches to secularism in the French- and English-speaking worlds (title: “Stillbirth, The Failure of Secularism in the English-Speaking World”). Among other issues, the book explains why is it so important that secularists support Bill 21 and similar legislation.
I forgot to mention that the feminist organization PDF-Q (Pour des droits des femmes du Québec) also intervened in favour of Bill 21 before Quebec Superior Court. In fact, all secular organizations in Québec support Bill 21, while three of them (MLQ, PDF-Q, AFT) intervened at that time. I believe PDF-Q will also intervene before the Supreme Court.
A gay person may prefer to know if they are dealing with a strongly religious employee.
If someone feels so strongly about their religion, many of us prefer to know, in case we are victims of homophobia, misogyny, antisemitism, or simply discriminated for being unbelievers. Bill 21 removes that useful identifier.
Maybe the wearing of religious symbols should be encouraged
Quebec’s Bill 21, officially titled An Act respecting the laicity of the State, came into force on June 16, 2019. As noted in your article, various secular organizations have taken clear positions on the bill.
For the record, I would like to clarify an important point: Humanist Canada did take an official position on Bill 21—specifically, a position of neutrality.
At the time, Humanist Canada’s Board emphasized that both support for and opposition to the bill could be seen as consistent with humanist principles, including secularism, freedom of expression, and individual autonomy. This stance honoured the Amsterdam Declaration’s principle that humanism is non-dogmatic. It also reflected the diversity of views within our membership: a 2019 poll showed that 36% supported Bill 21, 47% opposed it, and 16% were undecided.
Given that our charitable object is education, we chose to promote understanding and critical engagement by hosting a four-part webinar series presenting differing perspectives on the bill. Our aim was to encourage thoughtful dialogue and uphold the importance of individual conscience.
That said, Humanist Canada remains deeply concerned about the use of the notwithstanding clause to impose a restrictive model of secularism—one that infringed on personal freedoms and disproportionately impacted visible minorities. While it may be time to review our position on Bill 21, our mission remains to promote and protect the separation of religion from public policy, to foster the development of critical thinking through secular education and to support the growth of a secular community in Canada.