By Leslie Rosenblood 
Secularism has several definitions, and confusion can result if people do not have a common understanding of how it is being used. CFIC supports political secularism, defined as government neutrality in matters of religion; that is, the state should neither support nor suppress religious expression.
Quebec’s Bill 21, regrettably generally referred to as its secularism law, bans the wearing of religious symbols by certain civil servants (government lawyers, judges, police, and teachers, among others). It was passed by the provincial legislature in June 2019, and applies to new hires. Existing employees (hired before March 27, 2019) may continue to wear religious garb in their current position, though the exemption is void if they either accept a promotion or make a lateral move to a new role.
Polls in Quebec show that Bill 21 is popular — supported by approximately two-thirds of Quebecois. Polls also indicate that much of this support is rooted in anti-Muslim animus, and that it would drop substantially if courts found Bill 21 to be unconstitutional. The law invokes the “notwithstanding clause” (Section 33) from the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which shields the law from many forms of constitutional challenges. While rare in the rest of Canada, Quebec often invokes the notwithstanding clause to deter litigation about its legislation.
The law was immediately challenged, on two fronts: its fundamental constitutionality, and a request for an emergency stay to prevent its provisions from taking effect until the full case can be heard. In July 2019, the Quebec Superior Court denied the request for a stay, stating that while the challenge raised a serious issue, there was no irreparable harm.
When the case went before the Quebec Court of Appeal, the argument against Bill 21 was expanded to include Section 28 of the Charter, which states “rights and freedoms […] are guaranteed equally to male and female persons.” This was an interesting development. If Bill 21 was found by the Court to discriminate against women it would be found to be unconstitutional, despite the invocation of the notwithstanding clause.
However, the Quebec Court of Appeal ruled two-to-one against granting a stay in December 2019. The majority wrote, in part, that “the notwithstanding clause dictates that, at this stage of the case, the courts must abandon to their fate women graduates who are willing to work and who, for the sole reason that they wear the veil [hijab], have been denied access to a job for which they hold all the skills.” (Translated from the French.)
Unsurprisingly, this decision did not sit well with those who oppose Bill 21. In January 2020, a formal request was filed for the Supreme Court of Canada to hear the application for a stay. On April 9, 2020, the Supreme Court declined to do so. As is its standard practice, no reasons were given. The substantive challenge to the law’s constitutionality is scheduled for October 2020 (though this might be delayed due to COVID-19). Assuming no delays, a decision should be released around this time in 2021.
I would like to gratefully acknowledge Catherine Francis , whose research informed parts of this article.
This article appears in the May 2020 version of Critical Links.
« CFIC supports political secularism, defined as government neutrality in matters of religion; that is, the state should neither support nor suppress religious expression. »
Who is CFIC? Who decided that? As a member, I don’t remember having been consulted in any way. Who defined the terms? What is happening at the CFIC? I know many atheists in the province of Quebec and all over the world who took a favorable position about this law.
This paper is imprecise, to say the least. The decision that was made by the Supreme court was about suspending the law before its study in detail. Both courts decided that there was no emergency to suspend the law. The law will be studied later.
The main point of the law is not about suppressing religious expression, it is about not allowing any employee to express their religion while they are representing the state. Deciding that the state should not suppress religious expression in any way is not an atheist position, because religions used to ask for any privileges, do anything they can to occupy more space and use public finances. It is obvious that governments should defend the public against any malevolent sect or any person who claims to start a new religion and ask for religious exemptions and privileges. It is very difficult to draw the line between a sect and a mainstream religion.
This issue is very complex because of the history of the law and the constitution in Canada. The province of Quebec has its own history, law system and specific rights in the constitution. Their notion of « laïcité » is coming from France. There are many political and democratic questions in this issue.
CFIC should not have any position in that issue, or at least it should be discussed seriously. It could become a divisive question between the members, and it won’t help CFIC to grow. Its position won’t change anything in the final result.
Good evening, Dominic.
CFIC consists entirely of its members, such as the two of us. A subset of our membership are Councillors, who in turn elect the Board. Ultimately, it is the Board that decides whether CFIC takes an official position on the issues of the day.
CFIC’s stand on Quebec’s Bill 21 is not new. Our organization’s definition of secularism has been published on our site for a long time (https://centreforinquiry.ca/what-is-secularism/). In April 2019, we encouraged online discussion about secularism (https://centreforinquiry.ca/secularism-discussion/) and a couple months later published our official position against Quebec’s Bill 21 (https://centreforinquiry.ca/against-quebecs-bill-c21/).
You are correct when you write, “The decision that was made by the Supreme court was about suspending the law before its study in detail.” I had hoped that this was clear in my article, and I apologize if it was not.
We also agree that the issue is complex, and that any discussion must take into account many factors, including Quebec’s distinct history, legal framework, and culture when compared with the rest of Canada. Acknowledging that complexity should not prevent one from taking a considered stance on the issue, however. As with many topics, reasonable people may come to differing conclusions, as you and I have on Bill 21.
We do agree that it should discussed seriously. To that end, in two days (on Saturday, June 6 2020) CFIC will be hosting an online conversation on “Why Secularists Disagree on Bill 21” (https://www.meetup.com/Centre-for-Inquiry-Canada-Virtual-Branch/events/270715246/). I hope you will be able to join us.