How Secularism Bill 21 can lead Quebec into a Catch 22 Situation?

Canada is a multicultural society where people from different sects, creeds, race, and nationality live in harmony and peace. People take pride in sharing their cultural values and celebrating their unique identity. However, a proposed bill in Quebec might change the way of life for some Canadians and their future generations forever. The Quebec Secularism Bill is being criticized for imposing restrictions on the cultural identity of people especially Sikhs and Muslim Women.

History Behind The Controversial Secularism Bill 

It all started when a 29 year old Egyptian immigrant, who was studying a French-language course at the CEGEP, was asked to unveil herself. Upon her refusal to do so, she was removed from the government-sponsored program for wearing a niqab. This led to the ongoing debate of whether not allowing Muslim women to wear their veils amounts to cultural suppression or is it vital to ensure secularist attributes of the state.

Salient Features of the Quebec Secularism Bill

A secularism bill was proposed on March 24, 2010. Since then there have been multiple attempts by the government to ensure religious neutrality in the state. On March 28, 2019, another bill 21 was tabled before the legislature. The bill focuses on the word “laicity” which literally means secularity. The bill in its preamble and section 2 states that laicity of the state is dependent on the four factors –

1. The separation of State and religion;
2. The religious neutrality of the State;
3. The equality of all citizens; and
4. Freedom of conscience and freedom of religion

It states that the executive, legislature and judiciary must maintain the sanctity of the aforementioned principles.  Hence, it prohibits people assuming public offices to support any religious symbols or cover their faces. The prohibition extends to government officers, ministers, teachers, lawyers, judges, notary public, arbitrators, doctors, nurses among others.  In short, anyone who has a position of public authority is governed by the bill. Moreover, anyone seeking an public service cannot cover their faces either.

The bill has prospective application with a deterrent effect. Anyone who is currently employed may continue to wear his/her religious symbols or cover their faces but would be promoted in the same organization, or employed or transferred  in a new organization, only when they adhere to the sections of the bill. Thus, in the event, one needs to attain professional growth, he or she has to forgo their religious symbols.

Proponents of the Bill – The proponents argue in favor of the bill mainly stating that –

1. It ensures religious neutrality and religious symbols should not be endorsed by those who are in public service or seeking public benefits.
2. Everyone is equal and no privileges should be given on the basis of religion and/or cultural identity.
3. Moreover, it is argued that the veil represents conditional upbringing and oppression.
4. The state shall not be impartial and shall implement the tenets of secularism in “fact” and in  “appearance”. Thus, it is essential that the people should leave their religious symbols behind when discharging public functions.

Opponents of the Bill – The opponents argue that the bill must not be passed as –

1. It over-rides the right to freedom of religion granted under section 2, 7 to 15 of the Canadian Charter and amends the Quebec Charter. Thus, it cannot be challenged in the court of law on basis of violation of fundamental rights.
2. The bill is opposite of holding secularist values as it snatches away the right to choice from its citizens. It is a person’s individual choice to make a decision about his/her clothing. The state cannot dictate the way one needs to dress.
3.  It infringes the minority rights, rights to conscience and self-determination of these communities.
4. It would discourage religious minorities such as Sikhs and Muslim women to be a part of the mainstream government services, thereby violating the tenets of the Canadian and Quebec Charter.
5. By barring individuals from wearing religious symbols, we are depriving them of confidence, diversity and heritage.

What can be done?

In Ontario, women often seek same-sex requests and they can be whisked, checked or interviewed by women staff members. This helps the administration to perform its duties without infringing the religious beliefs of veiled women. Sikhs wear turbans to pay homage to their cultural heritage. It is a significant part of a Sikhs clothing and should not be alienated from them on the grounds of secularism.

It is ironical that women are fighting all over the world to exercise their fundamental right to choose what to wear. In some places they are told to dress “decently” and in others they are suggested to “uncover” themselves.  Everyone except the woman decide what is supposed to wear.

There is a juxtaposition of culture, religion and personal choice. A female may wear bangles with her dress, it is extremely difficult to adjudicate whether she is wearing it as a religious symbol or a fashion article. The state must minimize its presence in the private space of individuals. Such adventures would only lead to opening of the Pandora’s box.

People wear religious symbols to celebrate their identity, beliefs and cultural diversity. A workable solution can be proposed to balance the interests of secularism vis-a-vis minority rights.’ The notwithstanding clause must be omitted from the bill so that the provisions can be challenged in courts. After all, Canada is known for its policies related to social inclusion, multiculturalism, and diversity all around the globe.