The provincial government of Quebec has tabled Bill 21, a secularist legislation which would ban public servants in positions of authority—including judges, police officers, prosecutors, elementary and high school teachers—from wearing religious symbols at work.
The bill will invoke the notwithstanding clause which allows parliament and provincial legislatures to temporarily override certain parts of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In this case, it’s the freedom of religion portion.
The model of secularism of the state proposed in this bill takes into account the history, social values and specificity of Quebec, according to a statement by the province.
Simon Jolin-Barrette, minister of immigration, diversity and inclusion and government house leader, said in the statement that this bill reflects a vision of the state widely shared among the people of Quebec, including a ban for state personnel in positions of authority to wear religious symbols.
“In fact, this bill is a true affirmation. For the first time in a Quebec law, it is a question of inscribing the principle of secularism of the state,” he said.
However, some disagree with the bill’s passing.
“It’s a sad day for Quebec and for Canada,” Catherine Mckenzie, a Montreal-based lawyer, said about the bill.
“Anytime you’re invoking the notwithstanding clause and admitting that you’re violating the religious freedom of potentially thousands of people, it’s sad,” she said.
Yesmine Sarifuddin, a second-year political science student at Carleton University living in Gatineau, said she’s worried her job as a lunch monitor at an elementary school in Gatineau might be jeopardized.
“It’s not something you want to hear . . . choosing between your religion, faith and a job,” she said.
But, the hijab-wearing student said she was not shocked by the news of the bill.
She said it’s a discussion that came up in the previous provincial election in Quebec, so it’s not a surprise it came up again.
Mckenzie said the issue is that the current government point of view as a secular state is different than how the courts have defined a secular state.
“The court has said that a secular state is one that is neutral towards its citizens but it does not require its citizens to be neutral towards the state,” she said. “That’s why they have to invoke the notwithstanding clause.”
Sarifuddin said she thinks this is a more of a political issue rather than a societal issue in Quebec. She said at the school where she works, they employ four other women who wear the hijab.
“The environment there does not make me feel like they have an issue with us wearing a hijab or being around kids while having a hijab on,” she said. “Even the kids, they don’t show that they’re uncomfortable with it or that they don’t like it or they’re afraid of it.”
Sarifuddin said living in Gatineau, she has not felt there’s a tendency of hate towards minorities. But, she said, if the bill is not discussed in a proper way, it will create division among Quebecers.
Mckenzie said she thinks the ramifications for people who wear religious symbols in Quebec are “broad and drastic.”
She said there are women who wear hijabs in teacher’s college in Quebec who are not going to be able to get a job when they graduate.
“It doesn’t get any more real than that,” Mckenzie said.
Photo from files
