Skip to main content
A scary good deal on trusted journalism
Get full digital access to globeandmail.com
$0.99
per week for 24 weeks SAVE OVER $140
OFFER ENDS OCTOBER 31
A scary good deal on trusted journalism
$0.99
per week
for 24 weeks
SAVE OVER $140
OFFER ENDS OCTOBER 31
// //

A Quebec Superior Court judge ruled this week that the province’s law banning teachers, police officers and other government employees from wearing religious dress is an infringement of the constitutional right to religious freedom. But we already knew that.

As Justice Marc-André Blanchard wrote, one can “easily understand” that forcing a person to choose between their religious beliefs and their employment “has a cruel consequence that dehumanizes those it targets.”

The government of Premier François Legault certainly understood this, because it inoculated the 2019 “Act respecting the laicity of the State,” better known as Bill 21, against a court challenge by invoking the so-called notwithstanding clause.

Story continues below advertisement

That’s the part of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that allows governments to explicitly violate such basic rights as freedom of religion or expression, if doing so suits the political agenda of the party in power. (To date, it has never been used for another purpose.)

Because of the notwithstanding clause, Justice Blanchard had no choice but to uphold a law that prevents Muslims, Jews and Sikhs from wearing head coverings, or Christians from wearing a visible cross, while on the job in government positions of authority.

The workers affected include police officers, judges, crown prosecutors, school principals and teachers. People who held such jobs before the law was enacted are grandfathered, but they lose that protection if they are promoted or change positions – effectively “trapping” them, Justice Blanchard said.

The judge did say, however, that the law cannot apply to members of Quebec’s National Assembly, or to teachers in the province’s English-language school system. Their rights are protected by sections of the Charter that can’t be touched by the notwithstanding clause: minority language education rights, and the right of any citizen to stand for election.

But the bulk of the law stands. It’s a victory for Premier Legault, and for the two-thirds of Quebec’s population that supports the bill’s intention of enforcing a particular vision of secularization.

For them, the emphasis in the rest of Canada on multiculturalism is a threat to the survival of the French language. That fear, though frequently incited by politicians seeking political advantage, shouldn’t be casually dismissed.

French-speaking Quebeckers have a long memory of maltreatment at the hands of anglo Canada, an era that ended with the Quiet Revolution of the 1960s. La revolution tranquille gained francophones equitable representation in the ranks of the federal bureaucracy, liberalized the province and abruptly rejected the Roman Catholic Church’s longstanding control over education, and its influence in society.

Story continues below advertisement

The past 60 years have brought massive, positive, change in Quebec, but old grievances remain fresh. Voters twice rejected independence, in the 1980 and 1995 referendums, but they still see the struggle to maintain their language and culture in a sea of English-speaking North Americans as a central role of their provincial government.

For many in Quebec, the notwithstanding clause is not so much a tool to undermine religious freedom as it is a way of preventing the rest of Canada from dictating how the province should manage its affairs.

That said, Bill 21 is a big mistake, for two reasons.

First, because it’s a basic infringement of the kind of individual rights that Quebeckers and Canadians hold dear. This country’s history, all the way back to 1763, is one of tensions over religion being overcome by ever greater religious tolerance. French-speaking Catholics were once the group that was most discriminated against.

Second, because the law is so clearly unnecessary.

No one can argue that the provinces are not run by secular governments, or that Canada is not a secular country. Yet they are also multicultural, with equal citizens of all faiths and none.

Story continues below advertisement

There are elected officials in Parliament and at all levels of government who wear religious dress on the job. The same goes for the entire public service. No one thinks they are living in an theocracy because a local police officer wears a Sikh turban, or a teacher wears a hijab.

Quebec is an advanced and liberal society, and its secular status is no more fragile than Canada’s as a whole. The province doesn’t need a misguided suppression of religious freedom to preserve it.

Keep your Opinions sharp and informed. Get the Opinion newsletter. Sign up today.

Your Globe

Build your personal news feed

  1. Follow topics and authors relevant to your reading interests.
  2. Check your Following feed daily, and never miss an article. Access your Following feed from your account menu at the top right corner of every page.

Follow topics related to this article:

View more suggestions in Following Read more about following topics and authors
Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

If you do not see your comment posted immediately, it is being reviewed by the moderation team and may appear shortly, generally within an hour.

We aim to have all comments reviewed in a timely manner.

Comments that violate our community guidelines will not be posted.

UPDATED: Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies