OPINION | The CAQ's secularism bill is a positive step forward
'Religion should be a private matter,' says David Rand, spokesperson of a group for a pro-secular Quebec
I, like the majority of Quebecers, am very happy that the Quebec government has decided to adopt secularism as official policy.
Bill 21 includes banning religious symbols worn by public servants in positions of authority.
This is good news.
But you would not think so by reading many mainstream media, especially the English-language media. What you see there is a total failure — or worse, a stubborn refusal — to understand a very simple principle: that civil servants on duty must be neutral.
The bill will help to protect the freedom of conscience of at least some users of public services, and especially pupils in public schools, by making sure that they are not subjected to unnecessary displays of religious publicity.
Bill 21 does not exclude religious believers from government jobs. Rather, it excludes only their religious symbols, and only if they work for the government in positions of authority, and only while on the job.
Quebec already has legislation which forbids such employees from wearing partisan political symbols on the job. Bill 21 extends this to religious symbols, as indeed it should. After all, religions are often very political.
Bill 21 does not discriminate on the basis of religion. It applies to all religions.
Many immigrants came to Canada from Muslim-majority countries because they wanted to live in a country with more freedom and to escape the growing, toxic influence of militant Islamic fundamentalists.
Many Canadians see the veil as I do: as a symbol of the servitude of women that's promoted by those fundamentalists for their political purposes. For instance, women in countries such as Iran risk arrest, corporal punishment or prison when they defy the strict obligation to wear a hijab, or headscarf.
What we ask, here in Quebec, is that Muslim women who wear hijabs or niqabs, Jewish men who wear kippas, Sikhs who wear turbans, or Christians who wear a cross remove their religious symbols for the duration of their work shift if they work in the public service in a position of authority. By instating religious neutrality in the workplace in this way, we create a space of freedom in which no one's ideology is on display.
Bill 21 does not deny employment to anyone. Rather, it requires that certain state employees avoid religious symbols while working. In fact, it does not even do that completely, because there is an exemption — a so-called grandfather clause — for those who are already employed in positions of authority when the law goes into effect. This is unfortunate, because it means that there will be serious inequalities among employees — some being exempted from the requirement of Bill 21 and some not.
That grandfather clause is also bad because it means that people who are served by exempted employees, or children who are taught by exempted teachers, will be captive audiences for religious displays — and that violates their freedom of conscience.
We have all heard the argument that, say, a teacher wearing a hijab or crucifix or other symbol is not necessarily trying to convert anyone.
But the intentions of the wearer are irrelevant. The symbol is a form of passive publicity, regardless of what the person wearing it thinks. Why do you think companies purchase advertising to display their products on billboards or buses or television? Because it works, because it helps promote their products.
Religion should be a private matter. If an individual refuses to recognize that public service employees have a duty to be seen to be neutral on the issue of religious faith while on the job, then I question whether that individual is fully qualified for the position.
Some opponents of Bill 21 make outrageous accusations against secularists and against Quebecers in general — given that polls published as recently as last fall show the majority are in favour of such legislation.
Bill 21 doesn't go far enough
In my view, the bill does not go far enough. It should apply to all public servants, not just some, and it should contain no exemptions.
It is a very good thing that the CAQ has announced that it will remove the crucifix from the main chamber of the National Assembly as soon as Bill 21 is adopted. However, that is not enough — symbols worn by sitting MNAs should also be banned. Unfortunately, Bill 21 does not do that, so we will end up with a situation where the walls of the legislature will be neutral, but not the people on the benches.
In order for the Quebec state to be religiously neutral, it is not enough to remove symbols from the buildings, and it is not enough to remove them from some employees. Both must be done.
The proposed legislation is imperfect, but Bill 21 sets the stage for future improvements.
Read more perspectives on Bill 21:
- POINT/COUNTERPOINT | Should the crucifix in Quebec's National Assembly come down?
- Hijab-wearing teacher says she'll leave Quebec if secularism bill becomes law
This column is an opinion piece. For more information about commentary, please read our FAQ.
CBC Montreal is seeking out points of view on and Bill 21 and other issues related to secularism in Quebec. If you have an idea or wish to share your personal story, send us an email: firstname.lastname@example.org.
To encourage thoughtful and respectful conversations, first and last names will appear with each submission to CBC/Radio-Canada's online communities (except in children and youth-oriented communities). Pseudonyms will no longer be permitted.
By submitting a comment, you accept that CBC has the right to reproduce and publish that comment in whole or in part, in any manner CBC chooses. Please note that CBC does not endorse the opinions expressed in comments. Comments on this story are moderated according to our Submission Guidelines. Comments are welcome while open. We reserve the right to close comments at any time.
Become a CBC Account Holder
Join the conversation Create account
Already have an account?