A secularism without arms or legs

In response to Charles Taylor and Jocelyn Maclure’s text on secularism, “A Strange Secularism”, published on 1^er september

It is desirable, during an election campaign, to be able to debate important social issues and secularism is undeniably one of them. We must therefore salute the initiative of Charles Taylor and Jocelyn Maclure to relaunch the debate^⁠1despite their hostility to certain provisions of Bill 21.

It is true, the historical context of Quebec, impregnated by the domination of the Catholic Church, has ensured that the secularism specific to Quebec is above all marked, as in France, by the desire to put a distance, in the name of a common citizenship, religious identities and the defense of the state against clerical power. By contrast, the Anglo-Saxon model, more marked by Protestantism, seeks rather to preserve the independence and the prerogatives of the Churches against the interference of the State.

We also share with the authors the conviction that the aims pursued by secularism should be “the equal treatment of citizens as well as their freedom of conscience, whatever their system of beliefs and values”, and that the achievement of these aims demands the religious neutrality of the state. It is moreover, with the separation of State and religions, the four principles set out by the State Secularism Act.

But in addition to these principles, the law sets out a requirement for respect for religious neutrality, namely the prohibition of religious displays to certain state employees in positions of authority, including teachers. This is what earned us the wrath of its opponents and made Taylor and Maclure say that this “secularism” “is strongly concerned with religious symbols”.

Expectations to be clarified

For our part, we cannot be satisfied, especially when it comes to education, with this minimum requirement of apparent neutrality, because we still have to offer a curriculum that promotes proven knowledge rather than beliefs, freedom of thought, the possibility of distancing traditional beliefs and forms of subjugation.

How can we talk about freedom of conscience and religious freedom if we contribute to confinement in an inherited religious identity, if we do not offer students the means to examine and debate it?

We are therefore still waiting for the school requirements in terms of secularism to be clarified, and this for all children, including those who attend schools with a religious vocation. This will hopefully be one of the functions of the new Quebec Culture and Citizenship course which will replace the Ethics and Religious Culture course.

But far from suggesting such an extension of school secularism, Taylor and Maclure rather advocate laissez-faire and condemn the minimum requirement of religious neutrality for teachers. They accuse the government of “closing the careers” of female teachers, harming their professional aspirations, attacking vulnerable minorities, immigrants, etc.

Remember that the school is primarily at the service of the students and not that of the teachers, and that teaching positions are open to all. It is rather certain teachers who refuse a duty of reserve, absolutize their freedom to display their religious convictions without taking into account the educational context, and remain deaf to the fact that the legislator must seek a balance between various rights and legitimate interests, in particular those students and their parents.

Taylor and Maclure tell us in short that the identity of Quebec citizens should welcome the religious identity of teachers as a non-negotiable fundamental right and ignore the ideological charge that these religious symbols convey to young people who cannot escape this relationship of authority.

In other words, the only freedom to be protected would be that of the teachers to display their beliefs, without worrying about that of the pupils, who are nevertheless the raison d’être of the school.

But the worst is the lawsuit that is made against the legislator, both in Quebec and in France, for wanting to expressly attack immigration and “vulnerable religious minorities”, with the aim of “restricting their rights fundamentals”. In other words, the authors do not believe for a moment in the sincere will of the legislator, and of citizens, to defend children, to enforce the rights of parents or to ensure a social context favorable to the emancipation of women, whatever or their origin. All this would only be a mask for intolerance.

Promote autonomy

Finally, the authors tell us that the goal of secularism “is achieved when the majority religion can no longer limit the freedom of conscience of citizens”. It is true that clericalism is a thing of the past in Quebec, and that it no longer weighs on citizens of Christian culture. But should we ignore the religious pressures that continue to exert themselves on other citizens?

Why would the modernity of some not be desirable for others?

Why should we close our eyes and abandon young Hasidics, those under the influence of evangelical churches, those in Muslim schools who have no choice but to wear the veil? Does the free choice proclaimed by some erase the reality of the vast majority of women subject to the dictates of Sharia? It is the responsibility of the State to promote the autonomy of these children, and it is not by trivializing religious fundamentalism, or by refusing to see it, that we will get there.

“Open” secularism is a secularism without arms or legs. The State is thus deprived of measures allowing it to promote the emancipation of individuals in the face of undue religious pressure. In the era of identity politics, it is not such secularism that Quebec needs.