Bill 21 claims to establish the “secularism” of the Quebec state. However, the term “secularism” does not have a unique and unequivocal meaning. If we look at the last centuries of Western history, we identify at least three forms of secularism, which are defined by their purposes.
Posted at 1:00 p.m.
First, there is a secularism that aimed to defend religion against the state. This is notably the case of the United States, at the time of the constitution of their federal State in 1787. At that time, several States had their official Church, but this differed from State to State. Several states feared that a powerful new central government would impose a common church upon them, hence the Constitution’s First Amendment provision stating that Congress shall not pass any law that has the effect of “establishing a religion” or prohibiting religion. “free exercise” of existing religions.
Then comes the French case, with the law of 1904-1905, known as Law of Separation of Church and State, which was to achieve the opposite goal, namely to defend the republican state against the threat of a powerful monarcho-Catholic movement. The aim here is to free the state from the influence of a dominant religion.
Finally, a conception of secularism based on respect for fundamental human rights prevailed in several democratic countries in the second half of the 20th century.e century.
Particular attention is given to the rights of religious minorities and people without religious affiliation. As we have argued in previous works1, the purposes of this conception of secularism are to ensure the equal treatment of citizens as well as their freedom of conscience, whatever their system of beliefs and values. The achievement of these ends requires the religious and metaphysical neutrality of the State.
The three models presuppose the setting aside of the formula of the denominational State, that is to say the dominant formula in the West of the Emperor Constantine until the middle of the 18th century.e century.
Law 21
What should we think of this “secularism” that is said to be established with Law 21, and which is already implemented in France? It is a secularism which is strongly concerned with religious symbols and which is mainly directed towards religious minorities, stemming from immigration. It claims, especially in France, the second model mentioned above, but it is in fact very different.
The purposes of law of separation of 1905 were fundamentally democratic and liberal. In addition to asserting state sovereignty over temporal affairs, she wanted to defend vulnerable minorities – in this case, Jews and Protestants – against intolerance and discrimination at the hands of the majority.
But the new secularism in vogue on both sides of the Atlantic is attacking vulnerable minorities.
This secularism resembles much more the action of the intolerant majorities of yesteryear than the often heroic struggle for the separation between political and religious powers, of which it nevertheless seeks to claim the letters of nobility.
The resemblance is striking between the era of Duplessis and the action of the current government: Duplessis claimed the French-Canadian identity of his time, which defined itself as Catholic, to make life difficult for Jehovah’s Witnesses. The CAQ government claims a Quebec identity, in this case supposed to be “secular”, but closes the teaching career to young women who have the vocation by forcing them to choose between their religious convictions and their professional aspirations.
The third model of secularism, which is an extension of the Human Rights Revolution, does not need to be achieved by measures like those of Bill 21. Its goal is achieved when the majority religion does not can no longer limit the freedom of conscience of citizens, whatever their positions (religious, non-religious or anti-religious).
In Quebec, this goal was largely achieved in the wake of the Quiet Revolution. The abolition of denominational education in public schools was a decisive step. The end of prayer during municipal council meetings and the removal of the crucifix from the National Assembly have also enabled us to better achieve the aims of secularism.
The prohibitions of Law 21 add nothing to this. On the contrary, they represent a significant setback: a majority opinion – this time “identity” – once again restricts the fundamental rights of certain citizens, who thereby become second-class citizens. We have explained elsewhere that the wearing of visible religious symbols by public officials in a position of authority in no way constitutes a reconfessionalization of the state as long as these officials respect the religious neutrality of the state in the exercise of their functions.
Essential to the development of the diversity of conceptions of the good life, secularism is too precious to be allowed to be exploited for ideological or partisan ends.
1. Secularism and freedom of conscienceJocelyn Maclure and Charles Taylor, Boreal Compact, 2020