The recent judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal marked an important victory for the Quebec government in its defense of Bill 21, relating to the secularism of the State. Nevertheless, the question of the extent to which this law respects the charters remains almost unanswered, due to the impact and scope of the powers of derogation provided for in both the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Charter of Rights and personal freedoms of Quebec.
This judgment also largely leaves open the question of what meaning should be given to the secularism of the State and what interpretation should be given to freedom of conscience and religion today.
Of freedom of religion specifically, Chief Justice Brian Dickson said, in the Big M Drug Mart decision handed down by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1985, that it consisted of “the right to believe what one wants in religious matters, the right to openly profess religious beliefs without fear of impediment or reprisal and the right to manifest one’s religious beliefs through their practice and worship or through their teaching and propagation […] “.
In the same vein, the Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that religious tolerance constitutes a crucial value of Canadian society and that adopting an accommodation measure demonstrates the importance that our society places on the protection of freedom of religion and respect for minorities.
Restrictions
However, according to the Supreme Court, freedom of religion cannot be seen as an absolute. It is notably restricted by the requirements imposed by security, order, health and public morality, as well as the fundamental rights and freedoms of others. Thus, restrictions on freedom of religion are possible, but they must be justified (subject to the use of a power of derogation).
As far as we are concerned, there can be no doubt that freedom of religion and, by extension, freedom of conscience constitute fundamental aspects of individual life. Likewise, there can be no doubt that Quebec and Canadian societies as a whole are deeply attached to the values of accommodation, tolerance and respect for diversity.
In fact, neither multiculturalism nor interculturalism seeks, in their very nature, to infringe on the religious freedom of individuals. However, this same freedom must be reconciled with the secularism of the State, that is to say with its religious neutrality. In other words, the state must not be seen as privileging any particular religion and, more importantly, there must be a separation between religion and state. The latter does not have the leisure to demonstrate nor, even more so, to favor any religious belief. It must be independent of religions, denominations and religious beliefs.
Compromise
In practice, freedom of conscience and religion is based on a a sort of compromise between the right of every person to embrace and profess their own beliefs and opinions — including their right not to have any — and the principle of the separation of Church and State. By adopting Bill 21, Quebec authorities took note of this postulate. They also took note of the fact that the religious neutrality of the State must be manifested not only in concrete and direct terms, but also in appearance.
While it is true that freedom of religion guarantees that everyone is free to profess openly and manifest, without undue interference from the State, the beliefs and opinions dictated by their conscience, it is equally true that the State must observe true and well-felt neutrality with regard to different religions.
Ultimately, the religious neutrality of the State benefits all of society, religious minorities included. It is a necessary consequence of freedom of religion and conscience. Thanks to this neutrality, public institutions offer everyone a neutral space where the principle of equality of individuals and the absence of discrimination prevail. If the State were to favor one religion at the expense of others, inequality would then be created which would conflict with freedom of religion within society.
Identify
In Quebec itself, secularism constitutes an issue which calls into question questions of identity, freedom and coexistence or cohabitation of personal opinions in a highly democratic and plural society. More precisely, the Quebec state adopts a balancing position, seeking the right compromise between individual rights and collective interests, while wanting to preserve its fundamental values and its own identity within Canada.
The role of the Quebec state within the framework of secularism is therefore to reconcile the protection of individual rights with the maintenance of collective values or principles. The challenge for the Quebec state is therefore to navigate with finesse between these two poles, while affirming and preserving the secular character of the state.
The question of secularism in Quebec, far from being a simple ideological debate, is part of an evolving dynamic, reflecting both its unique history and the contemporary challenges of a pluralist society. The Law on State Secularism, although a significant step, is not an end in itself. Rather, it is a milestone in the ongoing quest for balance between respect for individual rights and the preservation of a society that aims to be neutral and orderly.
Quebec, in seeking to define and apply its own vision of secularism, confronts not only its own internal challenges, but also those posed by the broader framework of Canada. It is through this delicate balancing exercise that Quebec can hope to offer a model of secularism which, while being faithful to certain relatively consensual principles, is as inclusive and respectful as possible of the diversity that characterizes modern Quebec society.