Exclusion, not expression, is threatening fairness in Canadian public life.
March 23 marked the first day of Supreme Court of Canada hearings on the legality of Bill 21, titled An Act respecting the laicity of the State, which is Quebec’s ban on visible religious symbols for public sector employees in positions of authority. The challengers consist of civil rights advocates and representatives from the education sector, arguing that the Bill unnecessarily restricts religious freedoms. While the challenge in the Supreme Court is important, the Bill never should’ve passed in the first place.
A person’s religious expression doesn’t indicate their capability in the public sector or ability to achieve neutrality.
Bill 21 has withstood legal challenges thanks to the notwithstanding clause, allowing the Quebec government to override the constitutional right to freedom of expression. It’s disappointing to see the Canadian charter used to deprive Quebec residents of religious expression.
Bill 21 doesn’t feel politically neutral; it feels targeted, with a disproportionate effect on Muslim women, Sikhs, and Jews who express their religion through hijabs, turbans, or kippahs and are significantly more affected.
While the Bill has broader effects, the most significant impact is on Muslim women who wear the hijab, forcing them to choose between their faith and career. Even for some who are granted an exemption, their employment status always feels precarious. 5.1 per cent of Quebec’s residents identify as Muslim, and a survey of 411 Muslim women in Quebec highlighted that 73 per cent of them are considering leaving the province due to Bill 21.
The Bill is both discriminatory and ineffective. No matter what, there’ll be religious people working in the public sector. The bill is the opposite of accepting, making religious minorities feel like political prisoners in their own country.
Bill 21 makes it difficult to live as a religious minority, and even more challenging to enter Canada as an immigrant. The legislation restricts job opportunities for those required by their faith to wear symbols of religious expression. Religious minority immigrants in Quebec say they feel like “second-class citizens.” If Canada wants to be perceived as accepting, no immigrant should be met with a draconian law restricting their religious freedom.
The right to wear or express something so fundamental to a person’s identity should never be denied.
Being impartial is difficult and will never be achieved completely. The removal of bias should be worked towards as a goal, but it has nothing to do with how a person expresses their faith. Neutrality is an active effort, and how someone chooses to express themselves isn’t a part of that effort.
Canada needs to accept how Bill 21 drastically affects women and religious minorities, as well as being an ineffective tool in achieving secularism. If Canada wants to be accepting of all its citizens, the Supreme Court must recognize that this Bill rests on a false premise—that religious beliefs indicate a capacity for neutrality.
As the highest court in Canada considers Bill 21, the question is no longer constitutional; its if Canada will uphold its commitment to its constitution as well as protecting minority groups. Striking down Bill 21 would be an important step in acknowledging that neutrality lies in protecting individual rights, not suppressing them.
—Journal Editorial Board
Tags
Bill 21, Quebec, Supreme Court
All final editorial decisions are made by the Editor(s) in Chief and/or the Managing Editor. Authors should not be contacted, targeted, or harassed under any circumstances. If you have any grievances with this article, please direct your comments to journal_editors@ams.queensu.ca.