Bill 21: A Paradox of Inclusivity
On June 17, the Coalition Avenir Quebec (CAQ) stirred widespread controversy by passing Bill 21, “an act respecting the laicity of the State”. Contrary to the intended outcome of creating a neutral image of unity for the public sector, Bill 21 is divisive as it inherently targets Quebec’s religious minorities. Not only does the bill negatively impact career and educational prospects for those concerned, it opens the door to openly discriminating behavior by breaching fundamental rights and freedoms.
Bill 21 has two main directives, one of which is banning religious symbols for “public workers in positions of authority”. The other aspect ensures that beneficiaries of public services (such as clinical care and municipal transit) keep their faces uncovered for identification and security purposes. These instructions will likely disproportionately impact people whose faith is interwoven with religious symbols: in Quebec, religious minorities (such as Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu and Sikh affiliations) make up only 3.9% of the Quebec population, compared to the (83.4%) Catholic majority. Since that minority is approximately 70% composed of immigrants, Bill 21 erects additional barriers to employment security for a group already twice as likely to be unemployed than the average Canadian. On July 18th, an injunction request to suspend parts of the bill for plaintiffs such as a Muslim education student and a Jewish lawyer by the National Council of Canadian Muslims (NCCM) and the Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) was rejected, with the judgment arguing that “the law is taken to have been in the public interest and common good.”
Despite the law’s purpose of promoting “public interest,” the bill rejects the inclusive notion of the “Quebecois People,” as defined in the Quebec Charter since 1975, replacing it with the “Quebecois Nation,” which exclusively refers to French Canadians with Catholic backgrounds. This shift in the definitions used by the law, and the ban of religious symbols at work for authority figures, has endangered the “inclusive nature of institutions like school, or the police.” Through its definitions alone, Bill 21 indirectly categorizes those who do and those who do not belong to the nation.
The CAQ has made use of the notwithstanding clause in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which “immunize[s] the law from the more obvious charter challenges” by prohibiting critics from appealing to the sections on fundamental freedoms as well as legal and equality rights (section 2, and sections 7 to 15 of the Charter). As such a protective measure was necessary for the bill to pass, the violation of fundamental rights by the religious symbols law is obvious. If the override of these Charter sections prevents Bill 21 from being suspended by virtue of concern over “freedom of conscience, religion and equality,” its other potential legal shortcomings should then also be considered. Firstly, the imprecise definition of a “religious symbol” leaves room for possible inconsistencies in the application of the law, depending on the context. Secondly, Bill 21 is considered as criminal legislation, as is other legislation pertaining to religion since 1950. However, criminal legislation is under federal jurisdiction, which is beyond the scope of provincial law. It can also be argued that Bill 21 infringes on gender equality in the workplace. For example, in the women-dominated education sector, a Muslim woman would face a greater disadvantage since she is more likely to wear a religious symbol.
Since the Quiet Revolution, secularism was at the core of making the state more inclusive for its population; however, the CAQ’s current approach takes an ideological stance that excludes Quebec’s visible and religious minorities. Ironically, while the policy neutralizes minorities instead of improving their quality of life, the bill’s approval ratings remain high. The CAQ’s national populist discourse has garnered approval rates of 64% in favor of the bill within Quebec. Such disparity leads one to theorize that polls are hiked up by those who are not affected, begging the question: is Bill 21, then, truly about secularism or about votes?