Bill 21: An Act respecting the laicity of the State
March 27, 2024
The Québec Court of Appeal recently upheld Bill 21, a Québec statute passed on June 16, 2019, by the National Assembly of Québec, which declares the province as a lay (secular) state. The law prohibits many public sector employees, such as judges, teachers, and police officers, from wearing religious symbols or garments.
Bill 21 is notwithstanding certain sections of the Canadian Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms and ignores the Québec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. The possibility of a notwithstanding clause refers to section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, which gives the option to override sections 2 (such as freedom of expression and religion) and sections 7 to 15.
On April 20, 2021, the Superior Court of Québec ratified most of Bill 21; however, they did rule that the law cannot apply to English-language schools in Québec and members of the National Assembly in correspondence to their constitutional right that minority language rights cannot be overruled by the notwithstanding clause.
The passing of the legislation follows Québec’s historical legal course towards secularism – or a separation between Church and State, which has also seen its slow separation among Québécois socially. On the other hand, Bill 21 doesn’t grant a secular state respecting freedom of religion, personal choice, and expression. So, what does it imply for religious minorities who wear more apparent religious symbols and garments in Québec?
This law calls for several points of criticism as it unfairly targets specific demographics and religions. Intersectional identities, particularly between race and gender, are ignored in the creation of this law and fail to consider how Bill 21 unjustifiably persecutes religious minorities. Individuals from religious backgrounds that wear visible religious attire, common examples as hijabs among Muslims, turbans among Sikhs, and Kippahs among Jewish people, are more likely to be singled out by this Bill and disproportionately ascertains privilege to practice religion among a limited group of people. Religious people who can hide representative religious attire or who don’t wear them at all, as is common among the predominantly Catholic population in Québec, are therefore advantaged and aren’t at risk of employment opportunities.
More so, the Bill imposes further constraints on women, particularly Muslim women. By restricting the wearing of religious symbols in public sector jobs, the Bill effectively marginalizes Muslim women from these positions. It not only perpetuates gender inequality but also exacerbates the systemic barriers faced by minority women in Québec. Bill 21 creates an unnerving effect on Muslim women who may feel compelled to choose between their religious beliefs and their professional aspirations. This coercive pressure to conform to secular norms violates their fundamental rights but also contributes to a hostile environment that fosters intolerance and division within Québec society.
From a feminist perspective, it is essential to recognize and challenge the intersecting forms of discrimination faced by women, including religious, gender, and racial biases. Instead of enforcing measures that suppress their freedoms, policymakers should strive to create inclusive and equitable opportunities, regardless of their religious or cultural backgrounds.
Ultimately, Bill 21 further perpetuates gender inequality and feeds an intolerance of minorities. It ignores Canada's long history of policies that unfairly target marginalized groups while simultaneously failing to account for Québec’s growing multiculturalism and diversity. A fairer approach to our legal, sociological, and moral obligations would consider in practice who our laws and regulations will most likely affect based on lived circumstances. Moving forward, it is worth reconsidering how policymakers recognize the impact of legislation on marginalized communities.