Bill 94 is an expansion on Bill 21, which prohibits public employees in positions of authority, such as teachers, from wearing religious symbols.JONATHAN HAYWARD/The Canadian Press
Sheema Khan is the author of Of Hockey and Hijab: Reflections of a Canadian Muslim Woman.
Two days before the joint Israeli-American bombing of Iran, dozens of female school staff in Montreal were fired, suspended or forced to resign over Quebec’s Bill 94, which bans religious symbols for anyone who interacts with students in public education settings. That includes daycare workers, librarians, custodial staff, school monitors and staff who assist children with special needs. Affected staff – primarily Muslim women – began receiving notice earlier this year to choose between their faith and their career.
The Montreal Association of School Principals estimates that at least 500 more individuals could lose their jobs, at a time when there is already a labour shortage. Bill 94 also applies to parent volunteers – no turbans, yarmulkes or hijabs allowed.
Imagine a child being told that their parent cannot help on a field trip or in the classroom, while no such prohibition applies to a classmate and their family. Even children would understand that this is unfair.
Bill 94 is an expansion on Bill 21, which prohibits public employees in positions of authority (such as teachers, judges, police officers) from wearing religious symbols. Such legislation reflects Quebec’s approach to religion in the public sphere – shaped by the French tradition of laïcité, in which the state has the right to regulate the public organized face of religion, even at the expense of individual liberty. This contrasts with Anglo-Saxon secularism, where individual rights form the cornerstone of freedom from the state. These divergent views have permeated the many societies that have evolved from former French and British rule.
Quebec’s Bill 21 violates Charter rights, say challengers at Supreme Court
When Bill 21 was first introduced in 2019, an Ipsos survey found that 63 per cent of Quebeckers supported the legislation. While this number fell to 53 per cent in a 2021 Abacus poll, it’s clear the legislation nonetheless reflects the will of the majority. That’s unsurprising, perhaps, given the negative experience of a generation under the grip of the Catholic Church, which was dismantled during the Quiet Revolution of the 1960s. The province is devoted to its relentless march toward rigid laïcité; Bill 94 is even more restrictive than France’s similar laws, and Bill 9, which aims to further curtail religious freedoms, is on the horizon. Ironically, it makes Quebec look “more Catholic than the Pope,” as they say, on the issue of laïcité.
To protect Bill 21 and 94 from being challenged in court for their apparent violation of Charter-protected rights, the province pre-emptively invoked the notwithstanding clause, which allows legislatures to override certain fundamental rights. It also prevents courts from publicly ruling on whether a law violates basic freedoms. This is key, since the 2019 poll shows that support for Bill 21 would drop by 18 per cent if the Supreme Court ruled it was discriminatory.
Today, the Supreme Court starts hearing arguments for and against Bill 21, as well as broader questions around the pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause. What seems clear is that the clause itself won’t be struck down. That requires a constitutional amendment.
In the meantime, there is no legal recourse to challenge laws that are clearly discriminatory. Those primarily affected by these bills are veiled Muslim women – whom Quebec ostensibly wants to liberate, while strengthening gender equality. In its oxymoronic quest to impose freedom, then, the government is excluding those very women from the job market and impeding their financial independence. And it’s so 1950s to hear the high priests of laïcité – François Legault, Bernard Drainville – tell women what they can and cannot wear.
Given the situation, it’s time to tell the world about Quebec’s laïcité mission. Canadian embassies, high commissions and consulates should be clear to prospective immigrants (especially from la Francophonie) that their religious freedoms and expression will be curtailed in la belle province. Here at home, the federal government, along with the governments of Ontario, New Brunswick and Manitoba, should help those adversely affected by Quebec’s laws resettle in francophone communities in the rest of Canada, if they wish to leave. They deserve an opportunity to thrive without compromising their faith.
And finally, something must be done about the notwithstanding clause. Governments show no slowdown in its use, while the wider public seems unaware of its fundamental threat to basic freedoms. Perhaps a jarring public education campaign is in order, using the spectre of Donald Trump. After all, his administration has overseen attacks on domestic human rights, circumvented judicial warrants, tried to suspend legal protections to immigrants and denied equality before the law. Little wonder he wants to absorb Canada: The notwithstanding clause would allow him to do all that legally.