Under the guise of protecting secularism, this law allows people to be excluded on the basis of their religious identity.
On Monday, the Supreme Court of Canada will begin a four-day hearing for one of the most important constitutional cases in the country’s recent history. At issue is Quebec’s so-called “secularism law”, known as Bill 21 – a law enacted in 2019 that prohibits certain public sector employees from wearing visible religious symbols at work.
It bars many public sector employees, including teachers, prosecutors, police officers and judges, from wearing religious symbols such as hijab, turban, kippah and other visible expressions of faith while at work.
There is much at stake in this case that raises fundamental questions about religious freedom, equality and the limits of state power in a constitutional democracy. Furthermore, another important issue is that in order to pass the bill, the government of Quebec used the “existence clause”, a unique provision in Canadian law that allows it to eliminate fundamental rights and freedoms. In no other constitutional democracy in the world have fundamental rights and freedoms been violated in this manner.
The Quebec government claims the law is necessary to maintain the state’s religious neutrality. Yet Bill 21 does the opposite: by forcing some individuals to choose between their profession and their religious identity, the Quebec government is not being neutral – it is effectively excluding people of faith from public sector employment.
The use of this extraordinary and until recently rarely used constitutional mechanism has thrust Bill 21 far beyond Quebec’s borders and into the spotlight of the debate on secularism and religious freedom. It has become a test of how far a democratic government can go in limiting fundamental rights and freedoms.
Evidence before the courts shows that Bill 21 affects religious people of many faiths, including kippah-wearing Jewish men and turban-wearing Sikh men and women; But its impact is especially severe on Muslim women wearing hijab. For many Muslim women who wear headscarves, teaching and other public service careers have been effectively closed to them.
The message of exclusion this law sends to youth is particularly disturbing. Generations of young people in Quebec are being told that their full participation in public life requires giving up the visible aspects of their identity.
That’s why the National Council of Canadian Muslims and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association launched a constitutional challenge against Bill 21. The Supreme Court of Canada should consider the implications and potential limitations of allowing governments to circumvent rights protections through pre-emptive use of constitutional override powers. The Court’s decision will help determine whether constitutional rights in Canada will continue to be meaningful constraints on government power, or whether they can be suspended when politically convenient.
These questions extend far beyond Canada. Across Europe and elsewhere, debates about secularism have focused on restrictions targeting religious expression, often particularly affecting Muslim women.
Canada often prides itself on being a model of multicultural democracy, one that accommodates diversity. Bill 21 challenges that reputation by testing whether neutrality can co-exist with policies that effectively exclude people of visible faith from public service.
True secularism does not demand erasure of religious identity. A neutral state does not require citizens to abandon visible expressions of faith in order to participate fully in public life.
The Supreme Court of Canada now has the opportunity to reaffirm these principles and make clear that constitutional rights cannot be easily set aside. At a time when countries around the world are grappling with questions of belonging, pluralism and minority rights, the Canadian court’s decision will send an important signal about whether liberal democracies are willing to uphold their commitments to freedom and equality.
We say this is not an abstract idea, but is essential to demonstrate that a commitment to freedom and equality is more than just words.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial stance of Al Jazeera.
