The Quebec Secular Charter Does A Disservice To Secularists

Jeff Green | Feb 26, 2014

One of the great things about politics in Canada over the last 30 years, in my view, is the gradual move away from a religious based laws and the ascendancy of the charter of rights and freedoms.

A good example of this is the way the same-sex marriage issue has played out in this country.

The only real argument against permitting same-sex couples from entering into the legal state of marriage was that a marriage is defined strictly as a union between a man and a women, and that argument comes from a religious definition of marriage.

In a secular society allowing only opposite sex couples to enter into a legal marriage contract could not be sustained as a policy, and in the end it wasn't sustainable in Canada.

And although those who oppose same-sex marriage have not changed their views, the fact is that Canadian society has moved on from that question. Just like the vote for women, I believe that within a generation it will seem odd that there ever were laws against same-sex marriage in this country.

The point about a secular society is that you cannot appeal to religious beliefs to justify the laws of the land. Our laws are tested by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and laws must adhere to that charter, not the Old or New Testament, not the Qu'ran, not the Vedas, not the Granth.

Canada has developed as an open, free society. Everyone is welcome to express their own cultural and religious values, as long as those values don’t impinge on the core values as expressed in our charter.

During my lifetime the process of separating church from state in my birth province of Quebec has been one of that society's three major political themes, along with protection of the French language and the persistent question of independence.

Eliminating religious-based school boards was part of that process.

But saying that the laws of a country and the institutions of government should be free of religious bias of any kind is quite different from saying that members of that society should be limited in the way they explore their own faith. In my view it is quite the opposite. Governments should follow simple principles, and respect for the individual and collective beliefs of its citizens is a core value.

The Quebec government says that the 'Secular Charter' that is being debated in the National Assembly is just the extension of the 50-year battle to free Quebec society from the yoke of religion.

But the charter goes farther than that.

It says, among other things, that public sector employees, including everyone who works in policing, social work, emergency services and health-care, in addition to members of the government bureaucracy, cannot wear overt symbols of their religion.

The argument is, as I see it, and I have struggled to listen to the logic put forward by the Parti Quebecois on this, is that simply by wearing a hijab, a kippah, or a turban, a worker is promoting their religion. This, the government says, is fine and dandy on their own time, but while they are on the public dime they must refrain from this kind of display.

But is a doctor who wears a hijab truly pushing Islam on her patients? She is certainly identifying herself as a certain kind of Muslim, but her freedom of expression does not harm her patient in any way.

The reason this matters is that for men who wear kippahs or turbans and women who wear hijabs, it would be a renunciation of their faith to take them off. So asking those workers to remove their headdress effectively forces them choose their faith or their job. That is too much for society to ask without a very good reason.

It is acceptable to limit personal freedom in the public interest, but there must be a legitimate, identifiable public interest in order to justify that limitation. Speed limits on roads limit the personal freedom of drivers, but the safety of pedestrians and other drivers over-rides the freedom to drive fast. In the case of banning the hijab, the kippah and the turban in the workplace, there is no legitimate public interest that is being served

This is not what I call secularism, it is discrimination on the basis of religion, and what the Quebec charter is really about is marginalizing identifiable groups in order to curry favour with people who are uncomfortable with those groups playing a full and equal role in Quebec society.

We should be wary of this in the rest of Canada, and we should join with the opposition in Quebec in whatever way we can to face up to this charter.