{"id":63394,"date":"2019-04-07T11:00:59","date_gmt":"2019-04-07T15:00:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/newsroom.carleton.ca\/?post_type=cu_story&p=63394"},"modified":"2025-08-19T09:37:31","modified_gmt":"2025-08-19T13:37:31","slug":"quebec-christian-liberalism","status":"publish","type":"cu_story","link":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/news\/story\/quebec-christian-liberalism\/","title":{"rendered":"In Qu\u00e9bec, Christian liberalism becomes the religious authority"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n
\n\n \n \n \n \n
\n\n
<\/div>\n \n
\n
\n\n

\n In Qu\u00e9bec, Christian liberalism becomes the religious authority\n <\/h1>\n \n <\/header>\n <\/div>\n\n \n <\/path>\n <\/path>\n <\/svg>\n <\/div>\n\n \n\n <\/div>\n<\/section>\n\n

The Qu\u00e9bec government is proposing a secularism law<\/a> to prohibit any new public servants in a position of authority \u2014 including teachers, lawyers and police officers \u2014 from wearing religious symbols while at work.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The bill incorporates the language of the law from last year\u2019s Bill 62,<\/a> which prohibits people from wearing face coverings when they receive government services \u2014 including health care and day care services and using public transit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bill 21, An Act Respecting the Laicity of the State<\/em><\/a>, follows laws previously put forth by Qu\u00e9bec\u2019s governments \u2014 the Liberal Party in 2010 and 2017 and the Parti Qu\u00e9b\u00e9cois in 2013. But parts of these law were suspended after court challenges.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This time, the provincial government invoked the \u201cnotwithstanding clause\u201d to ensure it holds up against constitutional scrutiny<\/a>. The clause allows provincial or federal authorities to override sections of Canada\u2019s Charter of Rights.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The bill also proposes to permanently amend the Qu\u00e9bec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms<\/a> to accommodate state la\u00efcit\u00e9<\/em>, the French principle of strict separation between church and state.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Christian culture as the norm<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In my research at Carleton University, I have been tracking what I call \u201cChristian liberalism.\u201d I look at the role of religion within the liberal democratic state \u2014 and how Christian frameworks, norms and values are embedded into the history of law and public policy in the United States and Canada. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

At first glance, the strict secularism (or la\u00efcit\u00e9<\/em>) of Bill 21 appears intolerant of religion in all its public forms. But the neutral and secular language of the bill presumes an invisible Christian default when outlining the rules around public expressions of religiosity. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"In
\n Quebec Premier Francois Legault last week as his government voted on Bill 21. The crucifix behind him would likely disappear if the legislation is passed. (THE CANADIAN PRESS\/Jacques Boissinot<\/span>)<\/span>
\n <\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

For example, the Charter of Values<\/a> put forth by the Parti Qu\u00e9b\u00e9cois in 2013 proposed banning \u201cconspicuous\u201d religious symbols from the public service sector. But it drew a line between \u201csubtle\u201d religious expressions (like a crucifix necklace) and \u201covert\u201d ones (like the Islamic headscarf). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The language of conspicuousness<\/em> reveals that what is determined to be permissible religious expression is a \u201cfamiliar\u201d and historically embedded Christian understanding. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Constitutional threats<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The use of the notwithstanding clause and the proposal to amend the province\u2019s Human Rights Charter<\/a> pose real constitutional threats. Given the rise in hate crimes targeting racialized and religious minority groups in Canada<\/a>, the 2017 terrorist attack on a Qu\u00e9bec City mosque<\/a> and the recent attack in Christchurch, New Zealand<\/a>, the suspension of religious freedom rights should raise alarms. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bill 21, like the previous secularism bills, disproportionately targets religious minorities.<\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

According to the non-profit human rights group the National Council of Canadian Muslims, the bill amplifies anti-Muslim sentiment<\/a>. Many news op-eds express the same view<\/a>: that the bill could intensify polarizing attitudes<\/a> in Qu\u00e9bec. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Liberal tolerance<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The western liberal notion of \u201ctolerance\u201d comes from the 17th-century English philosopher John Locke, who considered religious pluralism beneficial to a healthy democracy. Locke\u2019s ideas, grounded in Christian moral reasoning, became the basis for religious freedom protections embedded in liberal democratic constitutions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In A Letter Concerning Toleration<\/em><\/a> published in 1689, Locke argued that the state should stay out of the business of regulating religious expressions. He advocated for the inclusion of religion in public, so long as it did not contradict state laws. He extended religious tolerance to Christian churches, and also Pagans, Muslims and Jewish people.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But Locke\u2019s understanding of tolerance was rooted in Christian logic and informed by his Calvinist upbringing. He held to the idea of \u201cthe true religion\u201d and did not believe atheists should receive the same tolerance. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Wendy Brown, professor of political science at the University of California Berkeley,<\/a> argues that Locke\u2019s premise is culturally condescending: it reproduces a hierarchical relationship between those who do the tolerating and those who must be tolerated. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The use of terms like \u201cneutrality\u201d and \u201csecularism\u201d along with Bill 21\u2019s \u201claicity\u201d employ the same rhetoric of tolerance espoused by Locke. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Religious and cultural heritage<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Despite the Quiet Revolution of the 1960s<\/a>, when the role of the Catholic Church was considerably diminished, Qu\u00e9bec society retains the cultural residue of Catholicism.<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The proposed religious symbols bans make special exemptions for expressions that affirm \u201celements of Qu\u00e9bec\u2019s cultural heritage, in particular, its religious cultural heritage.\u201d This wording allows Catholic symbols, like the crucifix hanging in the National Assembly, to remain. Although the Coalition Avenir Qu\u00e9bec (CAQ) government has agreed to move the crucifix<\/a>, Bill 21 retains this language of exemption. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

By putting forward this proposed law, the CAQ positions the state as arbiters of religious authority. They determine which symbols are interpreted as \u201creligious\u201d \u2014 and therefore in violation of the law \u2014 and which are merely \u201ccultural\u201d expressions of Catholic heritage. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In this way, Christianity remains the invisible cultural default. Unless that default is made visible, Canadian laws will not be able to get beyond the condescending premise of tolerance and move towards genuine inclusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This article is republished from The Conversation<\/a> under a Creative Commons license. Carleton University is a member of this unique digital journalism platform that launched in June 2017 to boost visibility of Canada\u2019s academic faculty and researchers. Interested in writing a piece? Please contact Steven Reid<\/a> or sign up to become an author<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

All photos provided by The Conversation from various sources.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

—
\nCarleton Newsroom<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"The<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Qu\u00e9bec government is proposing a secularism law to prohibit any new public servants in a position of authority \u2014 including teachers, lawyers and police officers \u2014 from wearing religious symbols while at work. The bill incorporates the language of the law from last year\u2019s Bill 62, which prohibits people from wearing face coverings when […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":410,"featured_media":63400,"template":"","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":"","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"cu_story_type":[1623],"cu_story_tag":[],"class_list":["post-63394","cu_story","type-cu_story","status-publish","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","cu_story_type-expert-perspectives"],"acf":{"cu_post_thumbnail":"blueprint"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/cu_story\/63394","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/cu_story"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/cu_story"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/410"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/cu_story\/63394\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":63406,"href":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/cu_story\/63394\/revisions\/63406"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/63400"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=63394"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"cu_story_type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/cu_story_type?post=63394"},{"taxonomy":"cu_story_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/cu_story_tag?post=63394"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}