By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Quebec is expanding its secularism laws with a new bill, “secularism 2.0,” which builds upon the existing 2019 law restricting religious symbols in public sector jobs. The new legislation proposes to extend the ban on religious symbols to subsidized daycares and restrict “collective religious practices” in public spaces without municipal authorization. This move follows recent protests and aims to address concerns about religious displays in public areas. The bill has already faced criticism from opposition parties and Muslim organizations, who accuse the government of creating division and engaging in identity politics.
Read the original article here
Quebec is currently making moves to expand its secularism law and put more restrictions on public prayer, and it’s sparking quite a reaction. It seems the main idea behind this is to reinforce the separation of church and state, which is a core concept of Laïcité. The conversation around this is pretty lively, with a lot of different viewpoints popping up.
One of the key elements of this new direction appears to be that religious schools will no longer receive any public funding if they’re teaching religion during the school day. This is a pretty significant change, and for some, it’s a long overdue step. The general feeling seems to be that religious practices should be kept within the confines of private homes and places of worship. This idea also suggests that freedom of religion doesn’t mean freedom to practice religion anywhere, anytime.
However, it’s important to recognize that this could face legal challenges, as it could potentially clash with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees freedom of religion. This law could lead to scenarios that some may find troubling. For example, if a group of friends gathers in a park for a quiet prayer, would that become punishable?
On a larger scale, this move reflects a long-standing desire to make sure religion doesn’t encroach on the state. Some see it as a necessary measure to maintain balance, drawing parallels with how other nations have approached the issue.
The intention appears to be targeting events that co-opt public spaces, treating them similarly to rallies or large gatherings. The idea is to make sure public spaces remain neutral and accessible to everyone, regardless of their beliefs. The enforcement of such laws is going to be another challenge and could raise concerns about overreach.
The law is also targeting the wearing of religious symbols by staff in subsidized daycares and preventing students and staff from wearing face coverings in educational institutions from daycare through to post-secondary education. The goal seems to be to create a more neutral environment in public institutions.
Quebec operates under the ideology of interculturalism, as opposed to multiculturalism, which is the prevailing philosophy elsewhere in Canada. Interculturalism is based on shared cultural standards like the equality of men and women, the prohibition of discrimination, and the elimination of cultural or religious divisions. The goal is to build a more cohesive, peaceful, and collaborative society while still respecting individual freedoms.
Some commenters have also pointed out that Quebec already has Bill 21 in place, which prevents certain government employees from wearing religious symbols. This current proposal builds on that by limiting public displays of religion. And it goes even further, it is proposing to restrict public prayer and other collective religious practices without municipal authorization. The impetus for this appears to stem from certain protests where groups have been praying in public spaces, potentially disrupting traffic or other activities.
The concern expressed by some is that this could be seen as a way to limit freedom of speech and assembly. There’s worry that this could disproportionately affect certain groups, leading to feelings of oppression. There are also many who do not view this in a positive light, seeing it as another instance of a provincial government cutting public services.
The debate touches on core ideas like religious freedom, secularism, and the role of the state. It’s clear that there are strong feelings on both sides, with some seeing the measures as a necessary step to protect secular values, while others view them as an infringement on fundamental rights. The central question is, how do you balance the need to preserve religious freedom with the goal of creating a truly secular society?