By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Quebec is enacting a new law, Bill 9, to further restrict public displays of religion, including banning prayer in public institutions and on public roads, with fines for violations. This builds upon the controversial Bill 21, expanding restrictions on religious symbols in public sector workplaces to include daycares, colleges, universities, and private schools. The government argues the law is part of its secularization efforts and applies equally to all, however, critics, including religious groups and organizations, condemn the bill, and some are claiming it is discriminatory. The legislation invokes the notwithstanding clause, protecting it from challenges under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the Supreme Court of Canada is expected to review the legal challenges to this clause.
Read the original article here
Quebec’s new secularism law, with its sweeping reach, has sparked a lively debate, and it seems like the central issue boils down to where the line is drawn between religious expression and the public sphere.
This is a measure with deep implications. The stated goal is to establish a truly secular public space, free from the influence of religion. Think of it as a clean slate, where all citizens are equal, and religious affiliation takes a backseat in the everyday business of government and public life. The law will ban public prayer, and go after public accommodation of religious needs, and it’s this breadth that’s causing so much chatter.
At its core, the conversation often revolves around rights and freedoms, and for the vast majority, there is an understanding that personal religious expression is protected, as long as it doesn’t cause problems for others. Things like loud calls to prayer at unreasonable hours, or blocking streets for religious processions, get a mixed reception.
Some argue this could be a thinly veiled attempt to cater to certain segments of the population. There’s a general suspicion that the law may disproportionately affect specific groups, and the lack of enforcement for other potential violations of public nuisance, leads to accusations of targeting a specific community. And what about cultural symbols? Will the cross on Mount Royal be coming down? It opens up the questions about which religious symbols are considered “historical” or “cultural,” and which are deemed unacceptable in the public realm.
There’s the worry that the secularism law crosses into the territory of state-enforced atheism, which is a concern. If the government starts dictating what people can say or do in a private capacity, when it doesn’t directly impact others, you’re veering into dangerous ground. This isn’t a healthy secular society, and is an overstep and a violation of basic human rights.
Another critical angle is what the law means for religious minorities. For instance, removing prayer rooms from public buildings might make it difficult for observant Muslims to fulfill their daily prayers. Banning Kosher and Halal options from public places such as schools and government buildings, if true, puts a financial strain on people who practice those faiths. If it’s about promoting equality, how can you justify measures that could make it harder for some people to live their faith?
The debate extends to broader issues. Does this mean no more prayers before sporting events, or no more public expressions of faith? Some people think religion should be kept private, and that public displays can cause problems. Religious freedom includes freedom from other people’s religion.
The discussions also reveal the complexities of secularism itself. Some say true secularism disentangles the state and religious institutions. It’s about ensuring that religion doesn’t interfere with the government and vice versa. Others argue that this law takes it too far, and that it isn’t secularism but state-enforced atheism.
The reactions are very mixed. There’s a lot of opinions on either side, which is understandable. The issue is emotionally charged. This law is an attempt to create a common space that respects everyone, religious or not. The implementation will likely determine how successful this attempt is.