Quebec’s Bill 21 Fails the Secularism Test

This essay first appeared in Free Inquiry.

On June 16, 2019, Quebec passed Bill 21, Loi sur la laïcité de l’État or An Act respecting the laicity of the State, into law.

The controversial aspect of the bill bars many public-facing government employees, including judges, government lawyers, police, and teachers, from wearing ostentatious religious symbols. Doctors and nurses, also provincial employees, are not covered by the legislation.

What is Secularism?

Political secularism is concerned with government’s relationship with religion, and how it treats the faith (or lack thereof) of its citizens. Bill 21 fails the secularism test no matter how it is defined.

Freedom of, and from, religion

Bill 21 infringes on freedom of religion by forbidding many government employees from wearing religious paraphernalia while they work. A provincial employee wearing a religious symbol does not imply that the provincial government endorses that faith - just as one cannot assume the editors of Free Inquiry agree with this article because they have published it. Absent a compelling argument that merely observing someone wearing a religious symbol is tantamount to religious coercion – and no such argument has been forthcoming – there is no countervailing violation of the secular principle of freedom from religion. Therefore Bill 21 violates secular principles.  

Separation of church and state

How can the government know if a man wears a bushy beard from aesthetic preference or religious observance? Is the state equipped to discern whether a woman wears scarf on her head out of respect for her deity or a personal fashion sense?

Absent an individual proclaiming that a symbol is worn due to religious belief, it is impossible for the state to make any such determination.

When religion controls government, it is theocratic. When government controls religion, it is authoritarian. Because Bill 21 puts the state in the role of determining, on behalf of the individual, whether a symbol is religious, the law intrinsically entwines church and state. It is therefore not secular legislation.

Government neutrality in matters of religion

The Centre for Inquiry Canada defines secularism as government neutrality in matters of religion. Put another way, government should neither support nor suppress religious expression.

As the Supreme Court of Canada has noted, “state neutrality neither favours nor hinders any particular religious belief, that is, when it shows respect for all postures towards religion, including that of having no religious beliefs whatsoever”.

By barring provincial employees from wearing the clothing or accessories of their choice, Bill 21 suppresses religious expression. Thus it violates the secular principle of government neutrality in matters of religion. 

Moral considerations

Canada’s constitution is the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which defines the rights that Canadians enjoy. These rights are not absolute. Section 1 states that all Charter rights are “subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." 

There is another way governments can exempt themselves from respecting Charter rights. Section 33 states that federal or provincial legislatures can declare an Act “shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of this Charter.”. This is known colloquially as the “notwithstanding” clause. 

Supporters claim the restrictions Bill 21 places on provincial employees are reasonable. Yet if the Quebec government believed Bill 21’s provisions were defensible, it could have justified the law under Section 1. Quebec instead chose to invoke the notwithstanding clause to shield the legislation from judicial scrutiny.

While invoking the notwithstanding clause for Bill 21 might be a legally sound strategy, it is definitely a morally dubious approach.

Practical considerations

Regulations that precede Bill 21 already forbade teachers from evangelizing their faith in the classroom.

In October 2024, several teachers were found to have created a toxic work environment at an elementary school in Bedford, Quebec. The local mosque carried a “strong influence” on several of the school’s staff members. The science, religion, and sex education curricula were not being followed. Female students were not permitted to play soccer.

When this came to light, there was an investigation, and 11 teachers were suspended.

We can draw three conclusions from this incident:

1. A minority of teachers in Quebec are willing to give priority to their religious and cultural preferences and enforce them upon students in the classroom.

2. No religious symbols are required for malign influences (including religious ones) to enter the classroom.

3. There are effective mechanisms in place to discipline Quebec teachers who behave inappropriately without Bill 21.

What purpose does Bill 21 serve that is not already met?

Tactical considerations

"Prohibition only drives drunkenness behind doors and into dark places, and does not cure it or even diminish it." ~ Mark Twain

Forbidding a practice does little to change its prevalence – doing so only drives it underground. Sometimes, bans backfire, and lead to an increase in the proscribed activity.

For example: when the United States Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, abortions went up.

The purported harms that Bill 21 seeks to address – those inflicted upon members of the public who interact with a government lawyer, teacher, or public servant wearing a yarmulke, crucifix, hijab, or turban – are, at best, speculative. The harms of its implementation – the financial and social costs of removing many, especially female Muslim teachers, from their professions – are far more concrete.

Demanding government employees conform to a dress code that has no impact on their ability to perform their jobs is not the hallmark of a tolerant, secular society.

Conclusion

There is no shortage of secular violations in Canadian society. The Charter “recognize[s] the supremacy of God”. The English version of the national anthem beseeches, “God keep our land glorious and free.” The French version contains even more overt religious symbolism. Three levels of government directly and indirectly subsidize religious institutions by over $5.5 billion every year. Ontario, Saskatchewan, and Alberta fund a Catholic school system, a benefit no other denomination enjoys.

Quebec’s Bill 21 violates secular principles, regardless of which definition of secularism is used. Any attempt to ban religious imagery requires the state to make a determination as to what is religious – something it is incompetent to do. The law serves no clear secular purpose, could have the opposite of its intended effect, and may cause significant harm while doing so.

Podcast for Inquiry S05E06: Is Quebec religious symbols law secular or anti-theist legislation?

No issue has split the secular community in Canada like Quebec’s Bill 21. Several secular organizations have come out strongly in favour of the legislation, with some saying its only flaw being that it doesn’t go far enough. Many other secular groups, including CFIC, have come out strongly against Bill 21. It was challenged in court immediately after its passage in June 2019, and the Supreme Court is in the midst of hearing from a record 38 interveners as this episode is released. 

In January, the New Enlightenment Project organized an online conversation between Michel Virard, founder of the Association humaniste du Québec, and Leslie Rosenblood, Secular Chair of CFIC. The conversation was moderated by Robert Hamilton.

This was an informed discussion between committed secular activists with a similar worldview and many shared values, yet who vehemently but respectfully disagree about the merits of 

Quebec’s Bill 21. I hope you learn from and enjoy this conversation as much as I did.

Support Podcast for Inquiry on Patreon, subscribe wherever you listen to podcasts (Spotify Apple YouTube Music Deezer Player.fm), or listen here:  

A video recording is also available: 

Hear me discuss Bill 21 with a secularist supporter in January

This announcement was also published in the January 2026 edition of Critical Links. 

Few issues have split the Canadian secular community like Quebec's Bill 21. Though CFIC spoke out against the legislation when it was enacted in 2019, other secular groups, especially in Quebec, vociferously support the law.

With the Supreme Court hearing the case March 23 - 27, 2026, the time is right for secularists who disagree about the merits of Bill 21 to have a principled discussion. (You can find a primer on Bill 21 with many links to previous Critical Links articles here.)

Join Leslie Rosenblood, Secular Chair of CFIC (and host of Podcast for Inquiry), and Michel Virard, co-founder of Association Humaniste du Quebec, on Sunday January 18 at 11:00am ET for a conversation about whether Bill 21 advances the cause of secularism in Canada, or if it is a regressive piece of legislation that violates the rights of Quebecers. (Podcast for Inquiry's third and fourth episodes (released in February 2022) were dedicated to Bill 21; Catherine Francis believes it is a bad law, while Caroline Russell-King is staunchly in favour - with both arguing from a secular perspective.)

Register for "2 Solitudes of Secularism" here, organized and hosted by The New Enlightenment Project.

BCHA and Canadian Secular Alliance submit their brief on Quebec's Bill 21 to the Supreme Court of Canada

The following essay was first published in the October 2025 edition of Critical Links. 
The BCHA and CSA submitted their ten-page argument against Quebec's Bill 21 in September. (CFIC came out against Bill 21 back in 2019; see here and here and here and here for previous Critical Links articles).

There are fundamentally two arguments in the submission:

1. The Supreme Court of Canada has stated and reiterated several times that Canada is a secular nation, with a duty of neutrality in matters of religion. This duty is baked into the Charter.
2. What constitutes a religious symbol is a matter of personal perspective, and the state is incapable, even in principle, of making such a determination. Therefore, any law that requires the state to distinguish between religious and non-religious symbols is legally incoherent.

Let's get into a bit more detail on each of these points.

Canada is a secular nation beyond freedom of religion

The duty of state neutrality in matters of religion is an independent constitutional principle. It doesn't follow from freedom of religion; rather the freedom of religion clause of the Charter is an expression of the state's duty of neutrality. In fact, it is a democratic imperative, and is thus an inherent part of the Charter. There have been other unwritten principles read into the Charter, and it is appropriate to make this understanding, present and implicit since the Charter was ratified, explicit. State neutrality, as a duty, cannot be subsumed within a Charter right. Therefore the state must remain secular - neutral in matters of religion - even if the Charter provision guaranteeing freedom of religion is nullified by invoking the notwithstanding clause.

The state is incapable of determining what is a religious symbol

There is ample jurisprudence stating that "religious freedom is premised on the personal volition of individual believers" and variations on that theme. Therefore the practice of religion, and the meaning of its symbols, is individual and subjective. Some laws might have the effect of restricting religious freedom (e.g., wearing hard hats on a construction site), but that might be an acceptable cost for some social good (health and safety). But legislation intentionally restricting religion puts the state into the position of determining what is and is not religious expression. Christmas is a religious holiday, but are earrings in the shape of Christmas trees a religious symbol? It might be for some, and not for others. How is the state to decide? The state must maintain its neutral stance and not have a perspective, and thus Bill 21 is incompatible with Canada as a secular state.

Why did BCHA and CSA choose these arguments?

All interveners (38 of them - likely a record!) have just five minutes each for oral arguments, and only ten pages for a written submission. Given these restrictions, it's important to choose a limited number of propositions, so that they may be argued comprehensively. These arguments are at the heart of the purposes of BCHA and CSA, and if accepted will result in a just decision (striking down Bill 21) without the messiness of considering Section 33.

What other legal arguments are there against Bill 21?

There are several other ways to argue against Bill 21. 

One is that the use of the notwithstanding clause is inappropriate in this case, so the freedom of religion clause of the Charter still applies to this law. The Canadian federal government's submission, for example, will "urge the court to set limits on how the notwithstanding clause could be invoked" to avoid having provincial legislatures "indirectly amending the Constitution".

Another is to invoke section 1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which says the rights and freedoms it grants are "subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." Opponents of Bill 21 could argue that this law cannot be demonstrably justified.

Finally, there are sections of the Charter that are not covered by the notwithstanding clause. (Invoking the notwithstanding clause means certain rights guaranteed by the Charter do not apply to a particular piece of legislation, but other rights are not subject to this exemption.) Two such sections are s27 on multiculturalism, and s28 on equality between male and female persons. Given Quebec courts noted that the negative effects of the law, whatever its intentions, falls disproportionately upon Muslim women, the Court might rule Bill 21 to be unconstitutional on these grounds. Other interveners will be making this argument.

What will those who support Bill 21 say?

From a legal perspective, there are many arguments to be made in the bill's favour, . 

Quebec's duly elected government has passed this bill following the appropriate processes, and it is an overreach of the Supreme Court of Canada to intervene in Quebec's internal affairs. The Quebec government's submission will likely be along these lines.

Other arguments will focus on the freedom of religion clause of the Charter and the fact that Quebec invoked the notwithstanding clause. Some interveners may argue that Bill 21 does not violate anyone's freedom of religion, so such challenges to the law have no merit. Personally, I find this argument weak and doubt it will convince any of the Supreme Court Justices. However, a related one is much stronger: even if the bill violates freedom of religion and/or freedom of expression, these sections are covered by the notwithstanding clause and thus the bill cannot be struck down on this basis. This is essentially the logic of the decisions from the Quebec courts, and the Supreme Court may decide to rule similarly.

Another approach being taken by some interveners is to agree that Canada is a secular nation, and define secularism as the "separation of church and state". Since Bill 21 applies only to government employees, who are therefore representatives of the state in public-facing roles, Bill 21 is furthering the principle of secularism and there is no Charter violation. This is the basis of why several secular organizations support Bill 21.

This will be a long, complex, and hotly contested hearing. No date has yet been set, though it will likely be at some point in early 2026. A decision probably will not be published for at least six months after that.

CFIC will keep you up to date on this important case as it unfolds.

Two secular humanist organizations jointly apply for intervener status at Supreme Court hearing of Bill 21

The following essay first appeared in the June 2025 edition of Critical Links, the newsletter of the Centre for Inquiry Canada.

Two secular humanist organizations jointly apply for intervener status at Supreme Court hearing of Bill 21

The constitutionality of Quebec's Bill 21, which (among other things) bans provincial government employees from wearing of "ostentatious" religious clothing and symbols, is heading to the Supreme Court of Canada.

No issue has split the secular community of Canada like Bill 21. Several organizations, including CFIC, Canadian Secular Alliance, and BC Humanist Association, have come out strongly against the legislation. Humanist Canada has not taken an official position on the bill (though it did host a four part webinar series on the topic). The Mouvement Laïque Québécois - which stood staunchly against prayers to open municipal council meetings - is a major proponent of Bill 21. 

CFIC has covered the progress of this legislation extensively. CFIC came out against the bill back in 2019. In May 2020, Critical Links described the unsuccessful court case to suspend the bill until the full challenge could be heard. In November 2020, CFIC reported on the case as it was heard at the Quebec Superior Court, and again in April 2021 when the Quebec Superior Court rendered its verdict. The third and fourth episodes of Podcast for Inquiry were dedicated to secular arguments in favour (Caroline Russell-King) and against (Catherine Francis) the bill in early 2022. 

From the April 2021 Critical Links article: "The ruling largely upholds the provisions of Bill 21, with two notable exceptions: The bill would be “inoperative” for English school boards in the province, and restrictions would not apply to sitting Members of the National Assembly." Many groups still affected by Bill 21's provisions appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, as did the Quebec government, which was unhappy with the exemption for English school boards.

The Supreme Court of Canada will hear the case later this year or in early 2026. The BC Humanist Association and Canadian Secular Alliance have filed a joint application to be interveners in the case. (The CSA was an intervener in the Saguenay (municipal prayers) and Trinity Western University (see here and here for details) cases.) Both organizations, like CFIC, believe that Bill 21 is an unjustified infringement on religious expression, and will argue that Bill 21 should be struck down.

There was a large number of organizations that applied for intervener status in this case, and typically only a few such requests are granted. A decision is not expected for several months; Critical Links will keep you up to date on this case.

Podcast for Inquiry S01E04: Caroline Russell-King Argues For Quebec’s Bill 21

The fourth episode of Podcast for Inquiry features Caroline Russell-King discussing the secular case for Bill 21, in the second instalment of a two-part series. Caroline describes the harms Bill 21 is intended to mitigate, and whether they justify the nontrivial limitations it places on religious expression. Caroline and I discuss why Bill 21 has so split the secular community in Canada, and whether she sees any room for improvement.

Listen to our conversation here:

The episode is also available via video:

Podcast for Inquiry S01E03: Against Bill 21 with Catherine Francis

In its third episode, Podcast for Inquiry begins a special two-part series about Quebec's Bill 21, which prohibits most government employees from wearing religious symbols. This issue has split Canada’s secular community like no other. The divide is largely geographic; most secularists within Quebec support Bill 21, while a majority in the rest of Canada oppose it, calling it an act of discrimination or racism. In this episode, I speak with Catherine Francis, a Toronto lawyer, about her opposition to Bill 21. Starting with a history of the bill, from its introduction in Quebec's National Assembly through to its eventual passage, Catherine summarizes the numerous legal challenges it has overcome to date and the likely course of future court cases. Catherine explains why she does not consider Bill 21 to be a "secularism law" and why the legislation is bad for Quebec and Canada.

Listen to our conversation here:

The episode is also available via video: