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.

Review of Cardus webinar on Christianity and pluralism

This essay was first published in the November 2025 edition of the Centre for Inquiry Canada's monthly newsletter, Critical Links.

On September 9, Cardus (a Canadian think tank devoted to infusing faith into every aspect of society) held a webinar entitled, "Can Christians Fully Participate in 21st Century Pluralism?" I was interested in what they had to say, so I attended. 

Andrew Bennett is the Cardus Institute's Director of Faith Community Engagement. He was speaking with James Orr, Associate Professor of Philosophy of Religion at the University of Cambridge. 

Instead of starting the conversation with a definition of pluralism, Orr launched into an etymological history of the word, how it was a philosophical metaphysical and not a political term, and that politics is downstream of metaphysics. There was much name-dropping ("William James claimed that pluralism was reacting against Hegelian philosophy, but for Figgis pluralism is rooted in Augustinian pluralism"), but the erudite back and forth between Bennett and Orr shed little light on how to think of pluralism in the 21st century.

After indulging in several more diversions only tangentially related to the webinar's core question, Bennett and Orr finally came to talk about pluralism in a modern context, only to grossly mischaracterize it. According to Orr, the "risk of violence is increased by opening up the moral community at scale and at speed." Whereas earlier forms of pluralism provided a mediating buffer against the state, operating within a broadly shared conception of mutual flourishing and common good, today is very different, according to Orr. The secular liberal state as envisioned by John Rawls has no common perspective amongst the citizenry, and liberal individualism demands that people have sheer autonomy, without any obligation to others. 

I am familiar with much of Rawls' work, and this is not an argument I have heard him make. 

Eventually, Bennett and Orr asked: Is Christian participation in society limited? If so, who is doing the limiting? Is it the state? Are societal norms and taboos preventing Christians from being a part of public discourse? Perhaps Christians themselves have bought into the concept of the atomization of individuals devoid of a social fabric and withdrawn without external coercion?

Bennett noted that there is lots of participation by Christians in the public square, so perhaps this wasn't a significant issue.

I thought this was a key insight and worth pursuing - perhaps the answer to, "Can Christians Fully Participate in 21st Century Pluralism?" is a simple, "Yes." But Bennet and Orr pivoted immediately to asking whether an official presence of faith in the public square helps or hinders Christian participation in society. 

Bennett observed that an official Church risks becoming indistinguishable from the state, and that Canada has no established Church. He asked Orr, "Is the Church of England less free to engage in debates because of its status?"

Orr responded, "Yes." But rather than explain why, or how, the Church of England is constrained, Orr spoke about the impact the Covid epidemic had on people. Orr then went on a rant against the Church of England (an odd choice, in my opinion) for participating in "madcap, highly contentious, politicized schemes", such as paying a hundreds of millions of pounds in reparations when the Church has only 11 billion pounds in assets, while "parishes are closing up and down country". And yet Orr also said that he can't think of a time when the country has needed more of what the Church can offer. 

The rest of the conversation was not about whether Christians can participate in society, but how to infuse more Christianity into the world. Orr claimed that belief in God has tripled in the UK among 18-35 year olds (a surprising statistic, as every source I have found makes clear that faith in Britain is declining, with younger cohorts increasingly non-religious). He also stated that New Atheists are expressing regret, citing Ayaan Ali Hirsi Ali and Niall Ferguson as examples. (If this trend is more widespread, I have missed it.) Orr also finds the "intellectual credibility of Christianity" striking. (Again, Orr must travel in very different circles than I do.)

Orr made many unsubstantiated claims, including "Christianity feels new now", "Standard liberal policing in the public square has been dissolved on the Internet", "Liberal multiculturalism has dissolved connected communities", and "Affluenza has enabled us to forget the important things." Orr did not elaborate on any of these, so his meaning remains ambiguous.

Bennett brought the conversation's focus to Quebec. He asked Orr what the impact was of growing Muslim and Sikh populations on the public square, and how we occupy public square together as members of very different religions. Orr stated that secularists believe that secular and religion are antonyms, and that everything in the religion box is basically the same. He accused secularists of "tone deafness" by failing to understand the differences between Augustinian Christianity and Salafist Islam. He then went on to claim that "Islam is not compatible with post-Christian secular society."

The Webinar ended with an appeal for Christians to "animate the sacred". Orr is aghast that the English Prime Minister and leader of the opposition are atheists; "at least Farage is a Christian, even if not a great one." Orr noted that the young are drawn to evangelical forms of Christianity. In Orr's view, the "great challenge" is to "reverse engineer the fourth century."

Overall, I found the webinar disappointing. The little time devoted to the question at hand indicated that Christians are indeed full participants in society, but that this is insufficient in an increasingly secular world. The problem, according to Bennett and Orr, is not that Christians are somehow prevented from participating in society - it's that Christians are insufficiently Christian in the 21st century. What Bennett and Orr decry as societal decay, I consider to be social progress. May secularism and pluralism continue to progress throughout the 21st century, and beyond. 

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.

House of Commons recommends ending religious privilege

The following essay was originally published in the February 2025 edition of Critical Links.

If the primary purpose of your organization is "advancement of religion", and all your group does is proselytize, it is eligible for charitable status in Canada. Centre for Inquiry Canada documented that this single policy choice costs Canadians over $3.2 billion every year in its Cost of Religion in Canada reports.

Every year, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance publishes a report containing recommendations for the following year's budget. The latest report, published in December 2024, contained Recommendation 430: "Amend the Income Tax Act to provide a definition of a charity which would remove the privileged status of “advancement of religion” as a charitable purpose."

There are many reasons why this would be good public policy:

• Financial: In a time of high deficits, saving Canadians taxpayers over $3,000,000,000 annually is wise financially, and good politics.
• Philosophical: Canada is (or should be!) a secular nation, where the government is neutral in matters of religion, neither supporting nor suppressing religious expression. Giving a multi-billion dollar subsidy to organizations that self-declare their primary purpose to be evangelizing is the government playing favourites.
• Protecting Canadian sovereignty: Canada did not decide the criteria Canada Revenue Agency's uses to determine which organizations are eligible to be recognized as charities. We inherited these rules from Britain, which made a decision over a century ago, based on the introduction to a law over 400 years old. Canada has never amended them. It's well past time for Canadians to decide what constitutes a charity in Canada.
• Accuracy: Trying to convince others to view the world as you do is certainly permissible, but it's hardly a charitable act. Such organizations should be non-profits, not charities.

To minimize disruption, the implementation could proceed in two phases: 

• Announce a deadline (say, the end of 2025) after which organizations may no longer apply to become a charity with the primary purpose of "advancement of religion".
• Give existing charities with a primary purpose of "advancement of religion" a deadline (say, the end of 2028) to either:
• Convert to a non-profit organization; or
• Declare an alternate primary purpose (advancement of education, alleviation of poverty, or other purposes beneficial to the community).

An administratively straightforward process should be created for religious charities to convert to a non-profit or designate an alternate primary purpose. 

Canada has just taken the first step on the path to becoming a more fair, just, and secular country. It's a long road from a Finance Standing Committee recommendation to implemented policy, and CFIC will continue to press for removal of "advancement of religion" as a charitable goal until this becomes a reality.

Two Incredible Years of Podcast for Inquiry

The following article was initially published in the January 2024 edition of the Centre for Inquiry Canada's monthly newsletter, Critical Links.

It's been two amazing years of Podcast for Inquiry, and it continues to be a source of tremendous pride to host fascinating conversations, every two weeks. We brought you 25 discussions in 2023, plus three bonus episodes featuring Leslie defending secular principles in various contexts. 

Here are some highlights: 

We kicked off the year with a passionate defense of morality on secular grounds from Phil Zuckerman. This remains one of my favourite conversations to date. At one point, professor Zuckerman launches into a defense of secular values and governance with a passion and eloquence that rivals anything I've heard from Dawkins or Hitchens. If you haven't already listened to this episode, you're missing out.

The topic of religion and cults was a recurring theme in 2023, including conversations with:

• Dr. Joshua Bowen on Biblical [in]accuracy
• Chris Shelton on Scientology and destructive cults
  
• Philippa Carter on What is a Religion?
  
• Noah Rasheta on Secular Buddhism
  
• Seth Andrews on Christians acting in un-Christian ways (this was the year's most popular episode on YouTube, with 40,000+ views and over 200 comments!)
• David Fitzgerald claiming Solomon, Jesus and Mohammed are all fictional

Science featured prominently:

• Ashely Esakin on Gardening in any Environment
• Allan Offenberger on the Current State of Fusion Research
  
• Dana Korneisel on tetrapods (and axolotls!)
  
• Tara Moriarty on Communicating Scientific Knowledge during Covid
  

Podcast for Inquiry delved into Politics:

• Srishti Hukku on Misogyny in Humanism
• Tonya Callaghan on Homophobia in Catholic Schools
• Eunju Kim on Escaping North Korea
  

Economics was scrutinized:

• Paris Marx on “Don’t be Evil” no longer applies
  
• Dr. Evelyn Forget on Basic Income
  
• Gretchen Morgenson on How Private Equity Runs and Wrecks America
  

A couple episodes demonstrated the benefits of Research and Critical Thinking: 

• David McRaney on How Minds Change
  
• Dr. Teale Phelps Bondaroff on Do Cities listen to the Supreme Court?
  

Finally, three bonus episodes where I expound upon Secular Values in various contexts:

• A debate on God's Role in Politics (against a Catholic scholar and lawyer)
• A presentation to an International Humanist Conference on Humanism in Children and Women's Rights
• A diatribe about what Canadian Catholic Hospitals consider Ethics

We have a couple incredible episodes to kick off 2024: a conversation with an Australian philosopher about our post-liberal world, and an intimate view into the life of Omer, a Pakistani refugee (sponsored by CFIC) waiting to come to Canada.

I'd love to hear your feedback. Let me know what you loved, how we can improve, and what you want to hear on Podcast for Inquiry. I can always be reached at podcast@centreforinquiry.ca. 

Leslie Rosenblood, your host on CFIC's Podcast for Inquiry 

Calgary Police Service provides Honour Guard to Calgary Leadership Prayer Breakfast

I wrote the following article for the December edition of Critical Links, the monthly newsletter from the Centre for Inquiry Canada. 

Calgary Police Service provides Honour Guard to Calgary Leadership Prayer Breakfast

You might recall "Bob", the Calgary Police Service Sergeant who has had his complaint with the Alberta Human Rights Commission officially recognized (see articles from the June and August Critical Links). While we wait for his case to be heard, CFIC learned from Global News that "On Oct. 19, members of the [Calgary Police Service] honour guard escorted keynote speaker Nigel Hannaford to his seat at the Calgary Leaders Prayer Breakfast, as part of the opening ceremonies." There are several things problematic about this decision by the CPS:

• According to Global News, last month was the 55th year of the Calgary Leadership Prayer Breakfast. There has been no demonstrated safety or security need for a police presence at any previous event.
• The purpose of the CPS Honour Guard is to represent the service. Some events, such as the Stampede parade and Remembrance Day, always have an Honour Guard. Other events are at the discretion of the Honour Guard Executive and the Chief. That the leadership of the Calgary Police Service gave its implicit endorsement to an organization that "affirms our faith in God through prayer, testimony, scripture reading, and fellowship" lends credence to Bob's claim that the CPS favours Christianity over other faiths. The police service must remain neutral in such matters of religion, as the Supreme Court ruled in the Saguenay case in 2015 (listen to or watch the Podcast for Inquiry episode on this topic) and affirmed in the Trinity Western University decision in 2018 (read my analysis of the TWU ruling). While the CLPB has every right to endorse Biblical teachings and exhort government to follow Christian precepts, CPS providing an Honour Guard to the CLPB is a violation of state neutrality and should not recur. 
• The content of this year's keynote address, by Nigel Hannaford, contains much that must make many active Calgary Police Service officers uncomfortable (at best):
•  Hannaford rails against many Canadian laws. He describes Medical Assistance in Dying as "Doctors killing people", in violation of the commandment "Thou Shalt Not Murder". He pities the "Christian doctors [who] find themselves up against the government" about abortion. He even takes aim at the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, lamenting that "The Bible-based morality that you grew up with, that once informed Canadian law, was quietly but explicitly rejected in 1982 [when the Charter was adopted]." CPS officers are sworn to uphold the law. Why would it endorse someone who is asking his audience to reject it?
• He claims that there is "No proof that Christians murdered indigenous children" in residential schools. While there is much to be learned about the extent of abuse, there are thousands of documented deaths at residential schools (see the final report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission). And while he does call for "these sites to be examined," referring to unmarked graves, notably absent was a call for the release of records from the Catholic Church, which continues to refuse to allow access to its voluminous documentation relating to Canada's residential schools. First Nations members of the Calgary Police Service (among others) doubtless would not approve of Hannaford's remarks.
• Hannaford calls for Canada to become (or return to) a theocracy. He says, "Once, Canada's laws reflected a Biblical understanding of truth. [...] Then Canada adopted the Charter. Their [nine Supreme Court justices] job now is to interpret the law with the Canadian consensus, not the Bible." Later, Hannaford regrets that "We are now finding that Canadian law is often, and increasingly, at variance with our Bible-based worldview." Again, while individual Calgary officers are welcome to attend such an address as private citizens on their own time, why did the CPS endorse the Calgary Leadership Prayer Breakfast, and by extension its keynote speaker's call for Bible-based law in Canada? 

The decision to provide an honour guard to Nigel Hannaford at the Calgary Leadership Prayer Breakfast shows tremendous disrespect to the diverse community CPS is tasked with protecting, as well as offending a sizable proportion of its own members.

Bob's human rights complaint against the Calgary Police service because of its "Christian-default" practices continues to wind its way through the system. If you know an Alberta lawyer with human rights experience, please contact Leslie Rosenblood, CFIC Secular Chair. 

Secular news from May 2023

The following article appeared in the June 2023 edition of Critical Links, the monthly newsletter from the Centre for Inquiry Canada. 

A roundup of secular news from the past month:

• Canada’s Coat of Arms no longer features religious symbolism. The Canadian Royal Crown that sits atop the Canada Coat of Arms has been redesigned. The new Crown features Canadian imagery (maple leaves and a snowflake) instead of religious symbols (crosses and a fleur-de-lis). While the change has little practical impact on Canadians (personally, I couldn’t recall what Canada’s Coat of Arms looked like before reading about the redesign), it’s refreshing to see Canada slowly and steadily weaning itself off its erroneous self-conception as a Christian nation. 
• Iran hangs two convicted of blasphemy. It is for good reason that “theocracy” is generally considered to be a pejorative term. Countries where religious authorities run (or significantly influence) the government tend not to respect human rights (consider Iran, Afghanistan, and Russia, among others). In the midst of an uprising wherein Iranian women are publicly removing their hijabs in record numbers (despite severe repression from government authorities), Yousef Mehrad and Sadrollah Fazeli-Zare were executed for “burning the Quran” and “insulting the Prophet of Islam,” according to the country’s judiciary. Fortunately, because Canada repealed its blasphemy law in 2018, Iran can no longer point to Canada for moral cover. 
• Forced-birth organization makes short list for federal funding. The Canada Student Jobs program is in the news again. In 2017, controversy erupted because federal funds were being funneled to organizations that would force a woman to give birth against her will (they refer to themselves as “pro-life” groups). The government revised the rules, but in a way that religious groups claimed restricted their religious freedom. After another overhaul of eligibility criteria, Priests for Life has recently made the short list for federal funding. Priests for Life has not yet been awarded any money, but it will be interesting to watch the government attempt to balance women’s rights with religious freedom. 

Ontario Takes First Step to Merge Public and Catholic School Boards

The following article appeared in the June 2023 edition of Critical Links, the monthly newsletter from the Centre for Inquiry Canada. 

Ontario Takes First Step to Merge Public and Catholic School Boards

Of course, the Conservative provincial government doesn’t describe its actions as a merger of the public and separate school systems. But with the introduction of Bill 98, section 195.1 gives the Ontario Education Minister the power to “direct two or more boards to enter into an arrangement” to share “use of a school site, part of a school site or other property of a board.”

This is a tacit admission that having a distinct Catholic school system leads to waste on a scale sufficient to warrant a legislative fix. The financial argument against a fully funded separate school system is compelling on its own: Ontario spends approximately $10 billion each year on Catholic schools, and could save $1.5 billion annually by having a single publicly funded school system for each official language. CFIC also objects to the separate school on ethical grounds: It is inherently discriminatory, violates secular principles, hampers students’ quality of life, and worsens educational outcomes. 

The Ontario government clearly understands that the status quo is unacceptable and unsustainable. Bill 98 is a small, tentative step in the right direction. Write to Ontario Minister of Education, Stephen Lecce, and tell him the bill does not go far enough. When the province holds consultations in your community, ensure your voice is heard. Public and separate school boards should share not just their buildings, but also their curricula, oversight, and administration. The Ontario public and separate school systems should be merged. 

Are You (Or Do You Know) An Alberta Lawyer With Human Rights Experience?

The following article appeared in the June 2023 edition of Critical Links, the monthly newsletter from the Centre for Inquiry Canada. 

CFIC was recently contacted by a Sergeant (I will use the pseudonym “Bob”) in the Calgary Police Service (CPS). He brought to our attention that many of CPS’ informal practices assume its members are Christian by default.

A few examples of how Christianity is embedded in the CPS:

• When the CPS built a new headquarters a little over a decade ago, it included a chapel. The design clearly makes it a Christian room of worship, with an altar, pews, stained-glass windows, and a Christian saint prominently displayed. A CPS document describing its intended use listed predominantly Christian ceremonies (“wedding services, baptisms and christenings”). While lip service was paid to other faiths (“Any or all of the rows can be removed to accommodate special purposes, such as First Nations ceremonies, the placement of prayer mats for Muslim prayer services”), the document makes clear that the standard, default, and assumed use of the chapel was for Christians and Christian rites. 
• Before getting married, Bob and his fiancee took the CPS couples’ course, intended to assist officers and their partners with their relationships. The instructor — a psychologist (with inflated credentials) under contract for 23 years with the CPS — stated couples with previous sexual partners cannot achieve the same level of intimacy as those that “saved themselves” for marriage. While a common Christian trope, there is no evidence that couples without previous sexual partners have happier, healthier, or longer relationships. 
• The instructor also stated LGBT couples would need a separate course “because of the number of sexual partners they have” and “they would make the straight couples feel uncomfortable.”
• Bob asked to provide a secular invocation at a service dinner in lieu of the customary Christian grace. The request was grudgingly granted, but the management team made it clear such efforts were unwelcome (loudly proclaiming “Amen” after the invocation).
• The CPS has a District Chaplaincy program. However, unlike the Canadian military (listen to Podcast for Inquiry with Marie-Claire Khadij to learn more about the Canadian Armed Force chaplaincy program), all 13 chaplains in the CPS are Christian pastors. There is no representation for other faiths, First Nations people, or the non-religious.
• Some of the CPS chaplains represent the Billy Graham Association, which believes (among other things) in evangelizing Christianity and that “marriage is exclusively the union of one genetic male and one genetic female.” Needless to say, this is hardly inclusive of non-Christians and members of the LGBT community. 

The CPS has made some improvements in recent years:

• The chapel was renamed Memorial Hall (likely as a result of a complaint filed by Bob). 
• The “intimacy” portion of the couples’ course has been removed.
• The CPS instituted an official policy of religious neutrality (which has since been removed).
• Recruits are no longer invited to seemingly secular ceremonies that turn into a Catholic mass, though the CPS still hosts Catholic services including a Christmas Eve mass).

Nonetheless, in many respects the Calgary Police Service remains a “Christian-default” workplace. Bob has faced retaliation in ways subtle and overt for his attempts to make the CPS a more inclusive, welcoming, and secular institution. Therefore, in September 2021, Bob submitted an official complaint with the Alberta Human Rights Commission.

The AHRC has reviewed Bob’s complaint, and has accepted it as valid (most files are rejected at this stage). It will therefore proceed to a conciliation hearing (yet to be scheduled). 

CFIC will be writing a letter of support for Bob’s case, outlining the legal requirement for the Calgary Police Service, as an agent of the state, to respect the principle of secularism: not privileging one faith over another, or belief over non-belief. 

If you know an Alberta lawyer with human rights experience, please let me know at rosenblood@centreforinquiry.ca.

We will keep you apprised of Bob’s case at the AHRC in future editions of Critical Links.

Centre for Inquiry Canada Responds to the Canadian Centre for Christian Charities

The article below appeared in the June 2021 edition of the Centre for Inquiry Canada's monthly newsletter, Critical Links.

The Canadian Centre for Christian Charities (CCCC) published a blog post commenting on the first two reports in the Centre for Inquiry Canada's Cost of Religion series. Perhaps not surprisingly, the CCCC took issue with the series' thesis that advancement of religion is not an inherently charitable activity. 

The CCCC claims "volumes of peer-reviewed research" show advancing religion is a public good, but offers only one example: a 2020 book that describes itself as "an apologetic for maintaining the presumption of public benefit for the charitable category ‘advancement of religion’". Thus the book is a work of advocacy, not one of scholarship. Research demonstrates an inverse relationship between a country's religiosity and most sociological indicators of well-being (see, for example, selected works from Greg Paul and Phil Zuckerman). Note that this correlation, while well established, says nothing about whether a lack of religion causes prosperity, having a thriving society leads to a reduction in faith, or some other factor contributes to both. It is also possible that religious influence in society contributes to human suffering. 

The purported benefits of religion are well publicized, and trumpeted regularly from the pulpits of the land as well as from organizations such as the Canadian Centre for Christian Charities. The extent of favourable tax treatment and direct governmental subsidies to religious organizations comes as a surprise to many Canadians, demonstrating the need for such research and commentary. It is curious that CCCC chose to criticize CFIC's Cost of Religion in Canada report series for focusing on... the cost of religion in Canada.  

The CCCC then makes a completely unsubstantiated claim: that "places of worship [...] transform people into civic-minded, caring, generous neighbours who support Canada’s secular charities" such as environmental conservation, healthcare, and education. The best response to this declaration is Hitchens's razor: "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."

Their next argument is that religious people are more generous, with those attending worship services weekly donating approximately four times as much to charities as those that do not attend at all. This is misleading, because the statistic combines donations to churches (and other religious causes) with contributions to other charities. Are churchgoers more likely to contribute to secular causes, such as education and healthcare? Not according to Statistics Canada, which came to the underwhelming conclusion in a 2004 report that "The 19% of Canadians who attended religious services weekly gave 74% of the total value of all donations to religious organizations and 22% of the value of all donations to other organizations." Even Ray Pennings, Executive Vice President of the faith-based think tank Cardus, implicitly undermines the apparent benevolence of the observant. In a 2010 article entitled Religion not the only source of division, he touts that in "the purely secular donations sector, [...] 32 per cent of believers donates 42 per cent of the $2.1 billion raised [for charities] annually." He acknowledges that those with "a non-theist belief system contribute [...] 35 per cent of Canada’s total contributions''. A 2008 Harris-Decima survey estimated that 23% of Canadians did not believe in any god. Thus, while the observant punch above their weight in secular charitable donations (by 31%, according to Pennings' figures), nonbelievers do so to a considerably greater extent (by 52%).

The conclusion of their article is revealing. The CCCC argues that removing advancement of religion as a charitable purpose "would have serious undesirable consequences for all Canadians by reducing the dollars the religious among us have available to donate to secular charities." This is only true if you assume that the Church has "first dibs" on money from the faithful - remove the tax credit on religious donations, and secular charities will get less of the leftovers. Were this to be true, it hardly paints religious Canadians in a favourable light. If the faithful are truly as civic-minded as the CCCC claims, the tax treatment of churches and other religious charities should have a minimal effect on their contributions to noble secular causes. 

The CCCC’s objections are natural for an institution that is protecting its own interests. However, these objections further highlight the need for a national conversation about whether advancing religion in Canada is a truly charitable activity, and one that benefits society as a whole.

CFIC report examines direct government subsidies of religion

The following brief article appears in the June edition of Critical Links, the monthly newsletter of the Centre for Inquiry Canada. 

The Centre for Inquiry Canada has released the third report of its Cost of Religion in Canada series, looking at transfers from all three levels of government to charities with the primary purpose of "Advancement of Religion".

In total, Canadian governments give more than $1,000,000,000 to religious charities every year. Some organizations receiving subsidies, such as the YMCA of Greater Toronto, clearly serve the entire community. Others are focused on providing services through an explicit Christian lens. Christian Horizons receives over $150 million annually from Ontario and Saskatchewan, while the federal government gives over $20 million every year to the Kelowna Christian Center Society (“Where People belong and Jesus matters.”).

Read the full report about government transfers to religious charities, or read the whole Cost of Religion in Canada series of reports. 

Quebec Superior Court rules (mostly) in favour of Bill 21

The article below appeared in the May 2021 edition of the Centre for Inquiry Canada's monthly newsletter, Critical Links.

On April 20, 2021, the Quebec Superior Court released its ruling on the constitutionality of Bill 21, Quebec's "secularism" law, which (among other things) bans the wearing of religious symbols (such as hijabs, yarmulkes, and turbans) for many government employees including lawyers, judges, teachers, and police officers. 

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. 

In his 240-page decision, Justice Marc-Andre Blanchard found "the evidence undoubtedly shows that the effects of Law 21 will be felt negatively above all by Muslim women". Those targeted by the law are "faced with the following dilemma: either they act according to their [...] beliefs, or they work in the profession of their choice. It is easy to understand that this is a cruel consequence which dehumanizes those targeted." The law imposes significant costs (in terms of rights and freedoms) with a questionable justification: "the denial by Bill 21 of the rights guaranteed by the Charter has severe consequences for the persons concerned. [...] On the other hand, the beneficial effects appear at least tenuous." The judge had harsh words for the National Assembly: "The use by the legislature of the notwithstanding clauses appears excessive, because it is too broad, although legally unassailable in the current state of the law." The government displayed an "indifference toward the rights and liberties of those affected," he wrote.

When applied, the notwithstanding clause exempts legislative compliance with Charter sections 2 ("fundamental freedoms" including freedom of religion and expression) and 7-15 (which enumerate legal and equality rights). However, the notwithstanding clause provides no protection to challenges under section 23 (minority language educational rights). 

Most reactions to the judgment were negative. Supporters of Bill 21 were disappointed that the ruling carved out exceptions, while opponents were upset that the bill will continue to apply in most of the province. Quebec Justice Minister Simon Jolin-Barrette seemed to capture the common sentiment: "Quebec’s laws have to apply to everyone on Quebec’s territory." Or as Premier François Legault put it, "I don’t understand why the judge said anglophones in English school boards can have different values than the other Quebecers." On the other hand, the English Montreal School Board said it was "elated" by the decision. 

Quebec has announced its intention to appeal. The case will almost certainly be heard eventually by the Supreme Court of Canada. In the meantime, however, Bill 21 remains in effect for most of the province's teachers, police officers, and other government employees in a position of authority. 

Notes: 

• "Secularism" has several definitions, and confusion can result if people do not have a common understanding of how it is being used. CFI Canada supports political secularism, defined as government neutrality in matters of religion; that is, the state should neither support nor suppress religious expression. 
• The author is a native English speaker. The ruling is written in French, and an English translation was not available at the time of publication. Quotations from the ruling are sourced from the English-language media articles linked to above.

Centre for Inquiry Canada publishes the first two reports in its Cost of Religion series

The article below appeared in the May 2021 edition of the Centre for Inquiry Canada's monthly newsletter, Critical Links.

Did you know that Canadians subsidize religious organizations to the tune of billions of dollars every year? The Centre for Inquiry Canada, in its Cost of Religion in Canada series of reports, quantifies the cost of one type of religious institution: charities with the primary purpose of "advancement of religion".

Using information submitted by the charities themselves for their 2018 fiscal year (the most recent full dataset available at the time of writing), CFIC analyzes the favourable treatment religious charities receive with respect to tax credits, various exemptions, and direct subsidies. The first two reports in the Cost of Religion series have now been published. 

The Introductory report defines the scope of the series, describes the benefits of being a registered charity, and provides examples of religious charities from across Canada. 

Some highlights from the Introductory report:

• Religious charities are free to discriminate based on religious faith in their government-funded charitable efforts.
• Over 32,000 registered charities in Canada exist primarily to advance religion. 
• Religious charities in Canada have used their favourable tax treatment to amass over $38,000,000,000 in wealth.

The second report examines the cost of religious charities issuing tax receipts for donations. When Canadians make donations to charities, they receive receipts that can be used for an income tax credit. CFIC looks at donations to organizations that exist primarily (or solely) to advance religion and amongst its findings:

• Religious charities received donations worth nearly $7.5 billion in 2018.
• Applying a conservative set of assumptions, this translated to over $3.2 billion in tax credits.
• There are alternatives to maintaining "advancement of religion" as a valid charitable purpose. 

CFIC will continue to publish additional reports in the coming weeks and months, including a summary of direct government subsidies to religious charities and the tax breaks religious charities enjoy. Bookmark this CFIC page to see the entire series as it's published. 

Supreme Court of Canada declines to hear appeal to suspend Quebec's "secularism" law

This essay first appeared as an article in the May 2020 edition of CFI Canada's Critical Links newsletter.

Quebec's Bill 21, regrettably generally referred to as its secularism law, bans the wearing of religious symbols by certain civil servants (government lawyers, judges, police, and teachers, among others). It was passed by the provincial legislature in June 2019, and applies to new hires. Existing employees (hired before March 27, 2019) may continue to wear religious garb in their current position, though the exemption is void if they either accept a promotion or make a lateral move to a new role.

Polls in Quebec show that Bill 21 is popular - supported by approximately two-thirds of Quebecois. Polls also indicate that much of this support is rooted in anti-Muslim animus, and that it would drop substantially if courts found Bill 21 to be unconstitutional. 

The law invokes the "notwithstanding clause" (Section 33) from the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which shields the law from many forms of constitutional challenges. While rare in the rest of Canada, Quebec often invokes the notwithstanding clause to deter litigation about its legislation. 

The law was immediately challenged, on two fronts: its fundamental constitutionality, and a request for an emergency stay to prevent its provisions from taking effect until the full case can be heard.

In July 2019, the Quebec Superior Court denied the request for a stay, stating that while the challenge raised a serious issue, there was no irreparable harm. 

When the case went before the Quebec Court of Appeal, the argument against Bill 21 was expanded to include Section 28 of the Charter, which states "rights and freedoms [...] are guaranteed equally to male and female persons". This was an interesting development because if Bill 21 was found by the Court to discriminate against women, it would be found to be unconstitutional, despite the invocation of the notwithstanding clause. However, the Quebec Court of Appeal ruled 2-1 against granting a stay in December 2019. The majority wrote in part, "the notwithstanding clause dictates that, at this stage of the case, the courts must abandon to their fate women graduates who are willing to work and who, for the sole reason that they wear the veil [hijab], have been denied access to a job for which they hold all the skills." [Translated from the French.]

Unsurprisingly, this decision did not sit well with those who oppose Bill 21. In January 2020, a formal request was filed for the Supreme Court of Canada to hear the application for a stay. On April 9, 2020, the Supreme Court declined to do so. As is its standard practice, no reasons were given. The substantive challenge to the law's constitutionality is scheduled to be in in October 2020 (though this might be delayed due to covid-19). Assuming no delays, a decision should be released around this time in 2021.

Note: "Secularism" has several definitions, and confusion can result if people do not have a common understanding of how it is being used. CFI Canada supports political secularism, defined as government neutrality in matters of religion; that is, the state should neither support nor suppress religious expression. 

I gratefully acknowledge the research of Catherine Francis, which informed parts of this article. 

Two short articles: Atheism is not a Religion and Alternatives to God-driven Addiction Recovery

I wrote two short articles for January 2020 edition of Critical Links, the Centre for Inquiry Canada's monthly newsletter.

Atheism is not a religion, says Federal Court of Appeals

All Canadian charities must declare their primary purpose when the register with the Canada Revenue Agency; approximately 40% of Canadian charities exist for the "advancement of religion".

The Church of Atheism of Central Canada applied for charitable status under the "advancement of religion" category. Its request was denied by the CRA, and this decision was upheld by the Canadian Federal Court of Appeal. It is possible this will go the the Supreme Court, but that remains to be seen.

The core of the decision is: "Fundamental characteristics of religion include that the followers have a faith in a higher power such as God, entity, or Supreme Being; that followers worship this higher power; and that the religion consists of a particular and comprehensive system of faith and worship." The Church of Atheism of Central Canada lacks belief in a deity, and therefore can not revere a Supreme Being, and does not have a system of worship, according the the Court. (That Buddhism is eligible for charitable status while also lacking belief in a God failed to persuade the Court that the Church of Atheism should also be considered a religion for charitable purposes.)

The Court also stated that charitable registration is a privilege, not a right, so no Charter considerations come into play.

Mark Blumberg, a lawyer specializing in charity law, writes, "Ultimately the courts are not planning on changing the status quo “In the absence of legislative reform”." This is likely a correct prediction. In my opinion, removing "Advancement of Religion" as a criterion sufficient to gain charitable status is preferable to including atheism within the definition of religious belief and practice.

Non-theistic addiction recovery programs now offered for BC Health workers

In the July 2019 edition of Critical Links, we told you about Byron Wood, an atheist nurse and alcoholic. He wanted to attend a rehabilitation program that was non-theistic in nature. His union did not provide one, and when he did not complete the Alcoholics Anonymous program because he refused to turn his life "over the care of God",  he was fired. (Half of AA's 12 steps directly refer to God or a greater Power.)

Though popular, AA and similar programs do not work for everyone. How effective they actually are is a matter of considerable dispute, with AA claiming "up to 75 percent of its members maintain abstinence," while addiction specialists "cite numbers closer to 8% to 12% for sobriety by [AA] members after the first year." Gabrielle Glaser in the Atlantic writes, "In 2006, the Cochrane Collaboration, a health-care research group, reviewed studies going back to the 1960s and found that “no experimental studies unequivocally demonstrated the effectiveness of AA or [12-step] approaches for reducing alcohol dependence or problems.”" A 2012 report by the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University stated, “The vast majority of people in need of addiction treatment do not receive anything that approximates evidence-based care.”

For many addicts, other treatment methods - including medication, counselling, cognitive behavioural therapy, and deep-brain stimulation - have proven to be superior to the more well known 12-step programs.

Mr. Wood launched a complaint with the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal in 2015, with support from the Centre for Inquiry Canada and the BC Humanist Association (among others). He reached a settlement with Vancouver Coastal Health (VCH) in early December 2019. Though the details of the settlement are confidential, Wood writes, "I'm really happy about the outcome — it means that VCH employees are not required to attend 12-step rehab centres, 12-step meetings, or participate in any 12-step activities if they object for religious reasons. It's what I've been fighting for, for the last six years."

As a result, the 14,000 employees of Vancouver Coastal Health will no longer have to attend AA "if that approach to treatment conflicts with their religious or non-religious beliefs."

The agreement is a settlement between Mr. Wood and VCH, not a ruling by the BC Human Rights Tribunal. As result, its terms are not binding on other organizations. However, CFIC hopes that other employers realize the intrinsic theistic nature of 12-step programs, accept the principle that attending any religious gathering should never be a requirement for employment, and provide an option for secular addiction rehabilitation services to their employees.

CFIC salutes the courage and stamina Mr. Wood has shown in his fight to have secular approaches to sobriety recognized by his former employer. Mr. Wood is applying to have his nursing license reinstated, and CFIC wishes him good luck in his future endeavours.