You may have heard about a new law being proposed in the Province of Quebec. It's called Bill 21 on the Secularism of the State (le projet de loi 21 sur la laïcité de l'Etat). Essentially, it aims at banning religious symbols in the workplace for certain public sector employees, like teachers and nurses. There is a simple explanation of the law in the English-language newspaper, the Montreal Gazette.
You may be wondering: Why did this proposal come into existence? Will it eventually come to Ontario? Is it draconian, or unconstitutional? In my next few articles, I will explain where this idea came from, how the courts treated it, what the consequences are, and how it has already arrived in Ontario.
In 2011, in the City of Saguenay, Quebec, an individual named Alain Simoneau regularly attended the municipal council meetings of the City. At the start of each meeting, the Mayor would make the "sign of the cross" and recite a prayer, and then finish with the "sign of the cross." That's the traditional way to pray among Roman Catholics. Other councillors and city officials would do the same. In one of the council chambers there was a “Sacred Heart” statue, and in another room there was a crucifix hanging on the wall.
You may be wondering: Why did this proposal come into existence? Will it eventually come to Ontario? Is it draconian, or unconstitutional? In my next few articles, I will explain where this idea came from, how the courts treated it, what the consequences are, and how it has already arrived in Ontario.
In 2011, in the City of Saguenay, Quebec, an individual named Alain Simoneau regularly attended the municipal council meetings of the City. At the start of each meeting, the Mayor would make the "sign of the cross" and recite a prayer, and then finish with the "sign of the cross." That's the traditional way to pray among Roman Catholics. Other councillors and city officials would do the same. In one of the council chambers there was a “Sacred Heart” statue, and in another room there was a crucifix hanging on the wall.
Mr. Simoneau, who attended regular meetings, considered himself an atheist. He did not participate in the prayer and was not required to participate. Even though he was not required to participate, he felt uncomfortable with these displays of religion. He asked the Mayor to stop the public prayer but the Mayor refused.
Mr. Simoneau complained to the Quebec Human Rights Tribunal. He argued that his freedom of conscience and freedom of religion were being infringed, contrary to the Quebec Charter which says that “every person is the possessor of fundamental freedoms including freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, freedom of opinion, freedom of expression, freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association.” He claimed that his rights were being infringed, based on religion.
The Quebec Human Rights Tribunal decided that the prayer was religious in nature and that Saguenay council was showing preference for one religion to the detriment of others. The Tribunal decided that the City breached Mr. Simoneau’s rights. The Tribunal ordered the City and the Mayor to stop reciting prayers and to remove all religious symbols from the rooms where council meetings were being held. Further, the Tribunal awarded Mr. Simoneau $30,000 in compensatory and punitive damages. That was to compensate him for his discomfort, and punish the City for its behavior.
The City of Saguenay felt that the decision of the Quebec Human Rights Tribunal was wrong. So the City appealed the Tribunal's decision to the Quebec Court of Appeal.
The Quebec Court of Appeal decided that the government or the "state" must neither encourage nor discourage any specific religious belief, or non-belief. The Court of Appeal said that, in accordance with Canada's legal traditions, the state's role is to allow religious practices as long as there is no exclusion or forced participation. So prayer at Council meetings should be allowed as long as it does not exclude others from praying, or force others to pray.
On the subject of religious symbols, the Quebec Court of Appeal turned its attention to the statue of the "Sacred Heart" and the crucifix. The Court concluded that these were works of art just like any other works of art. Some people might give them special meaning and some people might entirely ignore them. The Court said that's the way things have always been in Canada. If there was any infringement of Mr. Simoneau's rights, said the Court, the infringement was so trivial that it did not merit any intervention by the Court.
Below is my own example of what the Quebec Court of Appeal meant.
Mr. Simoneau complained to the Quebec Human Rights Tribunal. He argued that his freedom of conscience and freedom of religion were being infringed, contrary to the Quebec Charter which says that “every person is the possessor of fundamental freedoms including freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, freedom of opinion, freedom of expression, freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association.” He claimed that his rights were being infringed, based on religion.
The Quebec Human Rights Tribunal decided that the prayer was religious in nature and that Saguenay council was showing preference for one religion to the detriment of others. The Tribunal decided that the City breached Mr. Simoneau’s rights. The Tribunal ordered the City and the Mayor to stop reciting prayers and to remove all religious symbols from the rooms where council meetings were being held. Further, the Tribunal awarded Mr. Simoneau $30,000 in compensatory and punitive damages. That was to compensate him for his discomfort, and punish the City for its behavior.
The City of Saguenay felt that the decision of the Quebec Human Rights Tribunal was wrong. So the City appealed the Tribunal's decision to the Quebec Court of Appeal.
The Quebec Court of Appeal decided that the government or the "state" must neither encourage nor discourage any specific religious belief, or non-belief. The Court of Appeal said that, in accordance with Canada's legal traditions, the state's role is to allow religious practices as long as there is no exclusion or forced participation. So prayer at Council meetings should be allowed as long as it does not exclude others from praying, or force others to pray.
On the subject of religious symbols, the Quebec Court of Appeal turned its attention to the statue of the "Sacred Heart" and the crucifix. The Court concluded that these were works of art just like any other works of art. Some people might give them special meaning and some people might entirely ignore them. The Court said that's the way things have always been in Canada. If there was any infringement of Mr. Simoneau's rights, said the Court, the infringement was so trivial that it did not merit any intervention by the Court.
Below is my own example of what the Quebec Court of Appeal meant.
The first picture is the crucifix as religious symbol. The second is the crucifix as artwork. And the third is the crucifix as jewellery. None of these is banned in Canada, and never has been in the history of our country.
The Court said that, in Canada, the government does not have the right to force you to treat the crucifix as a religious symbol. And the government does not have the right to deny you the practice of treating the crucifix as a religious symbol. And, in Canada, you can treat the crucifix as a work of art, or as a meaningless bangle dangling from your ears. The government cannot stop you from displaying these symbols, even if you display them in public and even if you display them at a public Council meeting.
But the matter did not end there. Mr. Simoneau appealed the case to the Supreme Court of Canada. And that's where I will end part one of this article. In my next article, I will tell you what happened at the Supreme Court of Canada, and what that means for you and me.
The Court said that, in Canada, the government does not have the right to force you to treat the crucifix as a religious symbol. And the government does not have the right to deny you the practice of treating the crucifix as a religious symbol. And, in Canada, you can treat the crucifix as a work of art, or as a meaningless bangle dangling from your ears. The government cannot stop you from displaying these symbols, even if you display them in public and even if you display them at a public Council meeting.
But the matter did not end there. Mr. Simoneau appealed the case to the Supreme Court of Canada. And that's where I will end part one of this article. In my next article, I will tell you what happened at the Supreme Court of Canada, and what that means for you and me.