Hill Times Letter: Debate about secularism may seem unique to Quebec’s Bill 21, but has been ongoing for generations

Letter to the Hill Times Editor published January 10, 2022

The debate about secularism may seem unique to Quebec’s Bill 21, but has been ongoing for generations. France was controlled by the Catholic Church until it won hard-fought freedom via the policy of laïcité, or secularism, which is now part of Article 1 of the French Constitution.

While France ceded any claims it had to the mainland of what is currently called “North America” to the British at the end of the Seven Years’ War, many French settlers remained and retained ties with France and French world views.

The British believe that religion, specifically Christianity, belongs within their notion of democracy. There are still 26 seats in their House of Lords (Senate) allocated to “Lords Spiritual,” meaning bishops of the Church of England. The British oppose the concept of secularism to ensure that Christianity retains influence over their systems of governance. They do not mind other religions being visible in government, as they know that Christianity will remain dominant.

In 1867, a small number of British Loyalist men, in a white-minority region of the world, asked the British government to pass the first of a series of 11 bills titled “The British North America Act.” This created and maintained a set of dominion governments under the brand of “Canada,” to promote the interests and world views of the British Empire. This included their views on the supremacy of Christianity and others who worship the Abrahamic God, and their belief that religion had a legitimate place within government.

Bill 21 barely scratches the surface of this critical problem. In 1867, the primary symbol of genocide on this continent had already been the Christian cross for centuries. A bill to help introduce Laïcité to this continent should not have been confined to a very narrow set of individuals wearing religious symbols while exercising specific government functions, but also the removal of religious symbols from all government buildings. An exemption should exist for spirituality that is Indigenous to this continent, to reduce ongoing colonialism.

While Quebec laïcité is far weaker than French laïcité, the response from those loyal to British world views has been unfortunate but not surprising. The anti-French bigotry is very clear.

The claim is that laïcité infringes “religious rights,” which British world views have claimed is an alleged right of religion to impose itself on any aspect of public life.

Freedom of religion includes freedom *from* religion. Given the harmful influence that specific dominant religions have had for millennia there is a need to remove the influence of religion from government to allow those governments to protect human rights.

Russell McOrmond
Ottawa, Ont.