Contents of Bill 21
Human Rights are considered to be acting as the basic standards for treating the individuals in a way that would be humane as the individuals are entitled to obtain those rights. Therefore, these rights are supposed to be based on the fundamental belief that the human beings have inherent dignity as well as worth. The human rights are well-thought out to be based on the core values such as freedom along with equality, dignity as well as respect and these allow the people to make choices freely by developing their opportunities to their full potential. Therefore, the rights are essential for all the human beings as such offer basic dignity and makes an individual liberal enough to act in a manner without the interference of law and society.
The paper discusses about the contentious Bill 21 An Act Respecting the Laicity of the State. It enumerates upon the contents of Bill 21 by providing a specific emphasis on ss. 1-17 and Schedules I, II and III. It also analyzes the arguments for as well as against the Bill and critically evaluates the arguments and deliberations through the prism of liberal and human rights concept. This is supposed to be in connection with the utilitarianism versus rights or the no harm principle along with equality and the liberal concepts of rationality and autonomy among other things. In conclusion, it summarizes the points that have been deliberated throughout the paper.
The Bill 21 is considered to be passed by the Quebec National assembly in the year 2019 and the primary purpose of the legislation was to confirm the secular status of the province as it prevented the individuals from wearing religious symbols in civil services authority in the public sector. Therefore, this legislation became contentious and controversial as it intended on asserting secularism in Quebec. According to the authors, it can be stated that, state laicity was supposed to include parliamentary as well as governmental and judicial institutions as this complied with the principles of Section 2 of the Bill which was in accordance with the pursuing of the missions. The Parliamentary institutions were supposed to be designated through the office under the authority. Section 3 was considered to require compliance with the prevention of wearing religious symbols as this was done to create an importance of the duty of neutrality as it would foster adherence to the state religious neutrality through the provision of a particular framework which would be requesting accommodations for the religious and other specific bodies. Therefore, the state laicity through this bill required the right to lay parliamentary as well as government and judicial institutions through the public services as it created religious neutrality. However, it has also been stated that while, the law supported several populations in Quebec there were certain arguments which extended to daycares as these were discriminatory against the religious groups. It can be understood through the instance of Australian case of Al-Kateb v Goodwin [2004] HCA 37 that dealt with principle of rights. Thus, the disapproval of the Act accelerated extensively in English Canada rather than French Canada. Nonetheless, a grandfather clause exempted the public workers as the law helped them in acquiring knowledge of certain detailed rules that required the individuals to uncover the faces in order to receive certain kind of public service as it was for identification as well as security purposes. This was supposed to create a legal perspective for receiving the government services. It can be understood through the instance of Christie v. York Corporation [1940] S.C.R. 139.
Arguments for and against Bill 21
As per the statements offered by the author, it can be observed that, Bill 21 originated from the recommendation of the Bouchard-Taylor report in the year 2008 as it was intended for asserting secularism. Therefore, the public servants who are inclusive of teachers as well as Crown prosecutors are supposed to be banned from wearing religious symbols at work. Nonetheless, it has been noted that, in spite of such the Bill 21 is considered to have the most harmful impact as it bans the Muslim women who wears Hijab to stop using such while working in public schools or in other jobs in the public sector. This is supposed to result in disproportionate violation of the rights of women who come from minority religious as well as racialized immigrant communities. Hence, this ban not only causes an impact on the individuals who are presently working in the public sector but it also prevents the youth from aspiring those careers.
In accordance with the statements made by the authors, it can be understood that the utilitarianism concept in human rights identifies the rights as well as the duties of the individuals as such maximize through the individual preference satisfaction that states that rights are instrumental. Therefore, through the theory, it can be carefully measured that, the individuals should not be forced to make any choice between the religion and the identity as well as their profession as the government would not be permitted to impose their beliefs on the individuals of Quebec as such would turn out to be dictating. For instance, if women and men choose to wear scarves or hats as well as turbans, they should have the right to freedom of expression as well as religion as they would need to make their own choices without any kind of government interferences. Thus, Bill 21 does not condone such behavior or practices as it prevents the individuals from being free. This is considered to be acting as a discrimination against the individuals working in the public sector as the individuals are being mistreated by the provincial government. However, it has also been stated that, the Bill was introduced and implemented in order to foster adherence to the State religious neutrality as it aimed at providing certain frameworks for the requests of accommodations on the religious grounds.
As per the analysis of the author, it can be noted that, the passing of the Bill 21 is supposed to represent the fulfillment and success of a major campaign promise as such caused an uproar among the religious minorities. Therefore, the public was assured of the objective through Schedule I about the bodies or the government departments as they would be budget-funded which would help in establishing the primary principles of the Bill. In addition to this, Schedule II of the Bill created an aspect in which the persons who were subjected to the prevention on wearing religious symbols were considered to be exercised regarding their functions as the administrative justices were well-thought out be implemented and executed through the Bill. The persons who were supposed to be personnel members of a body for the purposes of measures regarding services with their faces covered were also offered the ban through Schedule III of the Bill. In addition to this, Section 1 to 17 of the Bill directed the provisions to be maintained and implemented as a collective agreement. Thus, the Bill 21 provided laicity on the basis of four principles which were consisting of the separation of state and religions, religious neutrality of the state as well as equality of all the citizens and the freedom of conscience and religion. The principle of equality through this Bill was considered to be maintained as the law was being separated from religious interference. However, it has also been stated that, the equality principle guaranteed equal rights through law as well as freedom but it discriminated against the minority religion in the society as their rights and freedoms had been limited through the Bill which violated and abused the teachings and religious beliefs of the individuals. Due to such, there were specific sectors of individuals who went against the law as it was not equal.
Bill 21 and Human Rights Concepts
Therefore, it can be stated that, in order to maintain equality, the general legal principles need to be formulated as such would acknowledge the pervasiveness of discrimination as well as the weaknesses through the protection of right to equality. However, on the other-hand, the no harm principle was supposed to be widely recognized through the principle of customary international law as these were supposed to be bound by the state and it helped in reducing the control as well as the risk of environmental harm from other states. Therefore, the Bill 21 tried to control the risk of environmental harm by excluding and eliminating religious interference. This was created through the principle of autonomy as the quality of the state being self-governing was considered to grant the independence through the contentious Bill. This helped in executing an autonomous decision through the concept of rationality. The Bill was supposed to justify the reasonableness of the actions and beliefs by offering sensible goals through judicious decision. The Bill speaks about the prohibition of the religious symbols and specifies all the services that would require the individuals to uncover their faces. Thus, this is supposed to bring a significant change as such creates an amendment that requires the inclusion through the Charter’s preamble as it acts as a declaration that affirms the fundamental importance of the state secularism. Nonetheless, in comparison to the Australian rights the legislation is supposed to be ambiguous and unspecific as the common law rights and freedoms are implemented. The presumption of retrospectivity is supposed to be determined through the substantive rights. However, in spite of such the Bill is supposed to be challenging as it invokes a loophole that is rarely used in the Canadian Constitution. The legislation therefore, can be said to have sparked various depictions as the citizens who wear religious symbols express their disagreements and frustration.
Conclusion
Therefore, in conclusion, it can be stated that, the Bill was initiated and implemented to unite the Quebecers and it tried to enact motivation through the civil law tradition as well as distinct social values. However, it historically developed the attachment to state laicity as it was a form of secularism that separated the government from religion. The Bill 21 formalized the prohibition of religious symbols and it was employed before the passage of the legislation had been enforced or implemented. Hence, the bill became a subject of deliberations because it did not go smoothly as it had been criticized by the opposition parties and it affected the religious groups due to its input. However, when the legislation was finally passed through closure, it limited the debate as the bill received several votes. Nevertheless, after its enforcement, the public came in support of this new law as it favored secularism and due to this, the public was in favor of the preventing the wearing of the religious symbols by the civil service employees in the positions of authority. Thus, the Bill was made to protect and respect the religious neutrality by providing importance to secularism.
Al-Kateb v Goodwin [2004] HCA 37
Christie v. York Corporation [1940] S.C.R. 139
Atchue, Daniel Patrick. “Piercing The Veil Of State Laicity In” La Belle Province“: How Québec’s Religious Symbols Ban Violates Article 18 Of The International Covenant On Civil And Political Rights.” American University International Law Review 37.1 (2022): 57-96
Béland, Daniel, André Lecours, and Peggy Schmeiser. “Nationalism, secularism, and ethno-cultural diversity in Quebec.” Journal of Canadian Studies 55.1 (2021): 177-202
Der-Boghossian, Adrineh. “Open Letter re Bill 21-FINAL-FR-letterhead_v2.” (2019)
Dijkema, Brian. “Memo: Hamilton Bill 21 Challenge.” (2022)
Guyver, Jennifer. “Protecting the legitimacy of state violence through laïcité: the case of Quebec.” Religion and Violence in Western Traditions: Selected Studies (2021): 141-156
Ibrahim, Salma. “Religion and the Law: Bill-21 and its Dysfunctionalities: La religion et le droit: la loi 21 et ses dysfonctionnements.” Political Science Undergraduate Review 7.1 (2021): 47-59
Kinsinger, Kristopher. “Quebec’s Bill 21 and the Secular Conceit of Religious Neutrality.” (2020)
Koussens, David. “Nationalistic secularism and the critique of Canadian multiculturalism in Québec.” Citizenship and Belonging in France and North America. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, 2020. 17-32
Lord, Phil. “” It Doesn’t Work!”: The Symbolic Aspect of Law, From the Criminal Law to Bill 21.” (2020)
Mager, Robert. “Quebec’s Act Respecting the Laicity of the State and the Demise of Religion: Scandal or Trial?.” Toronto Journal of Theology 35.2 (2019): 161-175
Megret, Frederic. “Lost in Translation? Bill 21, Human Rights and The Margin of Appreciation.” Human Rights and The Margin of Appreciation (September 13, 2020).“Bill 21 (2020)
Patrick, Margaretta, et al. “Religion and Secularism: Four Myths and Bill 21.” RESEARCH AND STUDIES ON RACE RELATIONS IN CANADA (2021): 30
Van Hout, Marie Claire, and J. S. G. Wells. “The right to health, public health and COVID-19: a discourse on the importance of the enforcement of humanitarian and human rights law in conflict settings for the future management of zoonotic pandemic diseases.” Public Health 192 (2021): 3-7
Bill 21 An Act Respecting the Laicity of the State 2019
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
