Introduction

As a political, legal and moral phenomenon that is profoundly shaped by complex and evolving narratives of “states independence and freedom of action” sovereignty remains difficult to define and universally conceptualize.1 And yet, self-determination, formally defined as a people’s right to freely determine “its own political status and freely pursue its economic, social, and cultural development”2 has historically been a crucial component of discourses about sovereignty.  Today, self-determination is widely interpreted – by states and nations, by distinct cultural collectives, and by Indigenous groups. Even so, independent sovereigns face important constraints in claiming this right; notably, their duty towards the principle of responsibility. Indeed, the 1970 Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among states notes that in order for sovereigns to retain their territorial integrity and political unity,  “they must conduct themselves “in compliance of the principles of equal rights of peoples…without distinction as to race, creed or colour.”3 Thus, sovereignty creates conditions for a society to construct public selfhood on the basis of autonomy and national unity; but it also requires that states recognize and protect the integrity of their diverse citizens. 

Under these premises, this paper is guided by the following questions: Do diverse societies have the right to define secularism as a function of sovereignty? Furthermore, in recognition of principles of “religious pluralism, individual freedom… [and] racial and gender non-discrimination”4 enshrined in liberal democracies, what are the limits to secularist and sovereigntist rhetoric? The recently proposed Bill 60 in Quebec – which died as of the 2014 general election5 – is a good case study by which to explore these questions.

It has been argued that assumptions about secularism and sovereignty propagated by Western states render certain arguments to curtail minority rights6 “conceivable and legitimate.“7 These include the notions that secularism generates religious neutrality; that Western discourses of secularism are equally applicable to Christianity and to other religions; and that secularism facilitates open-mindedness and mutual respect among those of diverse faiths.8 Indeed, in a diverse polity, it is imperative to sustain a clear philosophical commitment to the ideals of epistemological egalitarianism and deliberative democracy in political decision-making.9 However, it is equally important to reflect on who sits at the table for deliberation in decisions committing a society to liberal ideals of “freedom, equality, security or secularism”10 and whose voice is heard above others. Indeed, the Şahin Case in Turkey and the burqa bans across Western Europe11 are important examples of recent controversial political decisions surrounding secularism, sovereignty and minority rights and freedoms.

With the recent tabling of Bill 60 in the National Assembly of Quebec, these issues concerning societal right to regulate public space using narratives of secularism and self-determination, and the consequent violations of individual liberty, have been at the forefront of national political discourse in Canada. Indeed, they have propelled fierce debate across the country about the limits and freedoms of multiculturalism and religious pluralism in a sovereign and secular democracy. Thus, this case demonstrates the neglect of the Quebecois nation’s responsibility towards its diverse population as a consequence of its confrontational argument for a secular sovereign identity.

This paper thus begins by providing an assessment of the intersecting relationships between sovereignty, self-determination and secularism in a primarily Western liberal democratic framework,12 citing notable case examples, such as the Şahin Case in Turkey and the burqa ban in France. Then, in the Quebecois context, this paper argues against the recently proposed Bill by problematizing Quebec’s nationalist rhetoric about sovereignty as self-determination and about secularism “as tied to its distinct identity.”13 To further this argument, the paper notes the negative implications this legislation has for true deliberative democracy in its substantial violation of both the Quebecois and Canadian Charters of Rights and Freedoms. The goal of the paper is to ultimately suggest that defining secularism as a substantive component of sovereignty is a highly politicized and deeply problematic endeavour where individual rights and freedoms are concerned.

Sovereignty, Self-Determination and Secularism: The Limits of Regulating Public Space

Broadly defined and continually evolving, sovereignty “remains the essential pillar of the international system”14 as the principle that confers a state its political and legal independence. By comparison, self-determination is a collective right – a right of peoples – to autonomy. Both principles have been variously defined as being in conflict and as interlocking; though there is no doubt that they are mutually dependent. Indeed, “sovereignty is a compound doctrine that is best understood by examining the sovereignty of a state and the sovereignty of peoples.”15

In 1992, the United Nations General Assembly announced the Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities (Res. 47/135) in an effort to promote more effective implementation of the human rights of individuals belonging to minority groups. Certainly, “the General Assembly holds that the promotion and protection of the rights of minorities contributes to the political and social stability of the states in which minorities live and…to the strengthening of friendship and cooperation among peoples and states.”16 By this account, the territorial integrity of a state may in fact be conditional upon its ability to protect the rights of its minorities; that is, “sovereignty and self-determination can be…two sides of the same coin” provided that nondiscrimination  – indeed, accommodation – of diversity and difference “is allowed to be the cohesive gel.”17

In this context, in a multicultural society, can secularism – defined in large part in the Western political imagination18 as the separation of religion from political affairs – be used to assess the limits of responsible sovereignty? Put differently, how far can states go in defining and regulating a secular public morality as a function of sovereignty? Certainly, secularism is widely interpreted by those nations and states that employ it as a fundamental principle; for instance, Turkish secularism emphasizes a modern, democratic state with an “active neutrality” towards religion.19 French laicité connotes something vaguely similar, where “the Republic neither recognizes, nor salaries, nor subsidizes any religion” and maintains strict neutrality with regards to the presence of religion in the public sphere.20 By contrast, the “separation of Church and States” in the United States is rooted in the notion that the American legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”  21

In each case, in its diverse forms, secularism has been constructed as a constitutive feature of sovereign identity, in part by its “attempt to delimit the terms and boundaries of the political and to define religion as a private counterpart to politics.”22 While this may be a reasonable political decision, it is notable that “religious beliefs and practices are interwoven in complex and changing ways that don’t [always] align with states boundaries or conventional secularist assumptions.”23 Accordingly then, does defining secularism as a function of sovereignty ultimately grant states the authority to deny individuals their right to religious freedom – and hence, their right to internal self-determination? Indeed, Wendy Brown has noted that certain assumptions of modern Western secularism have allowed multicultural states to regulate the public sphere in such a way that legitimates the curtailing of certain collective rights and freedoms,24 though she also asserts that these assumptions do not prevent the violation of “the most basic precepts of individual and religious freedom in liberal democracies” nor do they advance the goals of liberty, equality and religious neutrality that secularism is originally intended to achieve.25

Secular States and Normative Dresses

Notable examples of this secularist contradiction made in the name of sovereignty include the Şahin case in Turkey (2005) and the ban on head/face covering in France (2010). In the case of Leyla Şahin vs. Turkey, for instance, in which a fifth-year medical student was prohibited from attending University while wearing a headscarf, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) proclaimed that in upholding the role of the states as “a neutral and impartial organizer” of religious harmony and democracy, it is legitimate to “impose limitations in order to reconcile the interests of various groups and ensure the respect for the convictions of each.”  26  The assumption here is that secularism promotes religious neutrality and democratic inclusion. In fact, the Turkish Constitutional Court has previously ruled that, “secularism is the civil organizer of political, social and cultural life, based on national sovereignty, democracy, freedom and science.”27  Thus, in using principles of modernity, democracy and equality to justify a breach in Şahin’s freedom of conscience, Turkey effectively created a precedent for interpreting Article 9 of the ECHR (whose purpose is to protect religious freedom) as a function of a States’ unique interests in upholding public order.28  Moreover, by limiting women’s access to higher education, Turkey’s employment of secularism ultimately compromised its sovereign responsibility towards its citizens.

By comparison, when the ban on head/face covering – La loi interdissant la dissimulation du visage dans l’espace public – was introduced as a follow up to the French law on secularity and conspicuous religious symbols in schools (law 2004-228), the French President at the time, Nicholas Sarkozy, justified it on the basis of upholding French secularism in addition to keeping public order, even if it infringed upon individual liberty, freedom of conscience and freedom of religion.29 Based in the presumption that Western secularism promotes gender equality and that it applies equally to the epistemological foundations of all faiths, this burqa ban was expressly supported using sovereigntist rhetoric. In fact, similar to its response to the Şahin case, the ECHR has continually echoed Sarkozy’s argument in this and in similar decisions, noting its support for “laicité when it is a fundamental value of the States.”30 This case is thus also illustrative of the clear limits of using secularist rhetoric to advance the goals of sovereignty, particularly where individual liberties are concerned.

Given the complex and problematic relationship between sovereignty, self-determination and Western secularism, the case of the Quebec Charter of Values – la charte des valeurs québécoises – is thereby unique in this analysis, particularly since Quebec is a minority nation in Canada struggling for the right to self-determination at the same time that it struggles with questions of internal diversity. Certainly, the Quebecois identity has historically been politically defined by a unique culture of Catholic secularism31 in addition to a distinct French-Canadian linguistic heritage. This self-identification makes the relationship between sovereignty, self-determination and secularism in Quebec particularly complex; moreover, it renders the proposed Charter of Values unconstitutional and inconsistent with Canadian state’s imperatives regarding religio-cultural pluralism. The remainder of this paper concentrates on this argument as an ultimate illustration of the conceits of Western secularism.

A Secular Sovereign Nation? Quebec’s Charter of Values

History & Background

As a function of Quebec’s enduring ethnic nationalism and quest for the right to self-determination, the Quebec National Assembly passed the controversial Bill 99 in the wake of the Clarity Act in 2000, which distinctly states that “The Quebec people [have] the inalienable legal right to freely decide the political regime and legal status of Quebec.”32 Furthermore, in November 2006, the Canadian House of Commons passed a motion officially recognizing Quebec as “a nation within a united Canada”33 though there continues to be considerable uncertainty over what this implies. Both decisions have recently come under immense scrutiny with The Parti Quebecois (PQ)’s official proposal of Bill 60 – a Charter affirming the values of States secularism and religious neutrality and the equality between women and men, and providing a framework for accommodation requests – known as the Quebec Charter of Values, in September 2013. Indeed, this Bill has proposed to amend the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms (CHRF) and ban the wearing of ‘ostentatious’ religious symbols – such as a kippah, a turban, a hijab/niqab and a larger pendant bearing a crucifix – among public servants with the objective of “establishing the religious neutrality of the States.”34

This cause is seen as particularly legitimate in the eyes of the PQ and supporters of the Charter given Quebec’s unique history and national identity. Indeed, Bernard Drainville, Minister of Democratic Institutions and Active Citizenship, has noted that since Quebec’s Quiet Revolution in the 1960s, the nation has been actively working to separate religion from state affairs; and that the proposed Charter will be a grand step in this effort to foster secularism in addition to retaining unique elements of Québécois heritage.35

The goal of the Charter of Values is not exceptional; indeed, the 2007/08 Bouchard-Taylor Commission on Reasonable Accommodation brought to the fore a number of critical and complex issues surrounding religious accommodation and social cohesion in Quebec.36 Created in response to a number of politicized events, particularly a ‘code of conduct’ proposed by the town of Hérouxville stipulating norms and values to be followed by newcomers and religious minorities, the Commission began the process of setting formal rules governing religious accommodation within the bounds of the Quebecois principle of interculturalism.37 Accordingly and despite fierce opposition,

Premier Pauline Marois’ government has vowed to forge ahead with the Charter of Values, whose aim is to consolidate and concretize these rules “to preserve social peace and promote cohesion” in a secular Quebecois nation “that treats everyone equally.”38

An Argument Against Quebec’s Charter of Values

Proposed in the name of Quebecois sovereignty – distinctly defined by its secularist objectives – there have been significant concerns underlying the Quebec Charter of Values that are illustrative of the enduring bond between politics and religion in Quebec; that undermine the PQ’s attempt to establish a neutral, harmonious and equitable States; and that ultimately render the Charter unconstitutional in Canada.

The essential argument against the Charter is grounded in both legal principles and in normative concerns; that is to say, Bill 60 is both unconstitutional and inconsistent with Canadian sociopolitical commitments towards freedom of conscience and religion. This argument follows the principal logic that Quebec is not a sovereign state, but a nation within the Canadian Federation.39 Thus, while it has a provincial CHRF, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (CCRF) ultimately retains constitutional supremacy. Even as a nation, the proposed Bill violates the fundamental right of Quebecois citizens to internal self-determination, ultimately undermining its sovereigntist project.  Key issues that support this argument against Bill 60 include primarily its violation of religious freedom as protected by both the Quebec and Canadian Charters; but also its pseudo-secularist character; and the Islamophobic nature of its claims to gender equality.

  1. A Violation of Religious Freedom as Protected by the Charters of Rights and Freedoms in Quebec and Canada

Mary Anne Waldron has noted that the freedom of conscience and religion have a large role to play in promoting a more open, cohesive, and democratic society.40 Accordingly, in Canada, any legislation affecting the freedom of conscience and religion, among other freedoms that are guaranteed by provincial charters and by the CCRF, can be challenged in Canadian courts. While the PQ has proposed to make several amendments to Québec’s CHRF – including inserting in the Preamble the affirmation that “the separation of religions and States and the religious neutrality and secular nature of the States are fundamental values of the Quebec nation” – Bill 60 has been severely challenged on account of its substantial violation of the Charter’s integrity.41 Moreover, it commits the same breach of rights under the Canadian Charter, particularly in its limiting of access to employment, its ranking of gender equality above racial/cultural equality (rather than promoting reconciliation), and its disregard for the primacy of freedom of conscience over religious dogma.42 Such a violation will not withstand scrutiny by Canadian courts, given the CCRF’s constitutional supremacy, Quebec’s current status as a nation within a united Canada, and Canada’s international duty as a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).

Constitutional and International Law professor at Université de Montréal, Daniel Turp has prominently argued in defense of Bill 60 noting that both Québec’s CHRF and the CCRF can be subject to limitations. Indeed, he relies on the Şahin case before the ECHR to stipulate that the measures of the Bill have been “carefully designed to achieve the objective of organizing the states around the principles of religious neutrality, separation of religion and states and the secular nature of its institutions, as well as to clarify how these principles are embodied.”43

The logic of Turp’s argument is flawed: Turkey is a sovereign State while Quebec is not; for Québec to define the nature of its secular character, in clear violation of the CCRF, is beyond its mandate as a province of Canada. Moreover, the Bill only establishes a half-hearted claim for self-determination and secularism, guided by a deeply discriminatory political agenda. Certainly, while Quebec’s struggles with increasing religio-cultural diversity are plainly evident in this proposal, so too is its neglect of the precarious status of its Indigenous Peoples, whose arduous history is not acknowledged by the Bill. By denying Indigenous Quebecois and newcomers the right to internal self-determination; rejecting the constitutional relationship between Quebec and Canada; and creating a wedge between what may be religious edict and what may be steeped in religio-cultural consciousness, Bill 60 is committing a fundamental violation of individual rights and freedoms as they are protected by both the Québec and Canadian Charters.

  1. Quebec’s Pseudo-Secularism

As aforementioned, the lines between politics and religion in most Western secular States are blurred at best. This is also the case with Bill 60; in fact, Charles Taylor, Co-commissioner of the Bouchard-Taylor Commission, has fiercely argued against the Bill, noting that the proposal would impose an image of neutrality by denying equal rights to everyone, particularly religious minorities. Certainly, the Commission Report had outlined a clear vision of “open secularism” for Quebec in 2007/08, declaring that, “the integration process in a diversified society is achieved through exchanges between citizens, who thus learn to get to know each other…and not by relegating identities to the background.”44 Thus, Taylor has asserted that by claiming religious neutrality in the proposal, the States has simply failed to understand religious differences.45

It is notable that the conspicuous religious symbols to be banned by the Bill are predominately of a non-Christian nature; moreover, the large crucifix in the Quebec National Assembly has been defended by the PQ as an “expression of the province’s patrimony, of a long cultural-religious tradition…” while “sainted towns, streets and landmarks” remain provincial signifiers.46 Bill 60 is thus a fundamentally politically motivated proposal, driven by Quebec’s discriminatory sovereigntist movement rather than by pure secularist objectives.47

  1. Framing Racism as Feminism

Brown has noted in her analysis that one of the primary conceits of Western secularism is the assumption that it will generate gender equality; indeed, she states that “almost every defense of the burqa bans… identifies as their twin purpose preserving religious neutrality in the public sphere and commitment to gender equality.”48 Consistent with this point, supporters of Bill 60 – amongst them many prominent Quebecois women – insist that the Charter of Values is vital for the protection of gender equality in Quebec, as expressed in the proposed amendment to the Preamble of Quebec’s CHRF, which states that equality between the sexes is a fundamental value of the Quebecois nation.49

Contrarily, as Taylor argues, this claim is masked by an Islamophobia that has pervaded the public sphere since the Hérouxville controversy and that has surged with the proposed Bill.50 Indeed, many supporters have openly questioned in their defense of the Charter the argument that Muslim women cover their head and/or face by choice; in fact, actress and director Denise Filiatrault recently declared that, “These are stories that men tell… When women don’t wear it, they get in trouble . . . and when that doesn’t work they are drowned in a lake.”51 Janette Bertrand, a prominent Quebec author, has similarly insisted that women who wear the Muslim veil have been “manipulated to become religious objects” and are being exploited as a result.52 These observations – among many – exemplify the racial and religious discrimination being propagated with the belief that the Charter will usher in gender equality and liberty.

There are a number of contentious issues here; notably, the problematic framing of gender equality as key to Quebec’s secularist States objective, and thus instrumental to the nation’s sovereignty. Such framing is problematic because it compares “degrees of women’s lack of freedom and equality across cultures, rather than to consider freedom and equality in terms of parameters, textures and relation to the powers constructing, organizing and positioning subjects.”53 Additionally, much like the Şahin case did in Turkey, and much like the burqa ban in France continues to do, this discourse of Quebecois secularism associated with Bill 60 actually denies women of religious minorities equality of opportunity and equal access to employment rather than securing them greater freedom in the public sphere. This, in turn, is a violation of Section 1 of the CCRF and is difficult to justify to the contrary.

It is thus apparent that the relationship between sovereignty, self-determination and secularism in Quebec is particularly complex; and that the Charter of Values is a good case by which to examine the place of Western secularism in defining and regulating public space, in promoting democracy, equality and liberty and in fulfilling the duties of a responsible sovereign in the 21st century.

Conclusion

Operating under the presumption that no state or nation can use its sovereignty – or its claim thereof – to deny any individual or group a set of basic freedoms, this paper has attempted to expose the limits of sovereigntist rhetoric through the lens of Western political secularism; that is, it has aimed to unpack recent claims to religious neutrality as justification for limiting the freedom of conscience and religion, particularly among minorities, in a multicultural society. To do this, the paper has first explored the complex relationship between sovereignty, self-determination and secularism in the Western political imagination, after which it has focused on the fierce debates surrounding the recently proposed (and since dismissed) Quebec Charter of Values as demonstrative of the moral and pragmatic issues surrounding these principles. Recognizing the results of the 2014 election – wherein the victorious Liberal Party of Quebec dismissed the proposed bill – the central argument in this paper has challenged the legality of the Quebec Charter in addition to noting its inconsistency with the Canadian (and Quebecois) traditions of open secularism, equality and liberty as set out in the Quebec CHRF and the CCRF; and pointing to its deeply political and discriminatory character.

As a note of conclusion, Waldron’s call for a re-assessment of Western secularism seems fitting:

We need to…do some serious thinking about how … we as individuals reflect on, debate and decide about matters that are…influenced by conflicts in belief.  These include conflicts about religion…but also about secularism and about other commitments of conscience that drive our decision-making processes.54

As implied by Waldron, a sovereign state is by nature, not neutral; rather, decision-making is always guided by political agendas and normative beliefs.  Thus, in order to fulfill its responsibility to its citizens, the States has a duty to recognize these normative concerns in the creation of a truly deliberative democracy and in the protection and promotion of individual rights and freedoms.  While the Quebec nation is not a sovereign state, and Bill 60 has exemplified its violation of the Canadian constitution; it has also demonstrated an ethnic nationalism that has unfailingly used sovereigntist and secularist rhetoric to neglect the rights and freedoms of its diverse population.

Along with similar debates across the Middle East and Western Europe, the Quebec Charter of Values is thus a good case by which to reassess modern definitions of public morality in the creation of participatory sovereign democracies.

Bibliography
  • Araujo, Father Robert. “Sovereignty, Human Rights, and Self-Determination: The Meaning of International Law.” Fordham International Law Journal 24.5 (2000): 1477-1532.
  • Astier, Henri. “The deep roots of French secularism.” BBC News Online 1 September, 2004. 5 December, 2013.
  • Bill 60: Charter affirming the values of States secularism and religious neutrality and of equality between women and men, and providing a framework for accommodation requests. National Assembly, 2013.
  • Bill 99: An Act respecting the exercise of the fundamental rights and prerogatives of the Québec people and the Québec States. National Assembly. 2000.
  • Bouchard, Gérard and Charles Taylor. Building the Future: A Time for Reconciliation. Report.  Commission De Consultation Sur Les Pratiques D’Accommodment Reliés Aux Différences Culturelles. Gouvernement du Québec. 2008.
  • Brown, Wendy. “Civilizational Delusions: Secularism, Tolerance, Equality.” In Theory and Event 15.2 (2012).
  • Case of Leyla Şahin vs. Turkey. Judgment. European Court of Human Rights. Application No. 44774/98. Strasbourg. 10 November, 2005.
  • Fidelman, Charlie. “Taylor, Turp kick off three-day symposium on charter of values at McGill.” The Montreal Gazette 3 October, 2013. 7 December, 2013.
  • Fine, Sean. “Is Québec’s secular charter constitutional? Nine legal experts weigh in.” Globe and Mail 14 September, 2013. 6 December, 2013.
  • Gardom, Judith. ’Religion in Contemporary Society’: Turkey — Aspects of the relationship between religion, education and the secular states in Turkey. Farmington Report. Cambridge, June 2010.
  • Hanna, Roya M. “Right to Self-Determination in In Re Secession of Quebec.” Maryland Journal of International Law 23.1 (1999): 213-246.
  • Hannum, Hurst. Autonomy, Sovereignty and Self-Determination. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1990.
  • Hoopes, Talviki. “The Leyla Şahin v. Turkey Case Before the European Court of Human Rights.” Chinese Journal of International Law 5.3 (2006): 719-722.
  • “House passes motion recognizing Québécois as nation.” CBC News 27 November, 2006. 6 December, 2013.
  • Hrymark, Haley. “Opinion: Québec values charter runs counter to gender equality.” The Montreal Gazette 14 November, 2013. 7 December, 2013.
  • Hurd, Elizabeth Shakman. “Politics of Secularism and IR.” Novermber, 2008.  In Haynes, Jeffrey et al, Eds. The Sacred and the Sovereign: A Compendium of Pieces from e-IR on Religion and International Relations. August 2011.
  • Jefferson, Thomas. “Jefferson’s Letter to the Danbury Baptists: The Final Letter, as Sent.” The Library of Congress Information Bulletin. June, 1998. 8 December, 2013.
  • Kooijmns, P.H. “Tolerance, Sovereignty and Self-Determination.” Netherlands International Law Review 43.2 (1996): 211-217.
  • Kuru, Ahmet.  “The Rise of Assertive Secularism and the Multiculturalist Challenge: 1989-2008” in Secularism and States Politics Towards Religion: The United States, France and Turkey. New York, NY: Cambridge UP, 2009.
  • “National Assembly’s crucifix is a Duplessis-era bond between politics and religion.” Globe and Mail 28 August, 2013. 7 December, 2013.
  • Patel, Nazeer. “Religious accommodation: A new front in Québec’s sovereignty battle?” The Globe and Mail. 11 July, 2011. 30 November, 2013.
  • Patriquin, Martin. “Filiatrault’s argument for the Québec values charter is pure hypocrisy.” Macleans 18 October, 2013. 7 December, 2013.
  • Promoting and Protecting Minority Rights: A Guide for Advocates. Publication. Geneva and New York: Office for the High Commissioner of Human Rights (OHCHR), 2012.
  • Shahid, Aliyah. “French Senate, agreeing with President Nicolas Sarkozy, bans women from wearing burkas in public.” New York Daily News 14 September, 2010. 6 December, 2013.
  • Simpson, Evan. “Practical Reasonableness: Some Epistemic Issues.” In Value Inquiry 47 (2013): 135-145.
  • Taylor, Charles. A Secular Age. Harvard University Press, 2007.
  • Todd, Sharon. “Ambiguities of Cosmopolitanism: Difference, Gender and the Right to Education.” In Education in the Era of Globalization. Roth, Klas and Ilan Gur-Ze’ev, Eds. The Netherlands: Springer, 2007, 65-82.
  • The Québec Charter of Values: Five Propositions. Gouvernement du Québec 8 December, 2013.
  • UN General Assembly, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, adopted 16 December, 1966, entry into force 3 January, 1976. United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 993, p. 3.
  • Waldron, Mary Anne. Free to Believe: Rethinking Freedom of Conscience and Religion in Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2013.
  • Woods, Allan. “Québec’s proposed charter violates religious freedom, says rights watchdog.” Toronto Star 17 October, 2013. 7 December, 2013.
  •  Yasmin, Lailufar. “Crisis of modernity and secularism: The cases of Egypt, Turkey and Bangladesh.” openDemocracy 17 August, 2013. 4 December, 2013.

Contributor Biography: Amrita Kumar-Ratta

Amrita Kumar-Ratta holds a BA (Hon.) in International Development Studies and World Religions from McGill University and has received a Master’s Degree in Global Affairs from the Munk School at the University of Toronto.  She is passionate about issues of transnational migration, religio-cultural diversity and women’s rights. Along with her experience participating in various community-building projects in Canada and internationally and her recent appointment as a research analyst for the UNDP in Bangkok, she continues to conduct research on gender-based discrimination among South Asians in Canada. Trained in theatre and North Indian classical dance (Kathak) and currently learning Brazilian Zouk, Amrita lives for self-expression through performing arts.

  1. Hannum, Hurst. Autonomy, Sovereignty and Self-Determination. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1990, 14-15. ↩

  2. UN General Assembly, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, adopted 16 December, 1966, entry into force 3 January, 1976. United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 993, p. 3. ↩

  3. Resolution 2625, 1970 Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among states, Cited in Kooijmns, P.H. “Tolerance, Sovereignty and Self-Determination.” Netherlands International Law Review 43.2 (1996): 212. ↩

  4. Brown, Wendy. “Civilzational Delusions: Secularism, Tolerance, Equality.” In Theory and Event 15.2 (2012). ↩

  5. Despite Bill 60 being dead as of the 41st Quebec general election, the issues the Bill has raised remain politically relevant. Thus, while an argument against the bill may be formally outdated, the implications of widespread support for the bill remain. ↩

  6. I am using the term ‘minority’ here and throughout this paper in reference to contexts in which visible differences in race, religion and culture so often serve as the basis for discrimination. While this may not directly apply to the Turkish context, it is notable that Turkish secularism (laiklik) actually borrows from the French laicité in its discursive attempt to move away from Islam and towards secular and democratic modernization. ↩

  7. Brown, Wendy. “Civilizational Delusions: Secularism, Tolerance, Equality.” In Theory and Event 15.2 (2012). ↩

  8. Ibid. ↩

  9. For reference, see Simpson, Evan. “Practical Reasonableness: Some Epistemic Issues.” In Value Inquiry 47 (2013): 135. ↩

  10. Brown, “Civilzational Delusions.” ↩

  11. Countries where burqa bans have been implemented include France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Barcelona and the Hesse state of Germany. Ibid. ↩

  12. While the focus of this paper is the experiences of Western liberal democratic states on issues of sovereignty, self-determination and secularism, it is important to briefly note that similar conversations about these issues are currently making headlines in predominately Muslim communities (e.g., Egypt). ↩

  13. Patel, Nazeer. “Religious accommodation: A new front in Québec’s sovereignty battle?” The Globe and Mail. 11 July, 2011. 30 November, 2013 < http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/religious-accommodation-a-new-front-in-Québecs-sovereignty-battle/article586449/>. ↩

  14. Joseph Cassar, The Rights of Nations, Global Research Monograph Series, Center for Global Education, St.John’s University, New York, No. 004, Nov. 1997, at 31., Cited in Araujo, Father Robert. “Sovereignty, Human Rights, and Self-Determination: The Meaning of International Law.” Fordham International Law Journal 24.5 (2000): 1477. ↩

  15. Ibid, 1482. ↩

  16. Promoting and Protecting Minority Rights: A Guide for Advocates. Publication. Geneva and New York: Office for the High Commissioner of Human Rights (OHCHR), 2012, 154. ↩

  17. Koojimns, “Tolerance”, 217. ↩

  18. In this paper I am primarily using a Western political definition of secularism, with its roots in Enlightenment thought, as the principle is diversely expressed in North America, Western Europe, Australia, and in certain areas of the Middle East (i.e., Turkey, Egypt, etc.). Such a definition of secularism, in many cases, follows the logic that modernization and secularization are intrinsically linked; in other cases, secularism has been seen as the process by which religion is protected from government interference. See Yasmin, Lailufar. “Crisis of modernity and secularism: The cases of Egypt, Turkey and Bangladesh.” openDemocracy 17 August, 2013. 4 December, 2013. ↩

  19. Secularism in Turkey began by the reforms of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk in 1924. Gardom, Judith. ’Religion in Contemporary Society’: Turkey — Aspects of the relationship between religion, education and the secular state in Turkey. Farmington Report. Cambridge, June 2010, 17. ↩

  20. Laicité is a byproduct of the French Revolution. See 1905 French Law on the Separation of the Churches State (Article 2), Cited in Kuru, Ahmet.  “The Rise of Assertive Secularism and the Multiculturalist Challenge: 1989-2008” in Secularism and State Politics Towards Religion: The United States, France and Turkey. New York, NY: Cambridge UP, 2009, 115. See also Astier, Henri. “The deep roots of French secularism.” BBC News Online 1 September, 2004. 5 December, 2013. ↩

  21. Jefferson, Thomas. “Jefferson’s Letter to the Danbury Baptists: The Final Letter, as Sent.” The Library of Congress Information Bulletin. June, 1998. 8 December, 2013. ↩

  22. Hurd, Elizabeth Shakman. “Politics of Secularism and IR.” November, 2008.  In Haynes, Jeffrey et al, Eds. The Sacred and the Sovereign: A Compendium of Pieces from e-IR on Religion and International Relations. August 2011, 11. ↩

  23. Ibid, 12. ↩

  24. These assumptions are mentioned in the introduction to this paper and are demonstrated in brief in the descriptions of the Şahin case and the ban on head/face covering that follow. ↩

  25. Brown, “Civilizational Delusions.” ↩

  26. Daniel Turp’s defence of Québec’s Charter of Values, Cited in Fine, Sean. “Is Québec’s secular charter constitutional? Nine legal experts weigh in.” Globe and Mail 14 September, 2013. 6 December, 2013. ↩

  27. Quoted by Constitutional Court Judges in a judgment made in March 1989; cited as historical material in Case of Leyla Şahin vs. Turkey. Judgment. European Court of Human Rights. Application No. 44774/98. Strasbourg. 10 November, 2005. ↩

  28. Hoopes, Talviki. “The Leyla Şahin v. Turkey Case Before the European Court of Human Rights.” Chinese Journal of International Law 5.3 (2006): 719-722. ↩

  29. Shahid, Aliyah. “French Senate, agreeing with President Nicolas Sarkozy, bans women from wearing burkas in public.” New York Daily News 14 September, 2010. 6 December, 2013 < http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/french-senate-agreeing-president-nicolas-sarkozy-bans-women-wearing-burkas-public-article-1.189505>.  ↩

  30. Stasi Commission Report (2003), 59, translated by Todd, Sharon. “Ambiguities of Cosmopolitanism: Difference, Gender and the Right to Education.” In Education in the Era of Globalization. Roth, Klas and Ilan Gur-Ze’ev, Eds. The Netherlands: Springer, 2007, 76. ↩

  31. It is notable that Québec’s secularism is rooted in the French Catholic tradition at the same time that it claims opposition to religion and religious institutions. Moreover, prior to the proposed Bill 60, the Bouchard-Taylor Commission actually interpreted the Québec tradition to be one of ‘open secularism’ rather than religious neutrality. This history is illustrative of the blurred lines between religion and politics that makes Québec’s appeal to secularism as essential to its sovereigntist movement problematic.  ↩

  32. The Federal Clarity Act states that clear majority support on a clear referendum question would be needed in order to negotiate secession; in response to this, Québec’s Bill 99 declares that a clear vote of 50 plus one in favour of independence should be considered enough for Québec to secede from Canada. In October 2013, the Québec National Assembly universally condemned a court battle against Bill 99.  See Bill 99: An Act respecting the exercise of the fundamental rights and prerogatives of the Québec people and the Québec State. National Assembly. 2000, chapter 1. ↩

  33. “House passes motion recognizing Québécois as nation.” CBC News 27 November, 2006. 6 December, 2013. ↩

  34. The restrictions on conspicuous religious symbols apply to the following employees of the state: personnel in ministries and organizations; state personnel with power to impose sanctions; daycare personnel; school board personnel; cégep and university personnel; public health network and social services personnel; and municipal personnel. See The Québec Charter of Values: Five Propositions. Gouvernement du Québec 8 December, 2013. ↩

  35. Ibid. ↩

  36. See Waldron, Mary Anne. Free to Believe: Rethinking Freedom of Conscience and Religion in Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2013, 54. ↩

  37. Described as distinct from multiculturalism, interculturalism in Québec, as described by the Bouchard-Taylor Commission Report, “is in the interests of any community to maintain a minimum of cohesion…create the feeling of solidarity required for an egalitarian society to function smoothly…” Bouchard, Gérard and Charles Taylor. Building the Future: A Time for Reconciliation. Report.  Commission De Consultation Sur Les Pratiques D’Accommodment Reliés Aux Différences Culturelles. Gouvernement du Québec. 2008, 19. ↩

  38. This fierce opposition includes Bouchard and Taylor, whose report outlines a very different vision of secularism in Québec. The quotes included here are my own translation. The original text from which this excerpt is taken, appears on the Government website for the Charter of Values: “Pour preserver la paix sociale et favoriser la cohésion…nous serons mieux servis par un État qui nous traite toutes et tous également.” The Québec Charter of Values 8 December, 2013. ↩

  39. It is important to recognize that “the principle of federalism recognizes the diversity of the component parts of the Confederation, and the autonomy of provincial governments to develop their societies within their respective spheres of jurisdiction.” However, this autonomy refers explicitly to the “right to develop culturally and politically…” which does not “confer the right to secede.” Hanna, Roya M. “Right to Self-Determination in In Re Secession of Quebec.” Maryland Journal of International Law 23.1 (1999): 218. ↩

  40. Waldron, Free to Believe. 5. ↩

  41. See Bill 60: Charter affirming the values of state secularism and religious neutrality and of equality between women and men, and providing a framework for accommodation requests. National Assembly, 2013, Chapter 11.  See also Woods, Allan. “Québec’s proposed charter violates religious freedom, says rights watchdog.” Toronto Star 17 October, 2013. 7 December, 2013. ↩

  42. Argument of Julius Grey, Human Rights Lawyer in Montreal, Cited in Fine. “Is Québec’s secular charter constitutional?” 7 December, 2013. ↩

  43. Ibid. ↩

  44. Bouchard and Taylor. Building the Future, 20. ↩

  45. Fidelman, Charlie. “Taylor, Turp kick off three-day symposium on charter of values at McGill.” The Montreal Gazette 3 October, 2013. 7 December, 2013. ↩

  46. See Fine. “Is Québec’s secular charter constitutional?” 7 December, 2013; See also “National Assembly’s crucifix is a Duplessis-era bond between politics and religion.” Globe and Mail 28 August, 2013. 7 December, 2013. ↩

  47. Indeed, Taylor has argued that “the secular age must yield once again to the ongoing need for religion” rather than attempting to aggressively separate politics and religion and perpetuating inequalities. Taylor, Charles. A Secular Age. Harvard University Press, 2007, 654-659. ↩

  48. Brown, “Civilizational Delusions.” ↩

  49. See Bill 60, Chapter 11. ↩

  50. Since October, the Québec Collective Against Islamophobia has received 117 complaints of discrimination against Muslim women, most of whom were wearing the headscarf.  See Hrymark, Haley. “Opinion: Québec values charter runs counter to gender equality.” The Montreal Gazette 14 November, 2013. 7 December, 2013. ↩

  51. This quote is taken from a radio show (98.5 with Paul Arcand) that Ms. Filiatrault appeared in. She has since apologized for this – and similar – statements about veiled Muslim women. See Patriquin, Martin. “Filiatrault’s argument for the Québec values charter is pure hypocrisy.” Macleans 18 October, 2013. 7 December, 2013. ↩

  52. Woods, Allan. “Québec’s proposed charter violates religious freedom, says rights watchdog.” Toronto Star 17 October, 2013. 7 December, 2013. ↩

  53. This point is interesting given that the whole of Canada frames gender equality through a culturalist lens. Brown, “Civilizational Delusions.” ↩

  54. Waldron. Free to Believe, 5. ↩