the more that i listen to the arguments against the secularism bill in quebec, the more i'm beginning to understand the debate as an argument between american and french concepts of secularism.

this was recently released in a statement by the mayor of montreal, who opposes the bill.

that the City of Montreal reaffirm the importance of the secularism of municipal rules debated and passed in our democratic institutions, without regard for the religion of those who make the rules, debate them or apply them.

that is essentially the establishment clause of the first amendment to the united states constitution - it is a quintessentially american way to understand secularism.

the french revolution produced the following statement: 

Article X – No one may be disturbed for his opinions, even religious ones, provided that their manifestation does not trouble the public order established by the law. 

this is a dramatically different statement. whereas the american constitution rejects any sort of law about religion at all, the french revolutionaries rather argued for conditions in which the state has the authority to intervene and produce laws that restrict "religious freedom", under the condition that the religion is troubling the public order as established by the law, which i think is clearly the case when it comes to allowing teachers to bring religious symbols into the classroom.

it wasn't really clear until they wrote it down, but once they did, it became clear what is happening here: the (largely anglophone) opposition is trying to apply an american concept of religious freedom to quebec law, whereas quebeckers are overwhelmingly pushing back with a more francophone conception of it, rooted in their own history and their own revolutionary discourse.

and, what do the laws in canada say? are they more like the establishment clause, that forbids any religious legislation, or more like article X, which sets a condition on appropriate state regulation?

our constitutional and human rights documents simply list "freedom of religion" in a list of freedoms that a person has, with little further clarification. our constitution certainly has nothing at all like an establishment clause, but it does allow for two ways to suspend rights: (1) through judicial interpretation and (2) through the notwithstanding clause. so, our human rights framework when it comes to religion is substantively more similar to that which exists in france than that which exists in the united states.

i haven't changed my views: i support the thrust of the law, but think it should be subject to judicial interpretation to smooth the edges out around it.

but, the arguments coming from the opposition are perhaps demonstrating more about their mindset than they realize.

quebec is not a part of the united states, and does not share a legal or political history with the thirteen colonies. it was rather a rival colony, from an entirely different country, with an entirely different legal tradition, and, whether anybody realizes it or not, showing up in montreal and citing jeffersonian arguments from the united states constitution as an argument against the rights of the state to enforce a policy of secularism is exactly the kind of cultural infringement they're trying to prevent; the more that valerie plante pushes the establishment clause over article X, the more she demonstrates the need for the law.