Followers of the various controversies in England and Wales about silent prayer in protection zones around abortion clinics– such as the recent conviction of Adam Smith-Connor for praying silently within the area around a clinic in Bournemouth in November 2022 where a public space protection order was in place and refusing to move on when asked to do so – may be interested in the recent development in Quebec, where the Premier, François Legault, has declared that he wants to ban praying in public generally, and that he is considering using s.33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, aka the “notwithstanding clause”, to do so.
Under s.33, the Canadian Parliament or a provincial legislature may pass primary (but not subordinate) legislation to override the fundamental rights set out in s.2 and ss.7-15 of the Charter. Any use of the notwithstanding power must be express rather than implied, and each exercise of the power can only last for five years or less, after which it expires unless Parliament or the legislature re-enacts it under s.33(4) for a further maximum period of five years.
CBC News reports that M Legault told a press conference that “Seeing people praying in the streets, in public parks, is not something we want in Quebec”. His comments came after a report in La Presse about allegations of prayer inside classrooms at Saint-Maxime school in Laval, Quebec.
His remarks seem to have been aimed particularly at Muslim schoolchildren. He is reported as saying:
“We have seen teachers implementing Islamist religious concepts in schools. Teachers who forbid girls from playing sports, among other things. Teachers, we see it again this morning, in Laval, who say prayers in the classrooms of our schools. When we want to pray, we go to a church, we go to a mosque, but not in public places. And yes, we will look at the means by which we can act legally or otherwise.
“Today, I want to send a very clear message to the Islamists. We will fight, and we will never, never accept that people try not to respect the values that are fundamental to Quebec.”
Education Minister Bernard Drainville added that the Government intends to introduce new legislation to “strengthen secularism in our school system”, though he gave no details of what the new legislation would contain. As to the allegations reported in La Presse:
“That’s not our Quebec. Students praying in the classroom, while class is in session, with the teachers there. Hallways used as prayer spaces, in contravention of the directive against prayer in schools … heckling during sex education … that’s not our Quebec.”
Jean-François Roberge, the Minister responsible for laïcité, said that the incidents in the province’s schools were symptoms of a wider problem:
“What we see in the schools seems like the tip of the iceberg. It’s a manifestation of a deeper problem where we see people and institutions that are intentionally trying to influence things, trying to have religious considerations put in our institutions that are somewhat incompatible with the notion of state secularism.”
The suggestion seems to be amendments to strengthen the terms of Quebec’s Loi sur la laïcité de l’État. Both the interim Leader of the Liberal Party, Marc Tanguay, and Québec Solidaire co-spokesperson Ruba Ghazal said that they were open to new legislation or amendment of the existing law.
Why does it matter? The offence is breaching a safe zone, not praying.
I think it does matter because what happens in Canada and/or the USA or elsewhere can influence politicians and others here in the UK.
Banning praying in public in the name of secularism indicated as a possibility in Canada could mean, for example, banning Quaker meetings (or any prayer meeting) in public, banning silent vigils or vigils for peace and so on.
Freedom of religion should mean free to practise in public and free to deny (as in blasphemy).
Canada, maybe; but I’ve never been convinced that the US has any great relevance to the UK in matters of law and religion, because the terms of the First Amendment – “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” – means that the US starts from a position that is completely different from that of the UK.