Crucifixes in public buildings are protected
The Legault government has discreetly protected crucifixes from legal actions that could have forced public institutions to take them down. An amendment added at the last minute in the hours preceding the adoption of the State Secularity Act in June,
prevents any citizen from demanding the withdrawal of a religious symbol.
"The government is neutralizing any legal action," said the professor specializing in human rights and freedoms Louis-Philippe Lampron,
in an interview at Le Devoir .
If the first draft of Bill 21 had been adopted as it was, atheist citizens could have launched a lawsuit to bring the court to settle the issue of religious symbols still hanging on the walls of public schools and hospitals. It would then have been necessary to prove that the crucifix had a religious and not patrimonial value, as had been done by the Quebec Secular Movement against Prayer in the Saguenay, said Mr. Lampron.
However, Article 17 added during the gag of 16 June states that the principle of secularism of the state can not be interpreted to require that parliamentary, governmental and judicial institutions remove or modify the religious symbols in their buildings
- crucifix, cross , statues - whether removable or not.
"By adding that, we are giving the equivalent of a heritage value to any religious symbol already hanging in public institutions,
" said the specialist. If it is on a building, you can not ask to withdraw it. "
This uniform rule goes further than the protection that was first offered in the bill
"to the emblematic or toponymic elements of Quebec's cultural heritage".
Deputy Minister of Immigration Simon Jolin-Barrette confirmed this interpretation. "The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the law has no effect on any building or furniture that adorns a building," said Élisabeth Gosselin by email.
The elements thus protected are so regardless of the religion to which they are associated. "
The government has instead decided to give public bodies the choice to win or not the crucifixes of their walls,
as was done out of sight by the National Assembly on Tuesday.
The equivalent of a heritage value to any religious symbol already hanging in public institutions
- Louis-Philippe Lampron
The Minister of Education, Jean-François Roberge, and the Minister of Health, Danielle McCann, have chosen, the day after the adoption of the law, not to lay down guidelines to get this religious symbol, unlike their colleague Sonia LeBel who asked
for the removal of the 17 crucifixes hanging in the courtrooms of Quebec courthouses.
This case-by-case approach is undesirable, according to Louis-Philippe Lampron. He believes that the Quebec government should have sorted out the law as soon as it was passed. "A pragmatic solution, especially in a process of secularism, is to ask a before and after," he explained. It had been done in France in 1905, he said. There was a before and after in the Church and State Separation Act. "
France had then prohibited "to raise or affix any sign or religious emblem on public monuments" or public sites, with the exception of places of worship, cemeteries and museums, after the promulgation of its law.
New crucifixes allowed
Nothing in Quebec law prevents a public institution from hanging new religious symbols on its walls, even though it also states that citizens have
"the right to parliamentary, governmental and judicial institutions".
"The addition is not prohibited, but the government obviously invites all people to start thinking about the principle of secularism of the state that is established with the law and to respect it," confirmed press secretary to Minister Jolin-Barrette.
The State Secularism Act could therefore protect recent religious symbols. According to Louis-Philippe Lampron, it would have been preferable for the government to consult historians to choose a date from which religious symbols can no longer be considered as having the equivalent of a heritage value. An example would be to choose the end of the Quiet Revolution.
Except that this value is measured first by the meaning given to the object of worship, according to the retired professor of art history Laurier Lacroix. "It's more a question of how we identify ourselves and how we consider an object of the past," he explained.
"The idea of a date should not be the main thing," he added. It is the importance, the value,
the meaning of that object [that matters] rather than a specific date of realization. "
For example, by winning the crucifix of the Blue Salon, the National Assembly has removed a political and religious role to give it a heritage role.
The case-by-case approach therefore remains the best way of sorting, according to the art historian, because it makes it possible to judge each religious symbol in its context and to determine whether it retains an aesthetic or historical value. .
Little jurisprudence
The Supreme Court has never decided the question of religious symbols hanging in public buildings. The question had been submitted by Alain Simoneau, the citizen who sued the City of Saguenay and then-mayor Jean Tremblay, to end the prayer at City Hall in 2008. He was then supported by the Quebec Secular Movement. His complaint to the Commission on Human Rights also concerned the crucifix and a statue of the Sacred Heart in the halls of the city council. However, the Commission only chose to investigate the prayer for a reason that it never explained publicly. The case went to the Supreme Court which, due to lack of investigation, did not pronounce itself on the presence of these religious symbols at City Hall. The Human Rights Tribunal had first ordered the City to withdraw them, but the Court of Appeal then concluded that it did not have jurisdiction to do so. She had nevertheless considered that it was "objects of art stripped of religious connotation" and thus they did not interfere "with the religious neutrality of the State". The statue and the crucifix have since been removed.
prevents any citizen from demanding the withdrawal of a religious symbol.
"The government is neutralizing any legal action," said the professor specializing in human rights and freedoms Louis-Philippe Lampron,
in an interview at Le Devoir .
If the first draft of Bill 21 had been adopted as it was, atheist citizens could have launched a lawsuit to bring the court to settle the issue of religious symbols still hanging on the walls of public schools and hospitals. It would then have been necessary to prove that the crucifix had a religious and not patrimonial value, as had been done by the Quebec Secular Movement against Prayer in the Saguenay, said Mr. Lampron.
However, Article 17 added during the gag of 16 June states that the principle of secularism of the state can not be interpreted to require that parliamentary, governmental and judicial institutions remove or modify the religious symbols in their buildings
- crucifix, cross , statues - whether removable or not.
"By adding that, we are giving the equivalent of a heritage value to any religious symbol already hanging in public institutions,
" said the specialist. If it is on a building, you can not ask to withdraw it. "
This uniform rule goes further than the protection that was first offered in the bill
"to the emblematic or toponymic elements of Quebec's cultural heritage".
Deputy Minister of Immigration Simon Jolin-Barrette confirmed this interpretation. "The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the law has no effect on any building or furniture that adorns a building," said Élisabeth Gosselin by email.
The elements thus protected are so regardless of the religion to which they are associated. "
The government has instead decided to give public bodies the choice to win or not the crucifixes of their walls,
as was done out of sight by the National Assembly on Tuesday.
The equivalent of a heritage value to any religious symbol already hanging in public institutions
- Louis-Philippe Lampron
The Minister of Education, Jean-François Roberge, and the Minister of Health, Danielle McCann, have chosen, the day after the adoption of the law, not to lay down guidelines to get this religious symbol, unlike their colleague Sonia LeBel who asked
for the removal of the 17 crucifixes hanging in the courtrooms of Quebec courthouses.
This case-by-case approach is undesirable, according to Louis-Philippe Lampron. He believes that the Quebec government should have sorted out the law as soon as it was passed. "A pragmatic solution, especially in a process of secularism, is to ask a before and after," he explained. It had been done in France in 1905, he said. There was a before and after in the Church and State Separation Act. "
France had then prohibited "to raise or affix any sign or religious emblem on public monuments" or public sites, with the exception of places of worship, cemeteries and museums, after the promulgation of its law.
New crucifixes allowed
Nothing in Quebec law prevents a public institution from hanging new religious symbols on its walls, even though it also states that citizens have
"the right to parliamentary, governmental and judicial institutions".
"The addition is not prohibited, but the government obviously invites all people to start thinking about the principle of secularism of the state that is established with the law and to respect it," confirmed press secretary to Minister Jolin-Barrette.
The State Secularism Act could therefore protect recent religious symbols. According to Louis-Philippe Lampron, it would have been preferable for the government to consult historians to choose a date from which religious symbols can no longer be considered as having the equivalent of a heritage value. An example would be to choose the end of the Quiet Revolution.
Except that this value is measured first by the meaning given to the object of worship, according to the retired professor of art history Laurier Lacroix. "It's more a question of how we identify ourselves and how we consider an object of the past," he explained.
"The idea of a date should not be the main thing," he added. It is the importance, the value,
the meaning of that object [that matters] rather than a specific date of realization. "
For example, by winning the crucifix of the Blue Salon, the National Assembly has removed a political and religious role to give it a heritage role.
The case-by-case approach therefore remains the best way of sorting, according to the art historian, because it makes it possible to judge each religious symbol in its context and to determine whether it retains an aesthetic or historical value. .
Little jurisprudence
The Supreme Court has never decided the question of religious symbols hanging in public buildings. The question had been submitted by Alain Simoneau, the citizen who sued the City of Saguenay and then-mayor Jean Tremblay, to end the prayer at City Hall in 2008. He was then supported by the Quebec Secular Movement. His complaint to the Commission on Human Rights also concerned the crucifix and a statue of the Sacred Heart in the halls of the city council. However, the Commission only chose to investigate the prayer for a reason that it never explained publicly. The case went to the Supreme Court which, due to lack of investigation, did not pronounce itself on the presence of these religious symbols at City Hall. The Human Rights Tribunal had first ordered the City to withdraw them, but the Court of Appeal then concluded that it did not have jurisdiction to do so. She had nevertheless considered that it was "objects of art stripped of religious connotation" and thus they did not interfere "with the religious neutrality of the State". The statue and the crucifix have since been removed.
thank you for your visit