By William Crooks
Local Journalism Initiative
The Ligue des droits et libertés (LDL) is calling for the complete withdrawal of Quebec’s proposed Bill 94, denouncing it as a setback for human rights and the province’s long-standing secular tradition.
Officially titled An Act mainly to strengthen the secular nature of the school network and to amend various legislative provisions, Bill 94 was introduced by the Quebec government to broaden restrictions on the display of religious symbols in the education system. If adopted, it would extend existing bans—first implemented under Bill 21 in 2019—beyond teachers to include other school staff and students, and would impose limitations on the use of languages other than French in educational settings. The legislation also pre-emptively invokes the notwithstanding clause of both the Quebec and Canadian Charters, shielding it from constitutional challenges.
In its presentation at public hearings before the National Assembly’s Commission on Culture and Education on April 22, the LDL argued that the bill is fundamentally incompatible with a respectful and inclusive approach to secularism. “We believe Bill 94 should be withdrawn,” said Laurence Guénette, Coordinator for the LDL, in an interview with The Record. “We are very in favour of the secularism of the state, but this bill does not embody true secularism—it undermines fundamental rights and discriminates against specific groups.”
According to the LDL, secularism should ensure the separation of religion and state while protecting the freedom of belief and expression for everyone. “There is a fundamental confusion between proselytism and the wearing of religious symbols,” Guénette explained. “Wearing a symbol is not an attempt to convert or influence others—it is a personal expression, protected by freedom of religion.”
Guénette noted that state neutrality is not about erasing personal identity, but rather about treating all citizens equally, regardless of belief. “The neutrality of the state must be reflected in its actions, not in the appearance of its employees,” she said. “Whatever they wear does not make them guilty of being non-neutral.”
