Samer Majzoub*

Quebec is approaching a defining moment in its debate over secularism, freedom of faith and equal citizenship. The Parti Québécois government wants to prohibit children from wearing religious symbols in public schools. The proposal comes as the Supreme Court of Canada considers Bill 21, which restricts certain public servants from wearing such symbols.

Together, these developments raise a fundamental question: How far should the PQ, like the Coalition Avenir Québec before it, go in pursuing its version of secularism, and when do restrictions undermine citizens’ rights?

Quebec has every right to protect public-institution neutrality and preserve its distinct identity. Its history, language and culture deserve respect. But policies adopted in their name must be fair, necessary and proportionate.
Extending restrictions to schoolchildren deserves particularly serious scrutiny. Children do not represent the state. They are entitled to education, dignity and the freedom to develop their identities. A child wearing a hijab, kippah, turban or cross is not exercising governmental authority. The state must provide an impartial educational environment where children learn, develop critical thinking and engage with people whose backgrounds differ from their own.


A school should not force a child to choose between public education and expressing a sincere conviction of faith. Visible faith should not become grounds for exclusion, stigma, discrimination or unequal treatment. State neutrality and individual freedom are distinct. Public institutions demonstrate impartiality through their decisions, conduct and equal treatment. A child’s personal appearance does not compromise state neutrality.

If secularism aims to ensure that no faith is imposed on others, that goal can be pursued through education, respect and rules against coercion. Restricting a child’s personal expression of faith is different.

For a Quebec Muslim girl wearing a hijab, a Sikh child wearing a turban, a Jewish child wearing a kippah or a Christian child wearing a cross, the consequences would be immediate and personal. They would be asked to set aside an expression of identity to attend public school.

Quebec can defend its identity without asking children to choose between their convictions and education.

School administrators have questioned the need for the prohibition. So have community and civil-liberties groups.

Kathleen Legault, president of the Association montréalaise des directions d’établissement scolaire, warned that some pupils could disengage if forced to remove religious symbols. Francis Côté, president of the Fédération québécoise des directions d’établissement d’enseignement, expressed concern about its impact on relationships between schools and families.

Their concerns point to practical consequences that extend beyond the policy’s stated aim: attendance, student engagement and trust between families and schools are central to education, and should be weighed before imposing a prohibition.

The impact cannot be separated from Bill 21, which has raised concerns about excluding qualified people from public-service careers, particularly Quebec women who wear the hijab. Extending restrictions to children risks suggesting visible faith is unwelcome in both professions and classrooms.

The Supreme Court’s pending decision adds another dimension, raising questions about democratic authority, constitutional accountability and Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the notwithstanding clause.

The court’s decision will matter, but it should not replace political responsibility. Nor will it necessarily settle the constitutional questions surrounding a future student-symbols ban, which must be considered in its own legal context.

The broader question remains: Does a particular version of secularism require restricting the personal freedoms of people who do not exercise state authority?

The notwithstanding clause allows governments to override certain Charter protections for renewable five-year periods. Its use does not eliminate the need for public debate, accountability or careful assessment. Constitutional authority and democratic responsibility are not mutually exclusive.

The PQ government must govern for all Quebecers. Defending Quebec’s distinctiveness is legitimate, but leadership requires listening beyond one’s political base and recognizing citizens of different faiths and backgrounds.

Quebec’s education system faces challenges including staffing shortages, school conditions and student success. A policy that risks dividing children and families deserves careful consideration, particularly when its necessity and consequences remain open to debate.

The Supreme Court’s ruling may shape the constitutional landscape, but Quebec’s leaders will choose the society they seek to build: one that deepens divisions, or one that preserves its identity while making room for all who contribute.

Secularism should protect state neutrality, not become a measure of belonging. Quebec can defend its identity without asking children to choose between their convictions and education.

The question is not whether Quebec has the right to be itself. It does. The question is whether it can remain true to its democratic and human values while respecting freedom of faith and every child’s equal dignity.

Samer Majzoub is co-founder and president of the Canadian Muslim Forum (FMC-CMF), a Montreal-based national organization dedicated to promoting inclusion, dialogue, civic engagement and active citizenship

*Special to the Montreal Gazette
published November 6, 2026 at 6:55 a.m.