---
title: "Me Dubé: Secularism Does Not Mean Homogeneity ✦ Goldwater Droit"
meta:
  "og:description": "Me Marie-Hélène Dubé analyzes the Supreme Court's Mouvement laïque québécois v. Saguenay ruling on state neutrality and religious freedom in Quebec."
  "og:title": "Me Dubé: Secularism Does Not Mean Homogeneity"
  description: "Me Marie-Hélène Dubé analyzes the Supreme Court's Mouvement laïque québécois v. Saguenay ruling on state neutrality and religious freedom in Quebec."
---

![MHD](https://goldwaterdroit.com/_vercel/image?url=%2F_content-assets%2Fblog%2F2015%2F04%2Fme-marie-helene-dube-priere-a-saguenay-laicite-ne-rime-pas-avec-homogeneite%2Fimages%2FMHD.jpg&w=1536&q=80)

[News & Insights](https://goldwaterdroit.com/en/news-insights)

# Me Marie-Hélène Dubé: Secularism Does Not Mean Homogeneity

16 April 2015

3 min read

[Constitutional & Appellate](https://goldwaterdroit.com/en/news-insights?topic=constitutional-appellate) [Firm & People](https://goldwaterdroit.com/en/news-insights?topic=firm-people) [Articles & Analysis](https://goldwaterdroit.com/en/news-insights?category=articles-analysis)

For the second time in less than a month, the [Supreme Court of Canada ruled](http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/15288/index.do) on April 15, 2015 on religious freedom and state neutrality. While the first case, _Loyola High School v. Quebec (Attorney General)_, 2015 SCC 12, appeared favourable to religious expression, the second, _Mouvement laïque québécois v. Saguenay (City)_, 2015 SCC 16, could be perceived as a victory for anti-religious movements. But is that really the case?

The reality is rather that the Supreme Court continues to convey the same message it has been delivering since the _Big M Drug Mart_ decision thirty years ago: the State must be neutral in order to protect individual freedom of religion and conscience. It must neither encourage nor discourage any religious belief whatsoever, including non-belief!

Mr. Simoneau prevailed against Saguenay because the recitation of prayer during municipal council sessions — imposed by the mayor and later by by-law — demonstrated the municipality's preference for the Catholic religion, which was discriminatory toward him. According to the Court: "_the sponsorship by the State of a religious tradition, in violation of its duty of neutrality, constitutes discrimination against all others._"

It would be wrong to conclude that this decision would permit a ban on the wearing of religious symbols. On the contrary, the Supreme Court placed great emphasis on respect for diversity in both the _Loyola_ and _Mouvement Laïque Québécois_ decisions.

Having declared four weeks earlier that "_a secular state respects religious differences; it does not seek to make them disappear,_" the Court now adds that the State must be neutral in order to foster everyone's participation in public life. Accordingly, a State preference for atheism would have an exclusionary effect on believers, which the Court prohibits.

This decision definitively sounds the death knell for "catho-laïcité" — that notion of secularism with variable geometry that favours the majority's tradition.¹ In my view, it champions an inclusive vision of secularism, which should now inspire the conception of our living together:

> By expressing no preference, the State ensures that it preserves a neutral and non-discriminatory public space in which everyone equally enjoys genuine freedom to believe or not to believe, in that all are equally valued. I would note that a neutral public space does not mean the homogenization of the private actors within it. Neutrality belongs to institutions and to the State, not to individuals (see R. v. N.S., 2012 SCC 72, 3 S.C.R. 726, paras. 31 and 50-51). A neutral public space, free from constraints, pressure and judgment by public authorities on matters of spirituality, tends on the contrary to protect the freedom and dignity of each individual. As a result, the neutrality of the public space fosters the preservation and promotion of the multicultural character of Canadian society enshrined in s. 27 of the Canadian Charter. This section implies that the interpretation of the State's duty of neutrality is carried out not only in accordance with the protective objectives of the Canadian Charter, but also with the aim of promoting and enhancing diversity.

---

¹ The Court, at paragraph 78: "_The neutrality of the State, as the Court of Appeal moreover agrees (paras. 76 and 78), requires it to neither encourage nor discourage any form of religious conviction whatsoever. If, under the guise of a cultural, historical or heritage reality, the State adheres to a form of religious expression, it does not respect its obligation of neutrality._" See also paragraph 87.

_Me Marie-Hélène Dubé is a family law attorney and family mediator at Goldwater, Dubé._

[**Previous Post**L'Arbitre in Brief (April 10, 2015): The Destructive Husky, Save My Horse and Between Two Sides](https://goldwaterdroit.com/en/news-insights/2015/04/larbitre-in-brief-april-10-2015-the-destructive-husky-save-my-horse-and-between-two-sides) [**Next Post **L'Arbitre in Brief (May 1, 2015): Revenge Laid Bare, the False Eyelashes and the Dishwasher](https://goldwaterdroit.com/en/news-insights/2015/05/larbitre-in-brief-may-1-2015-revenge-laid-bare-the-false-eyelashes-and-the-dishwasher)