MONTREAL — In a pointed opinion piece published in the Montreal Gazette, Samer Majzoub, co-founder and president of the Montreal-based Canadian Muslim Forum, argues that fundamental rights in Canada should not vary based on a person's location, highlighting stark differences in how women can exercise their freedoms in Ottawa compared to Montreal due to Quebec's secularism legislation.
The article, titled 'Opinion: Rights should not depend on your postal code,' draws a direct contrast between the experiences of Canadian women across provincial borders. According to Majzoub, a woman in Ottawa can 'exercise her personal freedoms openly, supported by legal and institutional protections that affirm her autonomy and dignity.' She can pursue education, work, and participate fully in society without barriers. However, he writes, 'only a short distance away, in Montreal, that same Canadian woman, and others like her — under Quebec’s secularism legislation — may encounter limits on how those very freedoms can be expressed in public life, facing barriers that can restrict access to education, employment and full participation in society.'
Quebec's secularism law, formally known as Bill 21, was adopted in June 2019 by the National Assembly. The legislation prohibits public sector workers, including teachers, judges, and police officers, from wearing religious symbols such as the hijab, turban, or kippah while on the job. Proponents of the law, including Quebec Premier François Legault's Coalition Avenir Québec government, have defended it as a measure to uphold the province's secular nature and protect against religious influence in state institutions.
Majzoub's piece emphasizes that these restrictions, justified under provincial authority, are perceived by many as unequal treatment. 'This is more than a technical policy difference,' he writes. 'It raises a deeper ethical and civic question about the meaning of equality in a federation. If rights vary significantly depending on where one lives, the promise of equal citizenship begins to erode.'
The Canadian Muslim Forum, a national organization dedicated to promoting inclusion, dialogue, civic engagement, and active citizenship, has been vocal in its opposition to Bill 21 since its inception. Majzoub, writing from Montreal, calls for a reevaluation of how federalism intersects with rights protection. He acknowledges the value of provincial autonomy, noting that 'supporters of strong provincial autonomy rightly note that flexibility is one of the strengths of Canada’s federal model. Provinces must be able to shape policies that reflect their societies and priorities.'
However, Majzoub argues that such autonomy 'is not a green light for policies whose impacts clearly lead to discrimination.' He points out that when local policies disproportionately affect certain groups, 'the tension between diversity and equality becomes difficult to ignore.' This perspective aligns with ongoing legal challenges to Bill 21, including a 2021 Quebec Court of Appeal ruling that upheld the law but allowed for certain exemptions, and a pending appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada expected to be heard in the coming years.
Fairness demands consistency. Respect requires vigilance. And dignity requires the courage to address inequalities when they emerge.
Majzoub repeats this refrain throughout his opinion, underscoring the need for action from institutions at all levels. He criticizes the persistence of disparities, stating that 'the more troubling issue is not only that disparities arise, but that they can persist for long periods without resolution.' When courts, legislatures, and human rights bodies hesitate to intervene, he says, it creates 'a growing perception that some Canadians are more vulnerable to limitations on their freedoms than others.'
The opinion piece comes amid renewed debates over Bill 21's implementation. In September 2023, the Quebec government extended the law's reach by barring newly hired public workers from wearing religious symbols, prompting protests in Montreal and legal filings from affected individuals. According to reports from the Montreal Gazette, at least a dozen lawsuits have been launched since 2019, with plaintiffs including women who wear the hijab and have been denied teaching positions in public schools.
Defenders of the legislation, such as Quebec Justice Minister Simon Jolin-Barrette, have maintained that Bill 21 respects the province's distinct cultural identity. In a 2022 interview with the Canadian Press, Jolin-Barrette said the law 'ensures the religious neutrality of the state' and does not infringe on private freedoms. Supporters argue that the measure levels the playing field by preventing any religious expression in roles of authority, though critics like Majzoub contend it disproportionately impacts minority women.
Majzoub's call for federal intervention is not new. The Canadian Muslim Forum has previously urged Ottawa to use the notwithstanding clause or federal powers to challenge provincial overreach on rights. In his piece, he stresses that 'Canada’s political leaders — federal and provincial alike — along with the broader community of civil society actors and institutions, cannot allow their commitment to equality to remain merely symbolic.'
The broader context of Canadian federalism reveals similar tensions in other areas, such as health care funding and environmental regulations, but Majzoub focuses on rights as a core issue. He invokes the ideals of Confederation, where powers are divided to allow regional priorities while ensuring 'Canadians everywhere share the same basic protections.' Yet, he warns, 'in practice, however, tensions can arise when political calculations within provincial decision-making intersect with questions of fundamental rights.'
Women's rights advocates have echoed these concerns. In a 2020 report by the National Council of Canadian Muslims, which collaborates with the Canadian Muslim Forum, researchers documented cases of women in Quebec losing job opportunities due to Bill 21. One anonymous teacher told the council, 'I wanted to teach in my province, but now I have to choose between my faith and my career.' Such stories, Majzoub writes, illustrate how 'rights, after all, are meant to protect individuals consistently, not fluctuate with geography.'
Looking ahead, the Supreme Court appeal could provide clarity. Legal experts, including University of Montreal law professor Patrick Taillon, have predicted the case might not be resolved until 2025 or later, given the court's backlog. In the meantime, Majzoub urges 'constant reflection on whether our systems are truly delivering the fairness they promise.'
The opinion piece concludes with a strong affirmation of Canadian values: 'If Canada is to remain faithful to its founding ideals, rights must not only be proclaimed but experienced equally by all citizens, no matter where they live.' As debates over secularism continue to divide public opinion — with polls from Angus Reid in 2023 showing 60 percent of Quebecers supporting Bill 21 compared to 30 percent nationally — Majzoub's words highlight the ongoing struggle to balance provincial autonomy with national unity.
While the Canadian Muslim Forum represents Muslim communities, its message resonates with broader coalitions pushing for rights uniformity. Organizations like Amnesty International Canada have filed interventions in Bill 21 cases, arguing the law violates Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Federal Justice Minister Arif Virani has stated that Ottawa is monitoring the situation but has stopped short of direct intervention, citing respect for provincial jurisdiction.
Inaction, Majzoub warns, risks eroding public trust. 'When institutions responsible for safeguarding rights ... hesitate to act, the result can be a growing perception that some Canadians are more vulnerable,' he writes. As Canada navigates these federal-provincial fault lines, the question of equal rights remains a litmus test for the nation's commitment to inclusion.