Should We Impose One Without the Other?
2024-07-14
Almost everyone agrees that civil servants should be politically neutral on the job. Why is this principle not applied to religious affiliation as well?
Sommaire en français Presque tout le monde s’accorde pour dire que les fonctionnaires devraient être politiquement neutres au travail. Pourquoi ce principe ne s’applique-t-il pas également à l’appartenance religieuse ?
In many countries, there are laws or regulations which require that civil servants refrain from partisan behaviour—or behaviour which may appear so—while on the job, and sometimes off the job.
For example, in the USA, a set of principles adopted in 1989 specifies that employees of the executive branch “shall adhere to all laws and regulations that provide equal opportunity for all Americans regardless of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, or handicap” and “shall endeavor to avoid any actions creating the appearance that they are violating the law or the ethical standards…”
The values and ethics code of the Canadian government specifies that employees must carry out their duties “in a non-partisan and impartial manner.” The United Kingdom’s Civil Service Management Code states that “Civil servants must not take part in any political activity when on duty, or in uniform, or on official premises.” New Zealand’s Public Service Commission requires that “public servants must be politically neutral.” In the Canadian province of Ontario, the Public Service of Ontario Act specifies that “A public servant shall not engage in political activity in the workplace” or “while wearing a uniform associated with a position in the public service.” Similarly, in the mainly French-speaking province of Quebec, the Public Service Act specifies that “A public servant shall be politically neutral in performing his duties” and that “A public servant shall act with reserve in any public display of his political opinions.”
Political & Religious Symbols
In the above codes, the question of an employee wearing a partisan political symbol while on the job is not addressed explicitly, but it is reasonable to assume that wearing such a symbol—such as the logo of a political party or movement—would indeed constitute a violation. For example, in 2017, a judge in Hamilton, Ontario was suspended for 30 days for wearing a hat displaying the Trump slogan, “Make America Great Again,” while on the bench, because such a partisan message compromised his duty of impartiality. His action was meant as a joke, admittedly a bad one.
It should be noted, in passing, that the USA code quoted above is inconsistent with various neoracist ideologies which falsely claim to be antiracist (such as Critical Race Theory) and which have inspired some institutions to adopt racist hiring practices and dubious training programs. Let us hope therefore that the code can be helpful in getting rid of DIE (“Diversity, Inclusion & Equity”) programs in such institutions. But that is not the focus of this article.
There are also many countries which restrict partisan religious behaviour by banning civil servants and/or schoolteachers from wearing religious symbols while at work. France and parts of Germany, Switzerland and Belgium have such bans. There are many more countries, including several Muslim-majority countries, which ban the wearing of face-coverings—some of which are religious, such as the niqab and the burqa—by civil servants. Some face-covering bans apply also to users of civil services and some apply everywhere in public. Starting in 2017, Morocco even bans the manufacture and sale of burqas.
In the USA, head-coverings were banned in the House of Representatives starting in 1837. However, in a blatant victory for religious privilege, the ban was repealed in 2019 in order to accommodate Congresswoman Ilhan Omar. The state of Pennsylvania bans teachers from wearing religious symbols in the classroom.
For the last thirty years, France has imposed a ban on pupils wearing religious attire in school, […] This ban has been found to be advantageous to girls from Muslim families, significantly improving their academic performance.
For the last thirty years, France has imposed a ban on pupils wearing religious attire in school, implemented first by ministerial directive in 1994, then ratified by legislation in 2004, as recommended by the Stasi Commission on secularism. (Recently France’s education minister Gabriel Attal added the abaya to the category of religious attire, thus banning it.) This ban has been found to be advantageous to girls from Muslim families, significantly improving their academic performance. The hijab, which some girls were forced by their parents or community to wear before the ban came into effect, is a major impediment to the education and socialization of the child who wears it, essentially robbing her of a normal childhood. Indeed, obliging a child to wear the veil for an extended period of time—weeks, months, years—must be denounced as a form of child abuse.
A Case Study in Religious Hysteria
In June of 2019, Quebec adopted its Loi sur la laïcité de l’État (act respecting State secularism), known simply as Bill 21, which declares that citizens have a right to secular government services, while defining secularism to include both religious neutrality of the State and separation between religion and State. The bill bans some civil servants (those in position of coercive authority, i.e. police, judges, prison guards and prosecutors) and public-school teachers from wearing religious symbols on the job. In addition, it bans all government employees from wearing face-coverings on the job and also requires users of civil services to show their face to obtain service.
Although polls show that this legislation enjoys solid support from the Quebec population, the reaction from Canada outside Quebec has been outrageously hostile. This hostility is also echoed inside Quebec by the so-called “far left.” A torrential rainfall of accusations of xenophobia, Islamophobia and racism have flooded the media, especially the English-language media. Several cities and provinces have adopted resolutions against Bill 21 and some have even declared their intention to contribute financially to court challenges to the legislation. Fortunately, the Superior Court of Ontario ruled in July 2023 that the City of Toronto may not make a contribution of $100,000 to challenge Bill 21 because such action “is not for a valid municipal purpose and is therefore ultra vires.”
[…] no-one voiced any objection to Quebec’s Public Service Act which imposes political neutrality on civil servants. Why should religious neutrality be so contentious while most people evidently understand the importance of political neutrality?
And yet, no-one voiced any objection to Quebec’s Public Service Act which imposes political neutrality on civil servants. Why should religious neutrality be so contentious while most people evidently understand the importance of political neutrality? After all, the dangers represented by religious partisanship are patently obvious. Many religions, especially the three Abrahamic monotheisms, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, are notoriously misogynous, homophobic and intolerant of non-believers, adherents of other religions and so-called “heretics.” The insufficiently pious are often vilified by fundamentalists. Religiously motivated hatred and intolerance can be so extreme as to promote violence, even deadly violence. In Islam, apostasy—leaving Islam—is considered a horrific sin for which the punishment may be death. It is eminently reasonable that the symbols of such toxic ideologies not be displayed by State employees. Even if a particular individual wearing a symbol may be unprejudiced, tolerant and open-minded, the symbol they are wearing continues to speak loudly, and the message it sends is very prejudicial.
The purpose of bans on religious symbols is not to deny Ilhan Omar or anyone else, regardless of their religion, access to their position or job. A religious symbol, whether crucifix, hijab, turban, kippa or whatever, can be removed, just as an article of clothing displaying a slogan such as “Vote Trump” or “Vote Trudeau” or “God is Fiction” can be removed before going to work. It is a question of professional ethics.
Allowing religious symbols, but banning political messages, is tantamount to granting a privilege to religious dogma while simultaneously infantilizing religious believers by assuming them to be incapable of behaving ethically on the job. Religious believers are responsible for the religious practices they have chosen to adopt. The secular State has no obligation to accommodate.
Hostile reactions to secular measures are certainly not a purely Canadian phenomenon. When, in 2021, in the wake of the beheading of Samuel Paty, France prepared legislation to counter Islamist influence and strengthen secularism, the New York Times denounced the law. Then, to no-one’s surprise, the NYT reacted to the recent ban on abayas in schools by dismissing French laïcité as “dogma.” Several media in the USA (NPR, Washington Post, Sojourners) have reacted virulently against Quebec’s secularism law. On the other hand, theHumanist.com published a very fair-minded analysis of that law.
A False Distinction
There is no legitimate reason why Christianity, Islam, Hinduism or any other religious belief should be treated with greater respect or deference than political ideologies such as Marxism, capitalism, libertarianism, republicanism, monarchism, fascism or any other option.
The tendency to treat political symbols and religious symbols as qualitatively different is an obvious manifestation of religious privilege. There is no legitimate reason why Christianity, Islam, Hinduism or any other religious belief should be treated with greater respect or deference than political ideologies such as Marxism, capitalism, libertarianism, republicanism, monarchism, fascism or any other option. Each and every one of these religious and political ideologies is a personal conviction. None of them deserves respect.
Only persons deserve respect—by respecting their fundamental freedoms, i.e. freedom of conscience, which is unlimited because internal, and freedom of expression, which involves external action which may impact others and thus must be limited in some contexts. Limits on freedom of expression in the workplace, especially for State employees, are necessary in order to protect the freedom of conscience of users of civil services as well as that of schoolchildren.
Consider, for example, a pupil who is in conflict with her pious Muslim parents who are trying to force her to wear the hijab. Imagine her difficult situation if she arrives at school only to find that her teacher wears the hijab in class.
Consider, for example, a pupil who is in conflict with her pious Muslim parents who are trying to force her to wear the hijab. Imagine her difficult situation if she arrives at school only to find that her teacher wears the hijab in class. School should be a refuge from authoritarian ideology, but in this case the pupil has been betrayed by her school. The solution is to require teachers to conduct themselves with religious (and political) neutrality, refraining from partisan displays.
The refusal to recognize the political aspects of religion opens the door to major problems. A religious believer who insists on wearing an ostentatious symbol of his or her belief everywhere, even on the job, is committing a political act, asserting the overwhelming importance of the religious ideology thus symbolized. This is especially true if the workplace is the civil service. The religious symbol thus becomes a political symbol. This is particularly obvious in the case of Islam, arguably the most misogynistic of all major religions. The Islamic veil in all its various forms—hijab, chador, niqab, burqa, etc.—is the exemplar of that misogyny and a flag of political Islam, its purpose being to assert the supremacy of Islam anywhere and everywhere. Indeed, promoting the ubiquity of the veil is a key strategy of Islamists for fighting secularism.
Group Prayers in Public
Recently in Montreal, groups of Muslims have begun holding collective prayers in public places such as parks and streets. In the first case, the group obtained permission from the Ahuntsic-Cartierville borough to hold the event in a park (although the borough’s website states clearly that religious ceremonies are not allowed in outdoor public spaces). However, the space was cordoned off, making it inaccessible to the public and, within that space, sexual segregation was applied, with all women and girls placed behind all the men and boys. The prayers in the streets, on the other hand, were spontaneous events which grew out of pro-Palestine demonstrations. Both types of event are illustrations of the Islamist strategy for asserting occupancy of space. According to Mandana Javan, a Québécoise secular activist of Iranian origin, collective Muslim prayers held in public spaces are purely political and ideological, a tool of Islamist propaganda and a non-military dissuasion strategy. I would add that this is especially true for prayers held in the street, without municipal permission and with a clear political objective.
Islamism & Secularism
Some definitions are in order here.
I define Islamism or political Islam to be a movement whose goal is to obtain significant political recognition, influence, privilege and power for the religion Islam. Some people prefer to limit the definition of Islamism to the use of violence in the pursuit of those aims, but I consider that definition too narrow. My definition is based on the objectives of the movement, not the means it may use to try to get there.
As for secularism, it can be defined briefly as the practice of government based on human wellbeing rather than on so-called “divine” considerations, as the latter are simply the prescriptions of a small cabal of self-appointed religious authorities. In other words, human law should take precedence over any laws attributed to god(s). A more complete definition encompasses four principles: [1] equality of citizens, including of course male-female equality; [2] protection of freedom of con¬science, including both freedom of and freedom from religion (and thus freedom to apostatize); [3] religious neutrality of the State; and, most importantly, [4] separation between religions and State.
[…] the rhetoric of inversion […] consists of re-branding privileges as “rights” and using, or rather abusing, the language of human rights to fight against human rights.
While it is important to recognize that politics and religion often overlap significantly, it is essential to distinguish between privileges and rights. Allowing a civil servant to wear a political or religious symbol while working as an agent of the State is to grant a privilege to that person and to that ideology, because the symbol violates the rights of users of State services. The wearing of such a symbol in that context is not a right, and to call it one—as antisecularists do—is an example of what the French author Naëm Bestandji calls the rhetoric of inversion which consists of re-branding privileges as “rights” and using, or rather abusing, the language of human rights to fight against human rights. Opponents of bans on such symbols often argue that only the State need be secular, not its employees, but State employees are the State. Both the physical installations of the State and the employees who represent it must be free of partisan symbols in order for the State to be non-partisan.
The antisecular designs of Islamists are greatly facilitated by their de facto alliance with neoracists. We are all familiar, of course, with the contentious term “Islamophobia” regularly used by Islamists and their dupes in reaction to any criticism of Islam, no matter how legitimate, falsely conflating such criticism with bigotry against Muslims. Accusations of “Islamophobia” function mainly as social censorship of “blasphemy” against Islam. Just as pernicious is the habit of associating it with racism. Islamists in Canada scored a major victory when, in March of 2017, they succeeded in having the federal Parliament adopt motion M-103 which condemns “Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination.” Islamists in the USA scored an arguably even greater victory in 2021 with the passage of H.R.5665, an act which establishes, within the Department of State, the “Office to Monitor and Combat Islamophobia”—but at least that act does not play the race card as M-103 does.
Race-Religion Conflation
A religion is an opinion which can change, […] But race is a biological concept, involving the innate genetic makeup of the individual, and is immutable.
How many times must it be repeated that a religion is not a race? A religion is an opinion which can change, even instantly, depending on the degree of indoctrination of the believer. But race is a biological concept, involving the innate genetic makeup of the individual, and is immutable. Racism is the deliberate exaggeration of the importance of genetic differences between different groups in an attempt to establish a hierarchy of “superior” and “inferior” races. It has nothing to do with religion. Apologists for Abrahamic religions who are tempted to claim that criticism of their religion is “racist” need to be reminded that their own beliefs include denigration of other religions, and thus must be considered flagrantly “racist” if such conflation is accredited.
Media hysteria against Quebec’s Bill 21 has been so outrageous that there have even been attempts to associate it with the death of George Floyd in May 2020 in Minneapolis, using the vague buzzwords “systemic racism” as pretext to vilify that legislation. Just what a law imposing religious neutrality in the Quebec civil service has to do with the death of a black man in police custody in a foreign country is never explained.
The absurdity of race-religion conflation was strikingly illustrated by the late Sinead O’Connor who in 2018 announced her conversion to Islam, started wearing the hijab and declared her intention to avoid henceforth associating with “disgusting” white people, as if donning religious garb could suffice to change her skin colour!
Accusations of racism thrown at critics of Islam are obvious nonsense. Does anyone really think that we who denounce the toxicity of Islam—its extreme misogyny, its condemnation of apostasy, its calls for violence against non-Muslims, its defence of child marriage, etc.—are simply using that religion as a decoy to hide racist hostility against Arabs, or Kabyles, or Persians, or Indonesians? Of course not. The target of our criticism is the religion Islam, not the ethnicity of some of its adherents. Race has nothing to do with it.
[…] race-religion conflation […] means throwing freedom of conscience out the window. If a religious belief is like a “race” then it is innate and immutable, a status to which the believer is condemned for life.
Moreover, race-religion conflation is far worse than merely absurd. It undermines fundamental freedoms, because it means throwing freedom of conscience out the window. If a religious belief is like a “race” then it is innate and immutable, a status to which the believer is condemned for life. To conflate race and religion is simply the light version of the ban on apostasy, and Islamists love both. Were you born into a Muslim family? Or did you convert to Islam later on? Either way, you are now condemned by that random event (in the former case) or that choice (in the latter) to remain Muslim for the rest of your life.
And because such conflation is incompatible with freedom of conscience, it is therefore incompatible with secularism—which explains why religious fundamentalists in general and Islamists in particular fight secularism relentlessly, especially in countries where it has made the most progress, such as France and Quebec.
Race-religion conflation was a major strategy used by antisecularists who challenged Bill 21 before Quebec Superior Court in late 2020. The testimonies of several expert witnesses opposing the law were almost entirely dedicated to this false parallel, this confusion between the inalterable and the changeable. One expert admitted during his testimony that he makes no distinction—and does not even understand the distinction—between religious identity and other types of identity. The testimony of another expert dealt only with racial minorities, especially Afro-Americans, in the United States. One lawyer declared that all conclusions based on race can be applied to religious affiliation, thus evacuating the concept of freedom of conscience.
Neoracism
The current so-called “antiracist” movement, based principally in the USA but whose ideologies have spread throughout the English-speaking world and to several European countries, is at the centre of an anti-Enlightenment movement which claims to be on the political left and is colloquially known as “wokism.” I prefer to call it the post-left because it has abandoned and betrayed the very Enlightenment values which define the left and constitute, in my opinion, the greatest achievement of European civilization. This movement has a particularly bizarre and irrational concept of racism, with an unhealthy hatred for “whiteness” resulting from its denigration of Europeanness.
For the post-left, racism is a strictly one-way street, from whites towards non-whites, as whites are always racist while non-whites are never racist. Moreover, racial groups are viewed monolithically.
For the post-left, racism is a strictly one-way street, from whites towards non-whites, as whites are always racist while non-whites are never racist. Moreover, racial groups are viewed monolithically. Thus, white-on-white racism and non-white-on-non-white racism are not recognized. The biological basis of race is denied, allowing the adoption of an arbitrary definition—or rather non-definition—of what constitutes “race” or “racism.” (For example, in a talk given in 2019, Ibram X. Kendi declared that “Racism is a collection of racist policies, that lead to racial inequities, that are substantiated by racist ideas,” a definition which is circular and hence meaningless.) This allows the post-left to racialize religious groups such as Muslims. Furthermore, leftist criticism of European colonialism has degenerated into an overweening post-leftist prejudice in favour of Islam, inconsistent with its hostility towards Christianity which it views as European, thus “white,” thus abandoning the principle that all religions merit critical examination.
The English-speaking world has shown itself to be obstinate in its failure to understand religion-State separation as implemented in the French-speaking world. This situation has been significantly exacerbated by the spread of the post-left with its race-religion conflation and its irrational Islamophilia. Hence, the absurd accusations of “racism” directed against bans on religious symbols in civil services. Even among those who reject post-leftist ideologies and do not hesitate to denounce the follies of the “woke,” there is a general failure to muster the courage to support secularism consistently by defending measures which separate religion from the State and remove religious privileges.
Who Are the Real Racists?
The irony here is that opposition to Bill 21, including all those accusations of “racism,” is inflamed by racism. The accusers are themselves often motivated by racism, i.e. anti-Québécois prejudice. Anglophone hostility towards Francophones is a recurring theme throughout Canadian history. But that would be white-on-white racism, so for the post-left, it can be ignored. Historically the French in North America were both colonizers in service to the French Empire and colonized by the British Empire which conquered New France and subjugated its inhabitants, but such subtleties are too much for the simplistic Manichaean worldview of the post-left.
The Orange Order was active in Canada starting in the early 19th century, promoting bigotry against Catholics, the French, Jews and Blacks. Similar prejudices were incited by the Ku Klux Klan which was active in the 1920s and 1930s in several provinces, as well as in the US border state of Maine where many Franco-Canadians had migrated in search of employment. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, several provinces banned the use of French as a teaching language in public schools. The goal was to overwhelm French language and culture by assimilation, in the long term.
This process can be called cultural genocide (but not physical genocide), just as the indigenous residential school system constituted cultural genocide of First Nations peoples. (Some ideologues have attempted, unfortunately with some success, to impose a new definition of genocide such that indigenous residential schools would be considered a case of real physical genocide, despite the fact that the scandal of alleged unmarked graves has turned out to be baseless, at least so far.) Of course there are major differences between the situations of the French and of First Nations. French language and culture remain dominant in one province (but the spectre of “louisianisation” looms), thus with some political autonomy, while native peoples only have some autonomy in a number of tiny First Nations territories spread throughout Canada. On the other hand, English Canada’s attempts to have Bill 21 repealed show that it does not respect Quebec’s provincial autonomy. Moreover, fighting against anti-indigenous racism is currently very much in fashion, whereas the reality of anti-Québécois prejudice is hardly even acknowledged.
A more complete implementation of religion-State separation is rooted in the history and culture of the Francophone world. The iconic French Loi de séparation des Églises et de l’État of 1905 is arguably the best secular legislation ever adopted by any country, and it continues to set the standard. Opposition to Quebec’s Bill 21 is partly motivated by anti-Francophone prejudice, a continuation of long-standing Anglophone bigotry.
Conclusion
Of the three attributes—political opinion, religious affiliation and racial identity—the first two must be considered closely related, whereas the last two must be clearly differentiated. To do otherwise is incompatible with freedom of conscience, undermines secularism and gives religious zealots a free ride.
Given the ruthless hostility of antisecularists and their allies, inflamed by anti-Enlightenment ideologies, it is urgently necessary to support the defense and advancement of secularism in all countries.
Given the ruthless hostility of antisecularists and their allies, inflamed by anti-Enlightenment ideologies, it is urgently necessary to support the defense and advancement of secularism in all countries. I encourage you to read the document “International Solidarity with Religion-State Separation” and, if you represent a secularist, atheist, humanist or similar organization, to consider endorsing it.
Next blog: Is “Punch-A-Nazi” Still Fashionable?