NEP Brief: Two Models of Secularism in Canada — A Conceptual Clarification
This brief clarifies the two distinct definitions of “secularism” currently shaping public debate in Canada. The New Enlightenment Project (NEP) aims to illuminate the conceptual and psychological frameworks that underlie the discussion, drawing on the recent public debate hosted by NEP at Two Solitudes of Secularism
1. Overview
Canada hosts two coherent but incompatible models of secularism:
-
English Canadian Freedom of Expression Model – Secularism as state neutrality achieved through equal protection of individual religious (and non-religious) expression.
-
Québec’s Laïcité Model – Secularism as state neutrality achieved through the absence of religious expression in state institutions.
Both models claim to represent “true secularism,” but they arise from different histories, cultural narratives, and psychological orientations. Placing the English-Canadian model first reflects its deeper historical roots in European accommodations that prioritized individual conscience over enforced uniformity.
2. English Canadian Freedom of Expression Model
The state must be neutral, and neutrality requires that individuals be free to express their beliefs, including religious symbols, state interference, provided there is no coercion or endorsement by the state itself. This freedom extends to representatives of the state acting in their official capacities flowing from:
-
Individual rights orientation: Secularism protects personal autonomy and freedom of conscience as a fundamental liberty.
-
Procedural neutrality: The state neither endorses nor suppresses religion; it treats religious and non-religious citizens equally.
-
Diversity as neutrality: A pluralistic public service, reflecting Canada’s multicultural heritage, demonstrates fairness rather than bias.
-
Charter tradition: Rooted in Anglo-liberalism, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (especially s. 2(a) freedom of conscience and religion, and s. 27 on multiculturalism), and civil liberties jurisprudence that emphasizes equal protection.
-
Humanist framing: Emphasis on personal flourishing, equality, non-discrimination, and the harm principle—restrictions on expression require demonstrable or probable harm, not hypothetical influence.
Historical Context
This model traces to the Peace of Westphalia (1648), which ended the Thirty Years’ War and marked a pivotal shift in European religious governance. The treaties confirmed and extended the Peace of Augsburg’s principle while limiting cuius regio, eius religio (the ruler’s religion dictates the territory’s). They guaranteed private worship, liberty of conscience, and rights of emigration for religious minorities within accepted Christian denominations (Catholic, Lutheran, Calvinist). Sovereigns retained authority over public religion in their territories, but subjects gained protections against forced conformity in private belief and practice. This established a proto-liberal distinction between public authority and private conscience, reducing religious conflict by removing individual faith from the full discretion of rulers.
These ideas influenced Anglo-liberal traditions of toleration and individual rights, evolving through British constitutionalism and into Canadian Confederation and the Charter era. In English Canada, secularism aligns with multiculturalism and pluralism: the state’s neutrality is procedural and protective of diverse expressions, not visibly “cleansed” of them. Supreme Court jurisprudence has reinforced a duty of religious neutrality that promotes equal participation in public life, consistent with multiculturalism rather than exclusion. From this perspective, legislation such as Québec’s Bill 21 is viewed as:
- a violation of individual rights to freedom of conscience and expression,
· discriminatory in effect (disproportionately affecting certain religous minorities),
- and incompatible with secularism understood as freedom from coercion.
In this view, public servants’ personal symbols do not equate to state endorsement, akin to how historic religious architecture or holidays coexist with neutrality.
3. Québec’s Laïcité Model
The state must be neutral, and neutrality requires that state agents refrain from displaying religious symbols while exercising public authority, ensuring the public sphere appears free of religious influence.
Key Characteristics
-
Structural neutrality: The state must be visibly free of religious influence to maintain impartiality and public trust.
-
Uniformity: A consistent, religion-free appearance among state agents (e.g., teachers, judges, police) is essential.
-
Historical context: Rooted in Québec’s Quiet Revolution (1960s) and its rejection of long-standing Roman Catholic clerical dominance, with influences from French republican laïcité.
-
Civic identity: Laïcité ties to Québec’s narrative of emancipation from religious dominance and turn to modernity, and national affirmation.
-
Humanist framing: Secularism is not merely a procedural safeguard for individual beliefs irrespective of the power of the individual to promote those beliefs, but a foundational public value that actively promotes human flourishing and equality in the shared civic sphere.
Historical Context
French laïcité evolved in the 19th–20th centuries amid intense conflict with the Catholic Church. Key milestones include the 1905 Law on the Separation of Churches and the State, which guaranteed freedom of conscience while prohibiting state recognition, funding, or subsidization of religions, establishing strict public-private separation. Earlier revolutionary and Third Republic efforts had already restricted clerical influence in education and public life. The term and principle became constitutionally embedded in 1946/1958. Laïcité emphasizes freedom from religion in institutional settings.
In Québec, pre-Quiet Revolution conditions featured near-hegemonic Catholic influence. The Church controlled education, health care, and social services; Sunday mass attendance exceeded 80–85% in the 1950s–early 1960s; and a vast clerical bureaucracy (over 50,000 religious by 1962) shaped French-Canadian identity under ultramontane Catholicism. During the Duplessis era, the Church enjoyed semi-established status, legitimized by religious nationalism. Freedom of individual religious expression in public institutions effectively reinforced Catholic dominance due to demographic and institutional realities—minorities had limited practical space, and the Church’s role in “church-building” extended into daily life. The Quiet Revolution secularized these sectors, transferring authority to the state and fostering a collective push for emancipation from clerical power. This created a distinct laïcité emphasizing visible neutrality as protection against any religious influence in the public sphere.
Implications
From this perspective, legislation such as Bill 21 is viewed as:
-
a safeguard for equality and state impartiality,
-
a protection against religious authority or subtle normalization of that authority,
-
and a necessary condition for a truly secular public service.
4. Essential Difference
The two models diverge on a foundational question: What does state neutrality require?
-
The secularism that would allow the visible expression of religious symbols by state representatives sees neutrality in non-interference with personal belief and expression (procedural/individual).
-
Laïcité sees secularism as the visible absence of religious markers in state roles (structural/collective).
5. Psychological and Cultural Roots
NEP’s lens highlights that these models of applied secularism emerge from different self-structures, historical experiences, and collective narratives. Rather than viewing them as static opposites, the two models can be understood as stages in the historical development of the secular principle itself.
The view that allowing the expression of religious symbols represents and inclusive secularism flows from the earlier, foundational stage of secularism rooted in the Peace of Westphalia (1648). This model prioritizes:
-
Individual autonomy and liberty of conscience.
-
Procedural neutrality that protects personal expression.
-
A pluralistic public sphere where diversity of belief (religious or non-religious) signals fairness.
It reflects a psychological orientation toward tolerance, personal flourishing, and minimal state interference in private belief shaped by Anglo-liberal traditions, the Canadian Charter, and a multicultural rights culture. The core concern is preventing coercion through state-imposed uniformity or suppression of individual rights.
Québec’s Laïcité Model represents a later evolutionary stage of the secular principle. It builds upon the Westphalian foundation of state neutrality and freedom of conscience but responds to a different historical reality: the experience of near-hegemonic religious (Catholic) institutional dominance. In pre-Quiet Revolution Québec, the Roman Catholic Church exercised extensive control over education, health, social services, and cultural identity. In that context, maximal individual religious expression in public institutions tended to reinforce Catholic cultural and moral hegemony rather than genuine pluralism. Laïcité thus advances secularism by adding a structural and collective dimension:
-
Visible neutrality in the exercise of public authority to prevent any single religious worldview from appearing normative or authoritative.
-
Emphasis on freedom from religion in the public sphere as a necessary complement to freedom of religion.
-
A proactive civic project aimed at emancipation, rational governance, gender equality, and shared republican values.
Psychologically and culturally, this evolution stems from:
-
Collective memory of religious domination and the Quiet Revolution’s successful transfer of authority from clerical to democratic institutions.
-
A preference for structural safeguards that secure long-term institutional impartiality over case-by-case accommodations.
In this framing, laïcité does not reject the inclusive model’s commitment to individual rights; it extends the secular principle to address situations where unchecked individual expression risks recreating subtle institutional bias or undermining the very neutrality the state must guarantee. Both models share the goal of protecting equality and freedom but respond to different threats at different points in secularism’s historical development: coercion by the state versus normalization of religious influence within the state.
These differing orientations shape not only policy preferences but also emotional responses to the debate - one side emphasizing protection against rights violations, the other emphasizing vigilance against the erosion of hard-won secular gains.
This evolutionary perspective allows for a more nuanced dialogue: individual freedom of expression as the necessary first step toward toleration, and laïcité as a context-specific refinement when secular institutions must be actively insulated from historical or emerging religious dominance. NEP’s contribution lies in illuminating these layered roots without reducing either model to mere political preference.
6. NEP’s Position
The New Enlightenment Project seeks to:
-
clarify conceptual frameworks,
-
illuminate the psychological roots of public positions,
-
and support dialogue grounded in mutual understanding.
By mapping the underlying structures of belief and identity, NEP aims to reduce miscommunication and foster constructive engagement across Canada’s diverse humanist and secular communities.