The Verdict Is In! “Hijab” Is the Most Potent Piece of Cloth in the West.

For the last 20 years, one issue has consistently resurfaced in Québec politics—it’s not language or separatism, but the relationship between Québec society and religion, mostly one religion – Islam. Many people of faith, including Muslims, are asking why Muslims face such parochial and harsh treatment despite their contributions to the province’s development all the way from 1903 to the present day.

Does Québec’s Catholic past and the influence of Christian ‘saints‘ and figures like François de Laval, Marguerite Bourgeoys, and Marie de l’Incarnation, and their attempt at ‘Catholicizing‘ every aspect of the people’s lives, lead Quebecers to reject religion altogether? But if that were the case, we would expect Québec to abandon Catholicism in favor of its so-called secular ideals. However, this is not the case. Québec remains one of the most Catholic provinces in Canada, with nearly 6.2 million people, or 70% of the population (as of 2025), identifying as Catholic. The Church continues to play an active role in education, healthcare, and daily life through its 18 dioceses, over 900 parishes, and 2,793 Christian churches (1,743 of which are Catholic).

With such a rich religious backdrop, one would expect a much deeper understanding of other faiths from the province’s lawmakers. Yet what we see is the government’s obsession with banning ‘religious symbols’, a move that hints at reasons other than purely secular.

To formalize this ‘ban’ on faith symbols, the provincial government introduced Bill 21 in June 2019. This law prohibited civil service employees and teachers from wearing items of a ‘religious’ nature. This triggered an expected pushback from the most affected Quebecers, who challenged it in the Superior Court. But the court upheld the ban in 2021, with one exception: ‘English language‘ schools were exempt from the ban. This exemption was challenged again by the Premier of Québec in 2022 and was eventually removed.

However, one exception remained: Members of the National Assembly (MNAs) were not subject to this ban and could wear religious symbols.

Consider this: according to the ruling, women were forbidden from wearing the Hijab in any government institution, except in the national assembly—the very seat of the government.

If this doesn’t make sense to you, you are not alone.

Several groups challenged the law’s constitutionality. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the National Council of Canadian Muslims argued that Bill 21 discriminates based on religion, particularly targeting Muslim women who wear the Hijab.

Québec’s response was to invoke the “notwithstanding clause” to protect the Bill from legal challenges. This clause allows Québec to override the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Although it was challenged in court, the challenges were ultimately unsuccessful, and, for all practical purposes, the Hijab, or any modest clothing worn by women, became outlawed in courts, government institutions, and schools.

The fallout of the Québec government’s stubbornness was immediate. Ms. Amrit Kaur, a Sikh schoolteacher, left the province soon after the Bill’s passage. “It changed my life drastically. I had to leave my home, my family, and my friends. I had to move to a new province that I’d never been to before, reacclimatize myself to a new curriculum, and start from zero,” Kaur stated while speaking to the local press.

The Fédération des femmes du Québec, which provided expert testimony to overturn the law, argued that Bill 21 reinforces Islamophobia in the province.

“Muslim women are the first targets of the public debate on secularism,” stated the federation’s president, Sylvie St-Amand. She voiced concerns that the ruling to protect the clause could lead to increased violence against Muslim women in the province, a sentiment that proved prescient.

On March 3, 2026, two Muslim mothers in Québec, Sr. Sabaah Khan and Sr. Asma Qureshi, were informed by the school authorities where they volunteered (not as paid employees) that they could no longer attend the school because they wore the Hijab.

We must ask why this sudden animosity toward head coverings exists in a province founded on Catholic principles, where habits worn by Catholic nuns would once have been a common sight. However, we are unlikely to receive a rational answer anytime soon.

*****