Imagine if a church in Virginia needed government permission to baptize believers in the Potomac River. Most Americans would view such a requirement as an unusual intrusion into religious liberty. Yet a new law in Quebec, adopted in the name of strengthening secularism, is raising precisely that concern.
In response to controversies surrounding Muslim prayers during pro-Palestinian demonstrations in 2025, Quebec adopted new legislation in spring 2026 under the banner of strengthening secularism, or laïcité. But the law goes beyond the definition of laïcité, or state neutrality, by tightening oversight of private religious schools and limiting collective religious activities on streets and in parks.
A baptism in a river, a gospel choir in a park, an outdoor prayer gathering, or a religious procession may now require authorization from municipal authorities. Exemptions can be granted case by case, based on criteria such as safety, accessibility, limited duration, equality between men and women, and minimal interference with public space. In doing so, the legislation signals that public religious activities are no longer presumed to be a normal exercise of fundamental freedoms, but exceptions requiring official approval.
Some of these concerns are legitimate. Public spaces should remain accessible to everyone. Religious communities, like any other group, should respect reasonable rules concerning safety, order, and access. During legislative debates, Quebec’s minister himself acknowledged an important distinction: it is the State, not public space itself, that must remain neutral. We agree with him; unfortunately, the law as it is right now is doing exactly that.
From Exercise to Exception
A measure aimed at a specific concern now creates uncertainty for a much broader range of peaceful religious practices. Activities once understood as ordinary exercises of freedom of religion, expression, and peaceful assembly may increasingly depend on prior government approval. Unelected local officials are placed in the position of deciding when, where, and under what conditions faith may be publicly expressed. In other words, religious activities are no longer presumed to be a legitimate exercise of fundamental freedoms, but an exception that requires government permission.
Supporters argue that these measures protect neutrality and social cohesion. But neutrality should not mean making religion disappear from public life.
Who Decides?
The criteria themselves are not the problem. Safety, accessibility, limited duration, and respect for others are reasonable expectations for any activity held in public. The problem is that the law leaves broad discretion to municipal authorities. Even when these conditions are fully met, an application may still be denied, with little obligation to justify the decision. Going ahead with the event without permission may result in a fine.
Quebec is not an authoritarian regime. No one is being imprisoned for attending church. But in a liberal democracy, it is still remarkable that citizens must ask whether they may legally pray in a park, conduct a baptism in a river, or sing hymns outdoors without prior authorization.
That question should concern every democracy trying to preserve both social peace and fundamental freedoms. If state neutrality comes to mean the systematic exclusion of religious expression from public life, then neutrality has become something else entirely.
