EDMONTON — Our Constitution — unlike the American one — has nothing specific to say about the separation of church and state. But we’re a liberal democracy that accepts freedom of religion (and freedom from religion), which at least implies a political divide between the spiritual and temporal.

The Lord’s Day Act once banned us from shopping on Sundays; the Supreme Court struck it down as unconstitutional in 1985. Ever since, provincial human rights commissions have been policing the border between religion and politics.

For politicians, crossing that blurry divide can be dangerous; the tripwires are hard to spot before you stumble over them. The Quebec Liberals are learning that now with Bill 62, a so-called ‘niqab law’ that satisfies nobody and baffles pretty much everybody.

The bill, you’ll remember, bars Quebecers from receiving public services with their faces covered. No longer will a niqab-wearing Quebecois woman be allowed to ride a municipal bus or borrow a book from a public library — which is a shame, because libraries have books explaining why such laws are unconstitutional and, probably, unenforceable.

The government of Quebec has since softened its interpretation of the law somewhat, saying that a veiled woman would have to show her face to a bus driver before boarding — even if she has photo ID — but can wear the veil during the trip. Same goes for librarians and health care providers: show your face to prove you’re not an android, then go on about your business.

The clarifications only served to make the bill’s purpose more confusing. The government itself doesn’t help matters by insisting that a bill with religion in its title (‘An Act to foster adherence to State Religious neutrality’) somehow has nothing to do with religion — nothing to do with singling out Muslims. Part of the point of separating church and state is to affirm that faith is personal, not political — and certainly not a legitimate target for government dress codes.

So if Bill 62 is not about religion, what is it about? Do people really fear that their doctors might be pulling a fast one by wearing masks in surgery? Is there a risk that the Quebec Remparts goalie might be hiding his identity for nefarious purposes by wearing a face mask? Could that firefighter wearing an oxygen mask really be a pastry cook in disguise? Better to risk infection and facial trauma than to allow anyone, anywhere, to obscure his or her face for any reason — right?

This is a solution in search of a problem — a clumsy attempt at compromise on the thorny subject of ‘religious accommodation’. And the most amazing thing about it isn’t the fact that the bill is so badly written its own proponents don’t know what it does (or doesn’t do — it specifies no penalties).

More and more Albertans have been questioning the need for parallel public school systems. Premier Notley certainly hasn’t closed the door on the idea. A collision is inevitable. More and more Albertans have been questioning the need for parallel public school systems. Premier Notley certainly hasn’t closed the door on the idea. A collision is inevitable.

It’s the fact that no Quebec politician appears remotely troubled by its obvious legal problems and ultra-nationalist overtones. In fact, the Opposition Parti Quebecois and Coalition Avenir Quebec oppose the bill because it doesn’t go far enough in telling people what they can and cannot wear.

Meanwhile, a crucifix still hangs behind the Speaker’s Chair in the Quebec National Assembly. Because this isn’t about religion — right?

Here in Alberta, Catholic School Superintendents have been working on their own ‘Catholic teachings’ sexual education curriculum. Catholic School Boards, we’re told, will not accept a human sexuality curriculum that “promotes a contraceptive culture.” Condoms — bad. Masturbation — not part of God’s natural order. Oral/anal sex — also unacceptable practices, even for married partners, because they “waste seed” and make sex about something other than procreation.

Then we get to the really contentious stuff. Artificial insemination — also bad, because children are a “gift from God.” And homosexuality? Catholics love and respect everyone, including those with “same sex inclinations” — but for those people, perpetual chastity is their only option to preserve “God’s natural order.”

And consent? The superintendents take issue with the concept, saying that consent to sexual intercourse — while important — is only one of many factors to be considered along with morality, procreation and wellness.

That turned out to be too much for Premier Rachel Notley and her NDP government; she said that “under no circumstances will we condone a sexual health curriculum that normalizes an absence of consent.”

For some time now, Catholic educators have been allowed to teach kids supplemental religious studies while still following the provincial curriculum. Allowing the Catholic school system to pick and choose which parts of the curriculum they want to teach undermines the universality of the province’s curriculum.

Predictably, social media lit up with demands that the Catholic education system be decommissioned. More and more Albertans have been questioning the need for parallel public school systems. Premier Notley certainly hasn’t closed the door on the idea: “We will not use public dollars to have sexual health programs that deny science, deny evidence and deny human rights.”

A collision is inevitable. In Alberta, Catholic Public Schools receive their funding from the province. The Notley government is planning legislation this fall to compel all schools that receive public money to adopt policies to protect LGBTQ students and affirm their right to establish gay-straight alliances. This is unacceptable to the Catholic hierarchy and is part of the reasoning behind their proposed alternate curriculum.

Who will blink first? Normally, it would be the party that does not control the purse strings. But publicly-funded, separate school boards enjoy constitutional protection here by virtue of the 1905 ‘Alberta Act’. Several education ministers have mused over the years about changing the system — but none of them have had the nerve to take on the province’s still-significant Catholic population.

Proponents of separate, public school systems maintain that Catholic education offers Albertans’ “choice.” But if social media is any measure, a lot of taxpayers are less inclined to pay for that choice now.

But it all goes back to that hole in the Constitution — and we all know how hard it is to fill such holes. Our foundational law doesn’t expressly separate church and state. The consequences of that oversight are pretty obvious.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.