The future of the law respecting the state’s secularism will be played out this morning before Quebec’s highest court, which will decide whether to keep it or, rather, repeal it entirely.
• Also read: Bill 21: It’s Ontario that discriminates, not us
• Also read: Law 21: When François Legault inspires Doug Ford
“Ten topics will be debated, including the exception clause, fundamental rights, those of linguistic minorities […]. The debate will have 17 parties, each arguing that the trial judge made mistakes,” Chief Justice Manon Savard said at the opening of the hearing this morning to a packed hall.
Since the ruling that partially invalidated Bill 21 in April 2021, both his defenders and opponents have been preparing for a new fight, this time before the Quebec Court of Appeals. And for the next two weeks, each of the groups involved will go to court in turn to make their case.
In all, the three judges of the Court of Appeal read the 1,500 pages of evidence and the 1,065+ pages of the parties’ arguments.
“The file is extensive,” admitted the presiding judge.
- Listen live to the meeting between Lisée – Mulcair and Martineau every day at 8:50 a.m. above QUB radio :
tensions
Far from calming social tensions, the verdict on the law on the secularization of the state has caused nothing but dissatisfaction. Among other things, this law prohibits persons in positions of authority, including teachers, from wearing religious symbols during their shifts.
It is fiercely opposed by several organizations, led by the Ontario-based National Council of Canadian Muslims. The organization’s leader, Stephen Brown, also took a stand this morning against the law, which he says “undermines the very identity of the society” and “without any justification.”
Photo Chantal Poirier
Stephen Brown
“This is one of the biggest issues of equality and human rights,” said Laura Berger of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association on Monday. Nobody should have to choose between their career and their faith.”
derogation clause
At the start of the hearing, Me Frédéric Bérard of the Autonomous Educational Union spoke of a “historic moment” in ensuring that society is at a crossroads where it is necessary to choose between “two conceptions”. He criticized the government for amending the Quebec Charter of Rights and Freedoms to pass Bill 21 “with the use of the gag.”
“The exception clause cannot be used if the target is illegitimate,” added Me Alexandra Belley-McKinnon, who represents the Québec Coalition Admission Legal Committee. It just takes away people’s rights.
In his ruling, Judge Marc-André Blanchard upheld the law and implied his hands were tied by Quebec’s use of the variance clause. And this, even if it “has significant inhibiting effects and seriously interferes with the rights to freedom of conscience and religion”.
However, the magistrate had allowed English-speaking school boards and elected members of the National Assembly to wear religious symbols.
“It sends out the message that those who want to wear religious symbols cannot do so in French, they simply have to go to an English school board. […] It’s all very divisive,” commented Daniel Turp, constitutional scholar and professor at the University of Montreal.
Immediately after the decision was published, Quebec Attorney General Simon Jolin-Barrette announced that he would appeal the decision.
Seven other groups have done the same, and for the past year and a half, all have been preparing to tip the scales in their favor.
Do you have any information about this story that you would like to share with us?
Do you have a scoop that might be of interest to our readers?