The law in Quebec, which critics say will be unfairly aiming for Muslim, Jewish and Sikhs in the Supreme Court of Canada, who will restart the discussion of the Mark of Secularism of the Province.
The law, in Quebec, known as the Bill 21, is banned by civil servants such as teachers, prosecutors and police officers from wearing, while at work, clothing or accessories are associated with their faith, such as skull, turban, scarves and intersections.
The freedom of expression and religion is embedded in the Canadian Constitution. But governments at all levels, including federal, can single out certain rights for the benefit of their own goals of politics, through a rare “regardless of the clause”. The clause was adopted in 1981 as a something prevailing button after the provincial leaders expressed concern that they would have to give the powers to the courts to interpret some rights.
Quebec’s secular policies are more severe than those in other Canadian provinces, where for many years the Roman Catholic Church has influenced education, health care and public well -being. The Liberal Government won the Quebec in 1960 with the promises to reflect the changing needs of the Quebec Society. Who in the transformation period went to the “quiet revolution”, in which the state was moving toward secularization. Quebec brought his ban on religious symbols in 2019 using the clause, with Population support.
“We will fight to the end to defend our values and who we are,” Prime Minister François Legault on Thursday on x.
Critics say the prohibition of religious symbols is a reaction to an increase in Muslim immigrants. AND study Published in the Canadian examination of sociology in 2018, she discovered a greater distribution of Islamophobia in Quebec than in other Canadian provinces.
There were legal challenges of religious groups, school boards and individuals who claimed that the law violated their fundamental freedom.
Last year, three judges of the Quebec Appellate Court unanimously supported the law in the case involving the English Montreal School Board, which claimed that the law also resulted in the promotion of sexual discrimination, mostly against teachers.
It is rare for the Supreme Court to take over the cases where the lower appeal court made a unanimous decision, said Pearl Eliadis, a professor of law at McGill University.
The Supreme Court does not state the reasons for taking over certain cases, so it is unclear what the questions are – regardless of the clause, sexual discrimination, freedom of expression – the court will judge.
Judgment From the Supreme Court in the last two decades, he emphasized that Canada is basically a secularist society. Canadian legal tradition compares the Constitution with A living treeSaid Professor Eliadis, capable of developing to meet the variable needs of society.
Professor Eliadis said she thought the case was “a way of secularism to combat the rights of religious minorities.”
[Published in 2020: A Quebec Ban on Religious Symbols Upends Lives]
Harini Silingam, Director of the Canadian Civic Freedom Association, one of the organizations that challenged the law in court, said at a press conference on Thursday that the Law had disproportionately influenced the minority population, including the Muslim, Sikh and Jewish community.
Arif Virani, Federal Minister of Justice, told reporters on Thursday at Parliament Hill that the Government had planned to claim its position because it was a matter of national importance. However, the uncertain future of the Liberal Party in leadership could prevent this effort.
In response to Mr. Virani’s comments, Simon Jolin-Barrette, Quebec’s Minister of Justice, said in a statement that the province would “fight to the end” to protect its secular values, adding that the federal government shows a lack of respect for Quebec’s autonomy by weighing the case.
Professor Eliadis said that, although one of the main principles of secularism of Quebec was the idea that the state should be a neutral actor, she thought that the law imposed on the government’s position on how the non -religion should look in public service.
“Now the state is no longer really neutral,” she said.
Vjosa Isai is a journalist and researcher of the New York Times in Toronto.
How do we stand?
We are impatient to think about this newsletter and events in Canada in general. Send them to nytcanadada@nytimes.com.
Like this e -Ahpot?
Forward it to your friends and let them know that I can sign up here.
