Lawyers challenging Quebec's Bill 21 tell Supreme Court it violates Constitution, sets dangerous precedent

sublime margaret court hearings for Quebec's secularism jurisprudence acquire underway

Quebec's secularism Bill 21 is 'clear and well-documented discrimination,' says CCLA director

'Muslim women are not second-class citizens,' says school board chair challenging Quebec's Bill 21

Understanding Bill 21 and the notwithstanding clause

Quebec’s secularism law sidelined their careers. The Supreme Court is going to rule on it

Why all Canadians’ rights are at stake in the Supreme Court challenge of Quebec’s Bill 21

Quebec tables new bill tightening secularism laws at National Assembly

Quebec looks to limit public prayers, extend religious symbols ban

Presenting now is Olga Redko, who represents the National Council of Canadian Muslims, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and some of the individual teachers challenging the law.

She's arguing that Bill 21 is motivated by morality, and that such laws are not under provincial jurisdiction.

"This is about imposing a vision of values on Quebec society," she said.

Redko argues that only the federal government has jurisdiction to draft such laws.

Lalani said that outside the Charter, Bill 21 impacts other laws on the books in Canada that were crafted to protect people from religious discrimination.

By way of example, Lalani said the 1852 Act, which became law before Canada was a country, protects religious freedoms and prevents governments from interfering with people's right to participate in religious activities.

Justice Nicholas Kasirer challenged Lalani's argument, saying that the 1852 Act does not have the power to trump other Canadian laws.

Kasirer said the 1852 Act cannot override other acts — so while it may have been crafted to protect religious freedoms it can't be used to override Bill 21.

Chief Justice Wagner suggested that the 1852 Act provides little more than an academic argument to the case, because it has been superseded by the Constitution and Charter. 

Lalani pushed back against that saying the Charter does not abolish other rights protected in law, and that the constitution has to be viewed as an evolving document.

Faiz Lalani, a lawyer for the World Sikh Organization, is now making arguments before the court.

He's raising the example of Amrit Kaur, a Sikh teacher who wears a turban who graduated the day Bill 21 was adopted in Quebec, and had to move out of Quebec in order to begin her teaching career.

He says for Kaur, not wearing her religious symbols at work would be like "abandoning who she is as a person."

The Supreme Court's Chief Justice Richard Wagner intervened and asked about the particular and distinct history of secularism in Quebec since the Quiet Revolution, and if the case should be looked at through this prism.

Lalani argues that before Bill 21, Quebec's particular brand of secularism was more tolerant of minorities and that secularism can exist without infringing on their rights.

The hearing is now underway.

Perri Ravon, the lawyer for the English Montreal School Board, is the first lawyer presenting to the court.

She's arguing that Bill 21 infringes on constitutional minority language rights of the board, which she argues are not covered by the notwithstanding clause.

"Bill 21 interferes with the English language community's cultural concerns," Ravon said.

Some of the judges are challenging her on this, suggesting that the province should have the right to set hiring practices for teachers.

In the original Superior Court of Quebec decision, the judge agreed with the EMSB's arguments and granted the board an exception to Bill 21, but the Quebec Court of Appeal quashed that exception.

Mandana Javan, a citizen who has been vocal in support of Bill 21, was the last to speak at the scrum.

She said the law is important to protect against "Islamism" like she sees in her home country of Iran. She is worried about religious indoctrination in the school system here in Canada.

Javan pointed out that she and many other Muslim women do support secularism.

She argued that the reality of Christian, Jewish and Sikh Quebecers is different than for Muslims.

The law being struck down would mean a "big price for our kids," who she said could be forced by their families and Muslim teachers to follow strict Islamic rules.

Howard Sapers, executive director of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association which is intervening in the case, said Bill 21 may have been sold as benign legislation, but since its passing it has resulted in "clear and well-documented discrimination."

He said the law excludes Quebecers who practise particular religions — mainly Muslims, Jews and Sikhs — from some jobs and from participating in public life.

"In a democracy, no one should be forced out of their profession because of their religion," he said.

'Muslim women are not second-class citizens,' says school board chair challenging Quebec's Bill 21

Joe Ortona, chair of the English Montreal School Board, spoke to media ahead of the hearings over Quebec's secularism law Bill 21 at the Supreme Court of Canada. Ortona said Bill 21's ban of religious symbols for public sector employees is 'a restriction that has no bearing on the quality of education that students receive in the classroom.'

Joe Ortona, chair of the English Montreal School Board which is an appellant in the case, told reporters that he and others in court are standing up for minorities that he says are being discriminated against by Bill 21.

"We're here because Muslim women are not second-class citizens," he said. "We're here because Muslim women who choose to teach should not have to choose, or be forced to choose, between her conscience and her career."

He said whether a teacher does or does not wear a religious symbol in the classroom has no impact on a child's education.

He said that until Bill 21 is struck down the fight against it must go on. 

"There can be no second-class citizens in the Canada and Quebec that we grew up to recognize," he said. 

Anaïs Bussières McNicoll spoke on behalf of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.

"[Bill 21 is] a law that targets certain religions and excludes those who practise those religions from the public sector, particularly Muslim women," she said ahead of the hearings.

"Nobody should have to choose between their profession and their faith." 

She said this is not about Quebec versus the rest of Canada, as she said the provincial government is framing it.

Her group is here to "sound the alarm" against the risk of wider use of the notwithstanding clause, such as for a theoretical ban on abortion. (To be clear, the Quebec government has not proposed this.)

But she said its use here is normalizing the constitutional override for other governments as well.

Stephen Brown, the president of the National Council of Canadian Muslims, told reporters Monday morning that this case is the most consequential of our generation.

Speaking before the trial, Brown said the Supreme Court's forthcoming decision will determine whether Canada continues to be a liberal democracy, or something lesser.

Brown said that Quebec's decision to use the notwithstanding clause compromised the freedoms of Quebecers — and if it's allowed to stand, Canadians outside of the province could see their rights compromised when it comes to freedom of speech and religion. 

Brown said that because the laws that protect some Canadians are the same laws that protect all Canadians, this case is about whether politicians answer to Canadians or whether Canadians answer to their politicians.

Ichrak Nourel Hak, one of the teachers challenging Bill 21, spoke to reporters in the lobby of the Supreme Court before the hearing.

"This is not neutrality, this is legalized exclusion," she said of the bill.

"We aren't going anywhere.… We are not a problem to solve, nor an exception to tolerate. We are citizens."

---

---