Canadian Supreme Court hears challenge against controversial secularism law

A Canadian Supreme Court hearing on a controversial secularism law in Quebec is going down over 4 days this week.

Bill 21 was passed in 2019 and bars public figures like judges, teachers and law enforcement officials from displaying symbols of their faith.

The law has been heavily criticised for stifling freedom of faith, something that’s effectively permitted by a “notwithstanding clause” clause, a singular quirk of Canadian legal history that permits the suspension of certain civil liberties.

The tenet of Bill 21 is the French concept of laïcité, a secularist idea which suggests state neutrality on problems with religion.

Opponents of the bill, nonetheless, state that it will not be neutral towards religion but actively hostile.

Jean-Sébastien Morin, writing for The Gospel Coalition of Canada, has argued, “The state is to be agnostic toward the person before it — neither promoting nor obstructing religion. At this point, Quebec is not any longer neutral. It is increasingly oppressive toward people of religion.”

Similar arguments were made on the time of the bill’s introduction.

The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada has expressed dismay on the “violation of non secular freedom”.

Derek Ross, executive director of the Christian Legal Fellowship, said, “Bill 21 bans many Quebecers from wearing religious symbols at work. It due to this fact violates a foundational right of any free and democratic society: the appropriate to openly and publicly discover as religious.

“Bill 21 purports to be advancing religious neutrality, but it surely is promoting the precise opposite: a public square which is hostile, not neutral, toward religion. This is unacceptable.”

The case has grown into greater than an argument concerning the rights of judges to wear crosses, hijabs or turbans, and has undermined the national unity of Canada.

Commenting on using the “notwithstanding” clause, Federal justice minister Sean Fraser said last yr that the results of the hearing “will shape how each federal and provincial governments may use the notwithstanding clause for years to return”.

Ottawa has argued that the Supreme Court should limit using “notwithstanding” clauses, arguing that they might be “used to distort or annihilate the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the [Canadian rights] Charter”.

In a response, five other states, all of which have used “notwithstanding” clauses for various uses, said that Ottawa’s intervention was an attack on national unity, adding that the federal government was launching a ”direct attack on the foundational constitutional principles of federalism and democracy”.