For Out Canadians - What do you think?
-
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ceqw5j5lx32o
A controversial secularism law in Quebec is heading to Canada's Supreme Court - but the outcome will impact much more than religious expression in Canada, legal experts say.
The case has the potential to test national unity and the balance between courts and elected officials.
"This case is probably going to be the most important constitutional case in a generation," said Christine Van Geyn, executive director at the Canadian Constitution Foundation.
At the heart of the case is Bill 21, which bars civil servants like judges, police officers and teachers from wearing religious symbols at work. It was passed in 2019, by the governing Coalition Avenir Quebec (CAQ).
But to withstand legal challenges, legislators employed a unique Canadian invention, the controversial "notwithstanding clause". That legal loophole allows governments to override certain constitutional rights, including freedom of religion and equality rights.
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) called Quebec's arguments in court "spine-chilling".
"Could a government invoke [the clause] to ban abortion? To criminalise political speech critical of the government? To legalise torture?" the CCLA wrote in a recent op-ed in French-language newspaper Le Devoir.
"According to the Quebec government's logic, even in such cases, the courts would not only be powerless but also bound to silence."
On Monday, the court will begin four days of hearings on a constitutional challenge to Bill 21, with more than 50 interveners including the federal government. -
Personally, I have no issue with Quebec's Bill 21. The roots of Bill go back to the 1950s (The Quiet Revolution) and the rise of Quebec nationalism and secularism in the 1970s. In the context of Quebec society it makes perfect sense and maintains majority support not only among Francophones but also, among many Anglophone Quebecers in the Montreal region.
On the other hand, I do not support the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in general and specifically the notwithstanding clause which enables provincial and constitutionally, even the Federal government to override the Charter. In fact I would do away with the Charter altogether and rely exclusively on the British North America Act and the application of British Common Law to determine rights and freedoms throughout the country. In my opinion the very existence of the Charter erodes our Westminster system of governance and leads us down the road to becoming a litigious and lawyer ridden republic. As far as I'm concerned, a road to perdition.
Here is a link to an article that appeared in last spring's National Post. Its author, Ted Morton, held various ministerial portfolios under the Conservative Alberta Government until 2012, when he lost his riding in an election. Suffice to say, I met with him when he was Minister of Energy in 2011 on a industry matter involving abandoned and orphaned wells here, and thought him to be a light weight conservative populist ideologue. Despite my personal misgivings of him the article will give you an idea of what all this fuss over Bill 21 entails viz a viz the notwithstanding clause and provincial over federal jurisdiction arising from the Charter.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login