(Photo: Getty/iStock)
A Canadian Supreme Court hearing on a controversial secularism law in Quebec is taking place over four days this week.
Bill 21 was passed in 2019 and bars public figures like judges, teachers and police officers from displaying symbols of their faith.
The law has been heavily criticised for stifling freedom of religion, something that is effectively permitted by a “notwithstanding clause” clause, a unique quirk of Canadian legal history that allows the suspension of certain civil liberties.
The guiding principle of Bill 21 is the French concept of laïcité, a secularist idea which implies state neutrality on issues of religion.
Opponents of the bill, however, state that it is not 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 individual before it — neither promoting nor obstructing religion. At this point, Quebec is no longer neutral. It is increasingly oppressive toward people of faith.”
Similar arguments were made at the time of the bill’s introduction.
The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada has expressed dismay at the “violation of religious freedom”.
Derek Ross, executive director of the Christian Legal Fellowship, said, “Bill 21 bans many Quebecers from wearing religious symbols at work. It therefore violates a foundational right of any free and democratic society: the right to openly and publicly identify as religious.
“Bill 21 purports to be advancing religious neutrality, but it is promoting the exact opposite: a public square which is hostile, not neutral, toward religion. This is unacceptable.”
The case has grown into more than an argument about the rights of judges to wear crosses, hijabs or turbans, and has undermined the national unity of Canada.
Commenting on the use of the “notwithstanding” clause, Federal justice minister Sean Fraser said last year that the result of the hearing “will shape how both federal and provincial governments may use the notwithstanding clause for years to come”.
Ottawa has argued that the Supreme Court should limit the use of “notwithstanding” clauses, arguing that they could 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”.
