{"id":207100,"date":"2019-03-27T02:13:36","date_gmt":"2019-03-27T06:13:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/?p=207100"},"modified":"2019-03-27T02:13:36","modified_gmt":"2019-03-27T06:13:36","slug":"quebec-premier-defends-limiting-court-challenges-of-upcoming-secularism-bill","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/2019\/03\/27\/quebec-premier-defends-limiting-court-challenges-of-upcoming-secularism-bill\/","title":{"rendered":"Quebec premier defends limiting court challenges of upcoming secularism bill"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/a>
Legault said the notwithstanding clause \u2013 Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms \u2013 has been used \u201cdozens of times by many Quebec premiers\u201d with the purpose of protecting collective rights against individual freedoms. (File Photo<\/a>: Francois Legault\/Facebook<\/a>)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

MONTREAL \u2013 Premier Francois Legault invoked Quebecers’ values, language and distinctiveness Tuesday to justify shielding from court challenge upcoming legislation that will restrict the wearing of religious symbols .<\/p>\n

Legault said the notwithstanding clause \u2013 Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms \u2013 has been used \u201cdozens of times by many Quebec premiers\u201d with the purpose of protecting collective rights against individual freedoms.<\/p>\n

It is \u201cimportant,\u201d he said, to use Section 33 \u201cwhen we are talking about protecting our values, our language, protecting what makes us different here in Quebec.\u201d<\/p>\n

Civil rights groups have made clear their desire to challenge the government’s upcoming secularism legislation, which would prohibit workers in positions of authority \u2013 including teachers, judges, police officers and prison guards \u2013 from wearing conspicuous religious symbols.<\/p>\n

Opponents have argued any attempt to ban people from wearing religious items at work violates the freedoms of religion and of conscience and the right to equality contained in the federal and provincial rights charters.<\/p>\n

The notwithstanding clause allows federal, provincial and territorial governments to override rights for a renewable period of five years. Montreal La Presse reported last week legislation expected Thursday will invoke the clause pre-emptively, blocking any attempt to challenge the law on charter grounds.<\/p>\n

La Presse said the bill will also invoke overriding language in the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.<\/p>\n

Legault stopped short of confirming that Section 33 would be used pre-emptively, but he didn’t deny it. \u201cIn both charters, the notwithstanding clause is in the law and included in the charters and allows governments to use them when there is conflict between collective and individual rights,\u201d he said when questioned by reporters in Quebec City.<\/p>\n

McGill University law professor Robert Leckey said the Supreme Court of Canada has held that Section 33 can be used pre-emptively. As a protest against the ratification of the 1982 Constitution without Quebec’s signature, the Parti Quebecois government invoked Section 33 in every piece of legislation it tabled between 1982 and 1985.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe reasons Quebec was using (Section 33) pre-emptively in the early 1980s were so different than now,\u201d Leckey said in an interview. \u201cThey were doing it because they were protesting the charter. Doing it now is simply saying, ‘We want to deny their day in court to the minority religious people whose rights this law would limit.’ \u201c<\/p>\n

The government has said it wants to put to rest the debate over secularism, and use of the notwithstanding clause would prevent its law from getting tied up in the courts for years.<\/p>\n

Leckey said a more credible reading is that \u201cthe government acknowledges it does not have a valid purpose … that would justify the limit on rights that it’s about to move ahead with.\u201d<\/p>\n

A spokesman for the bill’s sponsor, Immigration, Diversity and Inclusiveness Minister Simon Jolin-Barrette, would not confirm any details of the legislation.<\/p>\n

Meanwhile, opposition to the Quebec government’s secularism bill is increasing. A major teachers’ federation filed a lawsuit Tuesday against the government’s attempts to count the number of teachers who wear religious symbols. La Federation autonome de l’enseignement wants the Superior Court to declare unconstitutional any steps by the government to force schools to provide information on the religious symbols worn by employees.<\/p>\n

Additionally, Philippe-Andre Tessier, the head of the provincial human rights commission, told Montreal La Presse Tuesday he opposes the pre-emptive use of Section 33 to block legal challenges of the bill. His spokesperson said he wasn’t available for further interviews.<\/p>\n

Legault said Tessier’s comments were not surprising. \u201cWe realized, we expected that certain people, certain jurists, would not be happy about the use of the notwithstanding clause,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

The premier and Jolin-Barrette promised during the last election campaign to quickly adopt the legislation. Legault has often stated that a majority of Quebecers support his push to ban public sector workers who occupy positions of authority from wearing religious symbols.<\/p>\n

But Leckey said the bill won’t end Quebecers’ anxieties with the cultural and religious differences of immigrants. There is no evidence, he said, that a single teacher, police officer, judge or Crown prosecutor has been proselytizing or trying to impose their religion on people in the province, he said.<\/p>\n

\u2013 With files from Caroline Plante<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

MONTREAL \u2013 Premier Francois Legault invoked Quebecers’ values, language and distinctiveness Tuesday to justify shielding from court challenge upcoming legislation …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":44,"featured_media":187389,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[18,16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-207100","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-news-ca","category-news","mauthors-giuseppe-valiante","mauthors-the-canadian-press"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/207100","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/44"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=207100"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/207100\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":207101,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/207100\/revisions\/207101"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/187389"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=207100"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=207100"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=207100"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}