In brief
The Supreme Court of Canada is set to hear a challenge to Bill 21, which prohibits public sector employees from wearing religious symbols at work. This constitutional debate over secularism and rights is expected to have wide-ranging implications for national unity and the balance of power between courts and elected officials. Advocates argue the law promotes state neutrality, but critics assert it discriminates against minority religions and undermines individual freedoms.
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. They raised potential fears of the clause used to ban abortion, criminalize political speech, or legalize torture.
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.
Supporters of Bill 21 argue it's a reasonable step towards enshrining the separation of church and state in Quebec, while critics say it is discriminatory and has made it more difficult for religious minorities to integrate, particularly targeting Muslim women.
That clause is section 33 of the Canadian constitution, allowing a government to override certain fundamental freedoms and is subject to renewal every five years. Critics have warned it has been misused as a political tool.
The Supreme Court's ruling will not only address the validity of Bill 21 but also set a precedent on how the notwithstanding clause can be invoked, impacting the fabric of Canadian democracy for years to come.
