Quebec argues opponents of its secularism law, Bill 21, are rehashing failed arguments at the Supreme Court. The province, having won in lower courts, is defending the law, which bans religious symbols for public workers. Critics see it as an attack on minority rights.
The case is a landmark, as the court will examine government's power to override rights. Quebec used the notwithstanding clause to shield Bill 21. The province says opponents are trying to circumvent this.
The key precedent is the 1988 Ford case, which Quebec says shouldn't be reconsidered. Since then, questions have arisen about the notwithstanding clause.
Appellants want Bill 21 overturned, arguing for a reconsideration of Ford and examining other legal aspects. Quebec says the case raises no new issues and that opponents are trying to rewrite the law. The hearing could happen this winter, with many groups and the federal government involved.
3 Comments
Matzomaster
The Ford case argument feels like a desperate attempt to cling to outdated interpretations of rights. The world has changed.
Karamba
Ford case is ancient. The world has evolved, and so should our laws and their interpretations.
Rotfront
The province has a right to make its own laws, and the courts have already agreed with them. Let Quebec govern itself.