The Superior Court elected English language school boards and members of the National Assembly from the ban on the wearing of religious symbols and from the responsibility of the face provided in law on state secularism.
In court view, Bill 21 violates Section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom, which gives constitutional rights to linguistic minorities in the management of their schools. “The tribunal should note that without recognizing or denying the fact that cultural and religious diversity exists and that the French language is valuable in the public education system, unrestricted evidence is the English language school boards and their ethnicity. Teachers or directors place special importance on recognizing and celebrating religious diversity.” Andre Blanchard wrote in a decision taken publicly Tuesday morning.
The use of the abusive provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms significantly limited the tribunal’s orientation – and the imposition of a ban on human rights, and the wearing of religious symbols. And the responsibility of the face has emerged especially in French-speaking school service centers.
“In this case, there is no doubt that the rejection of Act 21 of the Chartered Guaranteed Rights will have serious consequences for the people concerned. In addition, Law 21 requires minority students wearing religious symbols to occupy a different place in society and send the message that the path to public education does not exist for them at the preschool, elementary and secondary levels, “said Judge Mark-Andre Blanchard.” [T] Our society is an ant that recognizes religious freedom […], It follows that it cannot be ignored as a simple supplementary matter, ”he believes.
For the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the National Council of Canadian Muslims (CNMC) or the Autonomous Federation of Education (FAEE), which says Law 21 discriminates against religious minorities when Muslim women begin wearing the hijab, the Supreme Court decision is half defeat or half victory.
A baccalaureate student teaching at Norael Haque University in Montreal has filed a lawsuit against secularism in the state on June 17, 2019, within 24 hours of being adopted by the National Assembly under the GAG Order. She filed a petition for judicial review to declare the law invalid, as well as an application for a temporary stay of articles prohibiting the wearing of a religious symbol in certain duties (Article 6) and ‘obligations of obligation. The face came out during the provision and reception of public services (Article 8), but to no avail. In light of Judge Blanchard’s decision, Ichrac Nourel Haque can teach while wearing his hijab on an English – speaking educational network, but not on a French – speaking network.
For the head of Quebec Party, Paul St.-Pierre Plamondon, Tribunal “In the process of separating the Anglophones and the Francophones into groups not governed by the same laws”. “For politicians in the National Assembly or for English language school boards, the Canadian legal framework denies us the right to self-determination,” he lamented Tuesday morning.
Dominic Anglade, the official opposition leader in the National Assembly, said the Liberal Party “respects the judicial process” without ignoring the fact that the debate on the legality of Bill 21 will no doubt come before the court. Quebec Appeal, then Supreme Court of Canada. In the near future, she said, “we will take the time to analyze the verdict:” We are in favor of secularism. “
The magistrate exempted members of the National Assembly from the ban on the wearing of religious symbols. This is in violation of Section 3 of the Canadian Charter “Every Canadian citizen has the right to vote and is eligible for federal or regional legislative elections”. ” [L’]The effect of the first paragraph of Article 8 leads to only one reasonable conclusion: the person covering his face cannot even consider sitting in the National Assembly after his election, which means that he can, for sure, contest for an elected position, which does not follow the order received from the voters ”, Judge Blanchard Underline.