Canadian Trial Court Upholds Most Applications of Quebec's Ban On Officials Wearing Religious Symbols

In Hak v. Attorney General of Quebec, (Que. Super. Ct., April 20, 2021), a Quebec (Canada) Superior Court judge in a 240-page opinion upheld, with two important exceptions, Bill 21 which prohibits a lengthy list of public officials, law enforcement and judicial officials as well as teachers from wearing religious symbols in the exercise of their official functions. (See prior posting.) Here is CBC News' summary of the decision:

Quebec's secularism law violates the basic rights of religious minorities in the province, but those violations are permissible because of the Constitution's notwithstanding clause, a Superior Court judge ruled on Tuesday.

But the ruling by Justice Marc-André Blanchard also declared that the most contentious parts of the law — the religious symbols ban for many government employees — can't be applied to English schools.

The desire of English school boards to foster diversity by choosing who they hire is protected by the minority-language education rights in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Blanchard said in his decision.

Crucially, that section of the charter (23) is not covered by the notwithstanding clause....

Blanchard also ruled that members of the province's National Assembly can't be forced to provide services to the public with their faces uncovered.

In other words, MNAs are allowed to wear religious symbols that cover their faces, such as a niqab, in accordance with the section of the charter that guarantees every citizen the right to be eligible to vote and be a member of the legislature.

Quebec's Justice Minister says that an appeal is planned. Montreal Gazette and the New York Times also analyze the decision.

Appeals Court Refuses Temporary Injunction Against Quebec's Secularism Act

In Hak v. Attorney General of Quebec, (Quebec Ct. App., Dec. 12, 2019) (full text of opinion in French), the Quebec Court of Appeal, by a 2-1 vote, upheld a trial court's refusal to issue a temporary injunction against the enforcement of two provisions of the Secularism Act (Bill 21). The sections at issue bar teachers, as well as various other public employees and officials, from wearing religious symbols in carrying out their official duties, and prohibit various public employees from carrying out their functions with their face covered. The individual plaintiff in the case who is about to graduate as a teacher wants to wear her hijab while teaching French in an English elementary or high school.

Judge Belanger refused to grant the temporary injunction, saying in part:

What the Attorney General invokes in this case and with reason, that is the presumption that the legislation addresses the common good . At this stage of the proceedings, the Court must assume that the Act serves a valid public purpose. Unless it is clear that the law enacted is not intended to serve a public purpose, the courts must take it for granted.

It follows from this principle that the courts will not suspend legislation passed by a legislature without having made a full constitutional review. Accordingly, suspension orders are only issued in clear cases.

We must recognize that we are not in a clear case where we can say right now that the Act is unconstitutional, despite the presence of serious issues.

Judge Mainville would likewise refuse a temporary injunction, saying in part:

[W]hen, as here, questions arise about the relationship between the state and religions, on which deep differences may reasonably exist within a free and democratic society, there is a need for courts to act with caution and circumspection because of the diversity of approaches to these issues and the difficulty of forming a uniform understanding of the meaning of religion in society. The role and impact of religion in society, as well as the forms of public expression of religious belief, are not the same in different times and contexts. They vary according to changing sociological and ideological factors, national traditions and demands imposed by the protection of the rights and freedoms of others and the maintenance of public order in a given society. The conception of the religious symbolism and its place in the public space are not perceived in the same way by each society.The State Secularism Act is a striking example in Canada.

It should therefore be noted that many of the issues relating to the wearing of religious symbols by police officers, teachers, principals and judicial personnel in Quebec - including the legal issues that arise - are complex and do not lend themselves to summary analyzes on the basis of piecemeal evidence, as the appellants ask us to do in this case.....

At this stage of the judicial proceedings, a suspension of sections 6 and 8 of the State Secularity Act can not be contemplated since the Court must presume that the public interest is served by the maintenance in force of these provisions given the presumption of constitutional validity. 

Chief Justice Hesler would have granted a temporary injunction, saying in part:

To sum up, it appears at this stage that the risk of suffering irreparable harm has materialized for certain teachers, all of whom are women, who aspired to a career in teaching. The prejudice will remain for the others who, not wishing to abandon the wearing of a religious sign, will have to give up their choice of career, or even move out of Quebec....

Without prejudging the fate of the appeal, which will be heard in October 2020, it is better to uphold respect for fundamental rights during the proceedings, considering the obligation on the courts to enforce these rights, rather than to deprive people of their fundamental rights, even for a limited time. [All English translations are via Google Translate].

Montreal Gazette reports on the decision.

Suit Filed Against Quebec's Ban On Public Employees Wearing Religious Symbols

AP reported yesterday that in the Canadian province of Quebec, another lawsuit has been filed challenging Bill 21. The law, passed earlier this year, prohibits a lengthy list of public officials, law enforcement and judicial officials as well as teachers from wearing religious symbols in the exercise of their official functions. A grandfather clause exempts most current officials and employees. (See prior posting.) This suit was brought by Fédération Autonome de l'Enseignement, a union representing 45,000 teachers.  Challengers claim the law not only violates freedom of religion, but also equality rights because its main impact is on teachers, 75% of whom are women.

Quebec Court Refuses To Enjoin Law Barring Officials From Wearing Religious Symbols

In Hak v. National Council of Canadian Muslims, (Quebec Super. Ct.., July 9, 2019) [opinion in French], a Quebec trial court refused to issue a temporary injunction against enforcement of the province's new law that prohibits a lengthy list of public officials, law enforcement and judicial officials as well as teachers from wearing religious symbols in the exercise of their official functions. (See prior posting.) According to CBC News:

The government hoped to shield the law from constitutional challenges by invoking the notwithstanding clause; meaning critics can't appeal to the fundamental freedoms section of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to get it struck down....

At several points in his decision, [Judge] Yergeau said the injunction request had a steeper hill to climb because the civil society groups couldn't argue the law violated fundamental freedoms protected by the charter.

"The plaintiffs had no other choice for success than to base themselves on purely constitutional arguments, as opposed to Charter arguments, whose validity remains uncertain," the decision reads....

He noted, in particular, the arguments that the law trampled on federal jurisdiction and violated minority rights had enough merit to warrant further consideration by the courts.

But he also said claims that the law had caused irreparable harm were "purely hypothetical and often speculative" given the motion filed so quickly after it was passed.

Quebec Enacts Ban On Public Employees Wearing Religious Symbols

On June 16 in Canada, Quebec's Parliament passed and the Lieutenant Governor signed (legislative history) Bill 21 (full text as introduced; adopted amendments), a controversial law that prohibits a lengthy list of public officials, law enforcement and judicial officials as well as teachers from wearing religious symbols in the exercise of their official functions. A grandfather clause exempts most current officials and employees. However it prohibits any other accommodations from being granted under the law. The new law also requires an extensive list of public employees to carry out their functions with their face uncovered. It also requires persons who seek public services to present themselves with their face uncovered if necessary for identification or security. Parliament invoked the "notwithstanding clause" of the Canadian Constitution to prevent constitutional challenges.

The new law additionally sets out broader principles of secularism for the province:

CHAPTER I: AFFIRMATION OF THE LAICITY OF THE STATE

1. The State of Québec is a lay State.

2. The laicity of the State is based on the following principles: (1) the separation of State and religions; (2) the religious neutrality of the State; (3) the equality of all citizens; and (4) freedom of conscience and freedom of religion.

The new law also amends Sec. 9.1 of Quebec's Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms to  to add "State laicity" as one of the permissible factors to consider in limiting freedoms.  Montreal Gazette reports on the legislation. Chatelaine summarizes the new law and its enactment:

After a long debate, the bill was passed at 10:30 p.m. on June 16 with support from the Parti Québécois. The Quebec Liberal Party and Québec Solidaire voted against the bill. Bill 21 formally bans teachers, police officers, judges and many others from wearing items like hijabs, turbans, kippas, and crucifixes in the course of their duties. It also doubles down on pre-existing legislation that requires citizens to uncover their faces when accessing public services like municipal transit and the legal system.

One day after the law was enacted, the National Council of Canadian Muslims and the Canadian Civil Liberties Union filed suit to declare the law invalid and to obtain an interim order staying its operation while the litigation is pending.  The complaint (full text) in Hak v. Attorney General of Quebec, (Quebec Super. Ct., file 6/17/2019), contends that the law exceeds the powers of the province, is impermissibly vague and contravenes the "internal architecture" of the Canadian Constitution. CTV News reports on the lawsuit.

Quebec Enacts New Religious Neutrality Law

In Canada in Wednesday, Quebec's National Assembly passed Bill 62 (full text) which is designed to assure that those providing government services, including subsidized educational institutions, adhere to principles of religious neutrality.  Exceptions in the Act include those engaged in religious instruction in universities, or to prison or university chaplains.  In a section aimed at burqas, the Act bans both those furnishing government services, and those receiving them, from doing so with their face covered, though accommodations are possible. A UPI report on the new law suggests that it will prevent Muslim women who wear the burqa from visiting libraries or riding public buses.  The Act also provides criteria for granting religious accommodations to public employees. Among other things, any accommodation must be "consistent with the right for equality between women and men," and may "not compromise the principle of State religious neutrality." [Thanks to Scott Mange and Steven H. Sholk for the lead.]

AG Sessions Speaks To Conservative Christian Advocacy Group

On July 11, Attorney General Jeff Sessions spoke to a meeting sponsored by Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian advocacy organization.  The full text of his remarks, which focused on religious liberty, was published by The Federalist yesterday.  Here are some excerpts:

The challenges our nation faces today concerning our historic First Amendment right to the “free exercise” of our faith have become acute. I believe that this recent election was significantly impacted by this concern and that this motivated many voters. President Trump made a promise that was heard. In substance, he said he respected people of faith and he promised to protect them in the free exercise of their faith. This promise was well received.

.... America has never thought itself to be a theocracy. Our founders, at least the most articulate of them, believed our government existed as a protector of religious rights of Americans that were essential to being a created human being.

The government did not exist to promote religious doctrine nor to take sides in religious disputes.... The government’s role was to provide the great secular structure that would protect the rights of all citizens to fulfill their duty to relate to God as their conscience dictated and to guarantee the citizen’s right to exercise that faith.....

The president has ... directed me to issue guidance on how to apply federal religious liberty protections. The department is finalizing this guidance, and I will soon issue it.

The guidance will also help agencies follow the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Congress enacted RFRA so that, if the federal government imposes a burden on somebody’s religious practice, it had better have a compelling reason....

Under this administration, religious Americans will be treated neither as an afterthought nor as a problem to be managed. The federal government will actively find ways to accommodate people of all faiths. The protections enshrined in the Constitution and our laws protect all Americans, including when we work together, speak in the public square, and when we interact with our government. We don’t waive our constitutional rights when we participate fully in public life and civic society.

This administration, and the upcoming guidance, will be animated by that same American view that has led us for 241 years: that every American has a right to believe, worship, and exercise their faith in the public square....

Britain's Commission on Religion In Public Life Issues Final Report

The Commission on Religion and Belief in British Public Life-- created by the Woolf Institute in 2013-- released its final report yesterday. The Commission was chaired by a distinguished retired British judge, Baroness Elizabeth Butler-Sloss. The 104-page report titled Living With Difference-- Community, Diversity and the Common Good makes wide-ranging recommendations.  It identifies important religious changes in Britain over the past 50 years: an increase in the number of non-religious individuals; a general decline in Christian affiliation, belief and practice; and increased diversity of religious beliefs among those who profess a religion. The report sets out a broad vision:

The commission’s vision is of a society at ease with itself in which all individuals, groups and communities feel at home, and in whose flrishing all wish to take part. In such a society all:

• feel a positive part of an ongoing national story – what it means to be British is not fixed and final, for people in the past understood the concept differently from the way it is seen today and all must be able to participate in shaping its meaning for the future

• are treated with equal respect and concern by the law, the state and public authorities

• know that their culture, religion and beliefs are embraced as part of a continuing process of mutual enrichment, and that their contributions to the texture of the nation’s common life are valued

• are free to express and practise their beliefs, religious or otherwise, providing they do not constrict the rights and freedoms of others

• are confdent in helping to shape public policy

• feel challenged to respond to the many manifest ills in wider society.

The Guardian reports on some of the Commission's recommendations, focusing particularly on those affecting schools.