https://news.umanitoba.ca/op-ed-leaders-wrong-to-accede-to-quebecs-symbols-ban-demand/?fbclid=IwAR1rlBjXGqo4XpBHxYC2S-W3VUJN05K0TpxJrn7gALAZ8H6lI7jIRPUjpuU
In the early days of the federal election campaign, Québec Premier François Legault called on leaders of Canada’s federal parties to pledge not to take part in any legal challenges against the province’s Act respecting the laicity of the State, also known as Bill 21, the secularism law that bars public servants in positions of authority from wearing religious symbols including a hijab, turban or kippah. Justin Trudeau, the Liberal leader, was the first to promise that he would reserve the right to intervene at a later date. Following Monday night’s English leaders’ debate, NDP leader Jagmeet Singh stated that he might consider intervening if the challenge were heard by the Supreme Court of Canada. For their part, Conservative leader Andrew Scheer and People’s Party leader Maxime Bernier acceded to Premier Legault’s request. Their decision to commit in advance not to participate in a legal challenge is wrongheaded. A decision whether or not to intervene should be made only once the federal government has had the opportunity to assess all constitutional arguments raised by the parties to the litigation and decide whether it is in the public interest to participate in the proceedings.
Well-established procedural rules provide that interested attorneys general must receive notice of litigation that raises the constitutional validity of a law to ensure they have the opportunity to address this question. On an appeal to the Supreme Court, a notice of constitutional question must be sent to all attorneys general that are not already parties to the appeal, including the Attorney General of Canada and attorneys general of the provinces and territories.
As noted by several constitutional law experts, the invocation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms’ notwithstanding clause in Bill 21 would not prevent a court from reviewing that law’s constitutionality. While the court could not declare that the secularism law has no force and effect, rendering it inoperative, nothing would prevent it from declaring that the law nevertheless violates the rights to freedom of religion, freedom of expression and equality and that the limits that it imposes on these rights are not reasonable and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
In the early days of the federal election campaign, Québec Premier François Legault called on leaders of Canada’s federal parties to pledge not to take part in any legal challenges against the province’s Act respecting the laicity of the State, also known as Bill 21, the secularism law that bars public servants in positions of authority from wearing religious symbols including a hijab, turban or kippah. Justin Trudeau, the Liberal leader, was the first to promise that he would reserve the right to intervene at a later date. Following Monday night’s English leaders’ debate, NDP leader Jagmeet Singh stated that he might consider intervening if the challenge were heard by the Supreme Court of Canada. For their part, Conservative leader Andrew Scheer and People’s Party leader Maxime Bernier acceded to Premier Legault’s request. Their decision to commit in advance not to participate in a legal challenge is wrongheaded. A decision whether or not to intervene should be made only once the federal government has had the opportunity to assess all constitutional arguments raised by the parties to the litigation and decide whether it is in the public interest to participate in the proceedings.
Well-established procedural rules provide that interested attorneys general must receive notice of litigation that raises the constitutional validity of a law to ensure they have the opportunity to address this question. On an appeal to the Supreme Court, a notice of constitutional question must be sent to all attorneys general that are not already parties to the appeal, including the Attorney General of Canada and attorneys general of the provinces and territories.
As noted by several constitutional law experts, the invocation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms’ notwithstanding clause in Bill 21 would not prevent a court from reviewing that law’s constitutionality. While the court could not declare that the secularism law has no force and effect, rendering it inoperative, nothing would prevent it from declaring that the law nevertheless violates the rights to freedom of religion, freedom of expression and equality and that the limits that it imposes on these rights are not reasonable and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
No comments:
Post a Comment