Justice
Quebec’s highest court upholds law banning public servants from wearing religious symbols
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ba154/ba15435ab27f4ada6fc710a19600bd3f1cef3fec" alt=""
Quebec Premier François Legault
From LifeSiteNews
The new ruling overrides the Quebec Superior Court’s 2021 ruling which exempted the Montreal English school board from the province’s secularism law which prohibits public servants from wearing cross or other religious symbols.
Quebec’s highest court has upheld the province’s secularism law which bans civil servants from wearing religious symbols while at work.
On February 29, the Quebec Court of Appeals ruled that that the province’s secularism law, Bill 21, is constitutional and overturned a previous decision which exempted English schools from the law.
“The Act does not offend the unwritten principles or the architecture of the Canadian Constitution, nor does it offend any pre-Confederation statute or principle having constitutional status,” Appeal Court justices, Manon Savard, Yves-Marie Morrissette et Marie-France Bich wrote in their decision.
Bill 21, passed in 2019, bans all public servants, including public school teachers, police officers, government lawyers, and wildlife officials, from wearing any religious symbols while at work.
However, citing its commitment to “diversity, acceptance, tolerance and respect for individual rights and religious freedoms,” the Montreal English School Board indicated that it would not comply with the new law.
While the Quebec Superior Court exempted English schools from the secularism law in April 2021, the new 290-page ruling overrides the lower court’s decision.
The Superior Court decision was challenged in November 2022 by various civil liberties groups in addition to the Quebec government, which argued it created an unfair distinction between English and French schools.
The new decision relies on the province’s use of the notwithstanding clause, which allows the province to override most challenges to the legislation.
The notwithstanding clause, embedded in section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, allows provinces to temporarily override sections of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to protect new laws from being scrapped by the courts.
“The court has confirmed Quebec’s right to make its own decisions,” Premier François Legault told reporters in Montreal Thursday. “Secularism is a collective choice that is part of our history, in continuity with the Quiet Revolution. Secularism is a principle that unites us as a nation in Quebec.”
Legault confirmed that the province will continue using notwithstanding clause for “as long as it is necessary for Canada to recognize the societal choice of the Quebec nation.”
He added that the law is “non-negotiable” as the province recently tabled legislation to renew the application of the clause to Bill 21 for another five years.
While the decision was celebrated by the Quebec premier, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) called the ruling a “painful setback.”
“This is a heart-wrenching day and highlights the urgent need for people across Quebec who have stood up for the values of equality, justice and freedom to continue to raise their voices,” CCLA Executive Director and General Counsel Noa Mendelsohn Aviv said in a press release.
“These values are the ones that fuel our legal challenge and that lie at the heart of our collective struggle against Bill 21,” Aviv declared.
Similarly, Quebec Life Coalition President Georges Buscemi told LifeSiteNews, “This decision is completely consistent with the recent historical trend in Quebec, which is one of rejecting its Catholic heritage in favor of a liberal ‘enlightened’ worldview, which considers religion to be a purely private matter.”
“This decision confirms the ‘legality’ of Quebec’s secularism law, which purports to make the state ‘neutral’ with respect to religions,” he continued. “Whatever the intentions of this law, its effect is to extirpate all signs of religion from the public square, from Knights of Columbus meetings in community centers to prayer in daycares. So called state-neutrality is quickly becoming state atheism in practice.”
Business
Judge blocks Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency from accessing Treasury records
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/604bc/604bc566b625790c6000af78e29e9d6a5f7b4b1c" alt=""
From LifeSiteNews
The emergency ruling comes as 15 Soros-installed AGs seek to block Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) from access to information that would reveal how activist groups in blue states have been funded by the U.S. government.
In a stunning and sweeping emergency injunction that has even stunned the people who demanded it, a Manhattan-based district judge has just removed Secretary of Treasury Scott Bessent from his authority over the Treasury Department; blocked any political appointee from accessing records within the Treasury Department; blocked any “special appointee” of President Trump from records within Treasury; and demanded that all information previously extracted be destroyed.
The emergency injunction, signed by District Judge Paul Engelmayer in Manhattan, was determined without any input from the Trump administration and applies until Friday, February 14, 2025, when U.S. District Judge Jeannette A. Vargas will hear the full arguments of the lawsuit.
The emergency ruling comes as a result of 15 (Soros-installed) attorneys general from New Jersey, New York, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Nevada, Rhode Island, and Vermont all filing suit in New York seeking to block Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) from access to information that would reveal how activist groups in their states have been funded by the U.S. government.
READ: Judge blocks Trump plan that would put thousands of USAID staff on paid leave
From Reuters:
The lawsuit said Musk and his team could disrupt federal funding for health clinics, preschools, climate initiatives, and other programs, and that Republican President Donald Trump could use the information to further his political agenda.
DOGE’s access to the system also ‘poses huge cybersecurity risks that put vast amounts of funding for the States and their residents in peril,’ the state attorneys general said. They sought a temporary restraining order blocking DOGE’s access.
The judge, an appointee of Democratic former President Barack Obama, said the states’ claims were ‘particularly strong’ and warranted him acting on their request for emergency relief pending a further hearing before another judge on February 14.
‘That is both because of the risk that the new policy presents of the disclosure of sensitive and confidential information and the heightened risk that the systems in question will be more vulnerable than before to hacking,’ Engelmayer wrote.
New York Attorney General Letitia James, a Democrat whose office is leading the case, welcomed the ruling, saying nobody was above the law and that Americans across the country had been horrified by the DOGE team’s unfettered access to their data.
‘We knew the Trump administration’s choice to give this access to unauthorized individuals was illegal, and this morning, a federal court agreed,’ James said in a statement.
‘Now, Americans can trust that Musk – the world’s richest man – and his friends will not have free rein over their personal information while our lawsuit proceeds.’
Engelmayer’s order bars access from being granted to Treasury Department payment and data systems by political appointees, special government employees and government employees detailed from an agency outside the Treasury Department.
The judge also directed that anyone prohibited under his order from accessing those systems to immediately destroy anything they copied or downloaded.
The order by the judge is transparent judicial activism; it will almost certainly be overturned and nullified by later rulings. However, it creates blocks and slows down the goal of DOGE and the objective of the Trump administration.
On what basis do states think they can sue the federal government to stop the federal government from auditing federal spending? How can a judge block the executive branch from executing the functions of the executive branch? This lawfare activism is ridiculous.
Within the ruling:
… restrained from granting access to any Treasury Department payment record, payment systems, or any other data systems maintained by the Treasury Department containing personally identifiable information and/or confidential financial information of payees, other than to civil servants with a need for access to perform their job duties within the Bureau of Fiscal Services who have passed all background checks and security clearances and taken all information security training called for in federal statutes and Treasury Department regulations… [Emphasis added.]
So the unelected bureaucracy is in charge and not the secretary of the Treasury?
Reprinted with permission from Conservative Treehouse.
Alberta
Alberta calls for tough-on-crime approach from feds
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/a9754/a9754e4d2a7c7fcb81ad4a7fd268bddec706bdf4" alt=""
Premier Danielle Smith and Minister of Justice and Attorney General Mickey Amery are demanding Ottawa get serious about drug crimes in Canada.
Premier Smith and Minister Amery have demanded Bill C-5 be repealed in its entirety and the federal government reintroduce mandatory minimum jail sentences for Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA) offences. Alberta also calls on the federal government to rescind guidelines prepared by the Public Prosecution Service of Canada that direct federal prosecutors to divert drug cases away from the criminal justice system to pursue alternative measures and leave criminal prosecutions for only the most serious cases.
If the federal government does not immediately undertake these actions, Premier Smith and Minister Amery have asked for federal funding to enable the province to permanently take over all CDSA prosecutions.
“For years, Alberta’s government has urged the federal government to reverse their soft-on-crime policies which have allowed illegal drugs to flood our streets and for repeat offenders to prey on our most vulnerable. The federal government must act now and put an end to their insane policies. And if they refuse to, then they must allow the Province of Alberta to take over all prosecutions under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. Let there be no mistake, Alberta’s government will find these dangerous criminals, prosecute them and keep them in jail where they belong.”
When the federal government passed Bill C-5, they further weakened the Canadian justice system and increased potential harm for Canadians by:
- Eliminating all mandatory minimum sentences of imprisonment for CDSA offences;
- Eliminating many mandatory minimum sentences for serious weapons and substance-related offences under the Criminal Code of Canada;
- Removing limitations placed on the use of conditional sentences;
- Forcing both police and prosecutors to first consider referring people to treatment and support programs rather than charging or prosecuting drug possession offences; and
- Continuing to emphasize an approach to drug possession that fails to address the death, disorder and victimization caused by the drug-crime nexus, by focusing narrowly on diversionary measures.
Under Bill C-5, law enforcement has lost the ability to effectively deal with serious crimes, lessening meaningful and impactful enforcement and prosecution. Drug dealers often face very limited consequences, with their charges dismissed or conditional sentences imposed. This allows these criminals to continue profiting from illegal activity while preying on vulnerable populations and worsening the drug crisis in Canada.
“Alberta is deeply concerned about the federal government’s failure to address the growing drug crisis in Canada. Federal prosecution directives and Bill C-5 have significantly weakened our justice system, allowing criminals and drug dealers to exploit loopholes while putting public safety and Canadian lives at risk. We demand immediate action to reverse these disastrous policies, prioritize the safety and well-being of Canadians, and restore Canada’s reputation on an international level.”
Issues with drugs and drug-related crimes continue to worsen in Canada, with drug trafficking often linked to other serious offences such as human trafficking, gun trafficking and money laundering. These concerns have also been underscored by the Trump Administration, which has called for Canada to secure the border to illegal migrant and drug activity. Alberta responded to that request by introducing a $29-million border plan to combat drug smuggling, gun trafficking and other illegal activities. The plan includes a new Sheriffs unit, a 51-officer Interdiction Patrol Team, four K-9 patrol teams, 10 weather surveillance drones and four narcotics analyzers to test for illicit drugs.
-
Censorship Industrial Complex2 days ago
Bipartisan US Coalition Finally Tells Europe, and the FBI, to Shove It
-
Business2 days ago
Argentina’s Javier Milei gives Elon Musk chainsaw
-
Health11 hours ago
RFK Jr: There’s no medical justification for vaccinating one-day-old babies for Hepatitis B
-
Energy16 hours ago
Federal Government Suddenly Reverses on Critical Minerals – Over Three Years Too Late – MP Greg McLean
-
Alberta2 days ago
Open letter to Ottawa from Alberta strongly urging National Economic Corridor
-
International1 day ago
Jihadis behead 70 Christians in DR Congo church
-
Addictions1 day ago
BC overhauls safer supply program in response to widespread pharmacy scam
-
Business16 hours ago
Worst kept secret—red tape strangling Canada’s economy