Connect with us

Justice

Quebec’s highest court upholds law banning public servants from wearing religious symbols

Published

1 year ago

5 minute read

Quebec Premier François Legault

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

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 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.” 

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
Business / 2 hours ago

Trump’s ‘Liberation Day’ – Good News for Canadian Energy and Great News for WCSB Natural Gas

COVID-19 / 4 hours ago

Trump’s new NIH head fires top Fauci allies and COVID shot promoters, including Fauci’s wife

Freedom Convoy / 4 hours ago

Freedom Convoy leaders Tamara Lich, Chris Barber found guilty of mischief

Justice

Democracy watchdog calls for impartial prosecution of Justin Trudeau

Published on March 25, 2025

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

Democracy Watch asked that an independent prosecutor be appointed to look over evidence it provided to get permission to carry out a private prosecution of Trudeau’s role in the SNC-Lavalin affair.

One of Canada’s most well-respected democratic watchdog groups says the Ontario government should organize for an impartial prosecutor to investigate former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s involvement in the SNC-Lavalin affair.  

In a letter dated March 21 written to Ontario’s Attorney General Doug Downey, watchdog Democracy Watch asked directly that an independent prosecutor be appointed to look over evidence from its recent Ontario Court of Justice application to get approval to go ahead with a private prosecution of Trudeau’s role in the 2019 scandal. 

“The RCMP (Royal Canadian Mounted Police) did a very superficial investigation into the Trudeau Cabinet’s obstruction of the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin,” wrote lawyer Duff Conacher, co-founder of Democracy Watch, on behalf of the group’s board of directors.

Conacher noted that the RCMP “didn’t even interview many witnesses or try to obtain key secret Cabinet communication records, and buried the investigation with an almost two-year delay, and then made a behind-closed-doors, very questionable decision not to prosecute anyone.” 

SNC-Lavalin, which now goes by the name “AtkinsRéalis,” in 2019 pleaded guilty to fraud in a Québec Provincial Court and was hit with a $280 million fine. Company executives also admitted that they had paid $47.7 million in bribes to get contracts in Libya. 

In October 2023, Canadian Liberal MPs on the ethics committee voted to stop the RCMP from testifying about the SNC-Lavalin bribery scandal. 

In June 2023, LifeSiteNews reported that the RCMP denied it was looking into whether Trudeau and his cabinet committed obstruction of justice concerning the SNC-Lavalin bribery scandal. 

In its letter, Democracy Watch called up Downey to strike a committee comprised of persons without political party ties to choose an impartial lawyer to be an Independent Special Prosecutor. This prosecutor would review all the evidence and then make a public decision about Trudeau’s involvement in the affair.  

“The RCMP lacks independence from the Prime Minister and Cabinet ministers who handpick the RCMP Commissioner and deputy commissioners and division heads through a secretive process, and they all serve at the pleasure of the Cabinet so they are vulnerable to political interference, which is likely part of the reason the RCMP rolled over and let Trudeau off,” noted Conacher.

Conacher also stated that a public inquiry was needed to see why the RCMP “tried to cover up its investigation” and chose not to prosecute.  

Retired judge also says Trudeau should be prosecuted  

SNC-Lavalin was faced with charges of corruption and fraud concerning about $48 million in payments made to Libyan government officials between 2001 and 2011. The company had hoped to be spared a trial and have its prosecution deferred.

However, in 2019, then-Attorney General Jody Wilson-Raybould did not go along with the request and contended that both Trudeau and his top Liberal officials had inappropriately applied pressure on her for four months to directly intervene in the criminal prosecution of the group.

Jen Danch of Swadron Associates law firm will be representing Democracy Watch for its application, with Wayne Crookes, founder of Integrity B.C., being a key supporter of it.  

Of interesting note is that the application includes an opinion from an unnamed retired superior court justice who also supports the prosecution effort.  

“There are reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the Prime Minister committed the offence of Obstruction of Justice under s. 139(2) of the Criminal Code and possibly the offence of Breach of Trust by a Public Official under s. 122 of the Criminal Code,” wrote the judge. 

“The facts outlined by the Ethics Commissioner and the evidence of Ms. Wilson-Raybould at the House Committee on Justice indicate that the Prime Minister and his staff set out to interfere in the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin by trying to stop the prosecution and replace an apparently properly founded prosecution with a less onerous process that would avoid the consequences of a conviction for SNC-Lavalin.”  

At this time, there will be a hearing in Ottawa on March 28 where a judge will decide procedural processes regarding how or if the prosecution will be allowed to continue.  

Last year, the RCMP confirmed it never talked with Trudeau or was able to view secret cabinet records before declining to levy charges.

As for the initial investigation concerning SNC-Lavalin, Wilson-Raybould testified in early 2019 to Canada’s justice committee that she believed she was moved from her justice cabinet posting to veterans’ affairs due to the fact she did not grant a request from SNC-Lavalin for a deferred prosecution agreement rather than a criminal trial. 

Of note is that a criminal conviction would have banned the company from landing any government contracts for 10 years. 

Trudeau flat-out denied it was being investigated by the RCMP. 

Less than four years ago, Trudeau was found to have broken the federal ethics laws, or Section 9 of the Conflict of Interest Act, for his role in pressuring Wilson-Raybould. 

Continue Reading

Energy

Jury: Greenpeace liable for hundreds of millions in damages over pipeline project protests

Published on March 19, 2025

By

The scene outside the county courthouse in Mandan, North Dakota, where a jury held Greenpeace liable for hundreds of millions of dollars in damages over its support of sometimes violent protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline.

From The Center Square

By Morgan Sweeney

A North Dakota jury on Wednesday found environmental activist group Greenpeace liable for hundreds of millions of dollars in damages for its activities related to protests of construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline.

Dallas-based Energy Transfer sued Greenpeace over the sometimes violent protests that delayed construction of the pipeline by five months, costing the company lost profits and shareholder value.

A trial over the civil lawsuit began in February and concluded Wednesday, on the second day of deliberations.

Energy Transfer subsidiary Dakota Access LLC installed the roughly 1,200-mile pipeline running from North Dakota to Illinois in 2016 and 2017. In April 2016, a small group of Sioux set up Sacred Stone Camp, a camp to protest the installation of the pipeline under the river on unceded treaty land for fear that the pipeline could leak and contaminate the river and water supply. They also said the pipeline would disrupt sacred burial grounds and other culturally relevant sites.

With funding and other support from environmental activist group Greenpeace and others, the protest grew and eventually attracted international media attention, especially when clashes with law enforcement became violent. Over 100,000 people descended on rural North Dakota in less than a year, many from other states and possibly some from abroad, according to local residents.

Energy Transfer sued Greenpeace, blaming it for the escalation of the protests that delayed completion of the project by five months. The company says the delay cost them lost profits and shareholder value. It sued Greenpeace for $300 million.

Greenpeace maintained its primary involvement in the protests was sending indigenous nonviolent direct action trainers, camping supplies and a biodiesel-powered solar truck to the site and that the lawsuit against it was an attack on First Amendment rights.

This is a developing story.

Continue Reading

Trending

X