What happened on the first day of hearings
Arguments have wrapped for the day and will resume tomorrow. There were several arguments presented today challenging the legitimacy of Bill 21.
The English Montreal School Board argued the law violates the minority language rights of the board and the gender equality rights of female teachers who wear the hijab, who it says are disproportionately affected by the law.
The World Sikh Organization argued that Bill 21 impacts other laws that were drafted before the Charter of Rights and Freedoms existed.
The National Council of Canadian Muslims and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association argued that provinces don’t have jurisdiction over laws that legislate morality.
The FAE teachers’ union argued that provinces have been overusing the notwithstanding clause in recent years, in ways it was never intended to be used.
The Supreme Court judges had many questions today and frequently challenged the different parties’ arguments. Some justices’ questions focused on the idea that Quebec has a distinct way of looking at secularism, and that the case must be examined through that lens.
Their questions also raised the fact that Quebec has the right to pass laws and make rules when it comes to qualifications for teachers, and posited that the notwithstanding clause gives the province the option to suspend certain rights when doing that.
Tomorrow the court will hear from the attorney general of Quebec and some pro-secularism groups defending the law; the judges will likely have many questions for them as well.
Read the full article here