Instructions (1)

docx

School

Yale University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

Subject

Law

Date

Nov 24, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by GrandBat3229

Bill 21 and Freedom of Religion SERVICE: writing TYPE: Research paper, Law WORDS: 8 (2500 words) SPACING: Double LEVEL: Undergraduate LANGUAGE: English (U.S) CITATION: APA NUMBER OF SOURCES: 10 Description: You should identify the issue that you would like to work on and do preliminary research. It is encouraged that you focus on the specific issue of Freedom of religion and answer the questions provided below. The questions are closely related to certain court decisions or legislation, therefore, you have to demonstrate a good knowledge of these cases/laws and be able to make some projections on where they lead into the future. Clearly stating the problem on the selected topic, providing a clear argument, a conceptual framework and how you will engage with the academic sources. Note that this is not just an annotated bibliography. You should point out the main arguments in the sources and demonstrate how they will help you further your own arguments. This writing assignment is a 2500-word research paper. The paper should include the following elements: -An introduction of the topic and the issue/problem/question you are going to analyze -What is the role of the courts in the protection of rights at stake and how they have shaped the legal landscape of those rights -Make an explicit connection between the concepts of “law”, “justice” and “rights” -Identify the key actors involved, or stakeholders, and define their respective position -A bibliography of at least ten academic sources you are going to use The evaluation for this assignment will focus on your understanding of the role of the courts and their relationship with law and politics. TOPIC: In June 2019, the Canadian province of Quebec passed Bill 21 banning certain categories of public employees from wearing religious symbols at work. Teachers, judges, police officers, among other civil servants, are prohibited from wearing symbols of their faith (including hijabs, kippahs, and turbans) in the workplace. The controversial law also prohibits anyone with religious face coverings from receiving government services, including healthcare and public transit. In enacting the ban, Quebec preemptively invoked the exceptional

“notwithstanding clause”, which allows provincial or federal authorities to temporarily override some of the guarantees of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, making it difficult to overturn the law in the courts. The Bill was appealed in 2021 at the Superior Court Justice in Quebec. What was decided and what does this journey tell you? If the Supreme Court of Canada decides to hear the matter, what do you think the decision of the Court would be and what could that mean for the future of this right in Canada? The following is my research proposal before this major essay but embedded are my critics I received which is highlighted in yellow: Quebec's secularism bill, Bill 21, explores the delicate balance between secularism and religious freedom in Canada. Enacted in June 2019, it restricts certain public servants from wearing religious symbols while on duty. This legislation clashes with the fundamental right to religious freedom protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms where it raises moral and legal questions regarding the balance between secularism and religious freedom, impacting the rights of those affected and Canadian justice. Bill 21 aims to affirm the state's secular nature, rooted in French secularism principles: separation of religion, impartiality, equal treatment, and freedom of conscience (Megret, 2020). However, it has sparked controversy, challenging the fundamental human right of religious freedom protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It highlights the potential for legal dysfunction when well-intentioned laws impede individual rights. The debate around Bill 21 has raised questions about the extent of religious freedom in Canada, with implications for recognized minority groups. This analysis examines Bill 21's legal journey, its impact on religious freedom, speculates on Supreme Court involvement, and highlights the ongoing Canadian debate on religious freedom's scope and justice implications ( In my previous sentence, my critique was: This is where your thesis should be. This is not a thesis because it does not answer the essay question directly. This is more like telling the reader how you will reach an answer, but without providing an answer). Bill 21 restricts religious freedom by promoting strict secularism in public life, raising ethical and legal concerns. This law limits the wearing of religious symbols in public institutions, infringing on the fundamental human right of religious freedom (Béland et al., 2021). It reflects a tension between religious freedom and non-establishment principles, as discussed by Justice Anthony Kennedy and liberal scholars, John Rawls and Robert Audi (Deagon, 2018). (In the previous sentence, my critique was: I don’t see how most of these people would have discussed, though they would have things to say about this balance. I wouldnt name drop like this unless you were going to substantively explain what they say). They advocate for a balance between religious freedom, the right to practice beliefs without state interference and non-establishment, preventing government favouritism of any religion to achieve equality and freedom. Rawls's public reason concept emphasizes justifying laws based on principles accepted by all citizens, regardless of their beliefs (Deagon, 2018). (In

the previous sentence, my critique was: I'm not sure this is useful here. You should really just be explaining what the laws are and how they have been decided). Audi similarly argues for secular justifications in politics while allowing room for religious perspectives (Deagon, 2018). However, the case contends that excluding religious reasons from public discourse restricts freedom and equality, as it limits the evaluation of governance rules. While secularism is vital to prevent religious domination, it should not exclude religious views. Bill 21's strict secularism raises ethical and legal concerns about religious freedom, echoing debates seen in the Loyola case. The Loyola case centered around a Roman Catholic high school in Quebec seeking an exemption from the province's Ethics and Religious Culture Program (ERCP), which was mandated for all schools, public and private (Ogilvie, 2016). The Superior Court determined that the Minister's refusal to give an exception violated Loyola's religious freedom and granted the application, annulled the Minister's ruling, and issued an exception (Ogilvie, 2016). Balancing these principles is crucial for a just society, ensuring religious perspectives are not excluded from public discourse while preventing religious dominance. The Loyola case is relevant, emphasizing the importance of accommodating religious beliefs while considering broader societal values. Both cases highlight the complex interplay between religious freedom, secularism, and state regulation of religious practices and symbols, raising legal and moral debates in Quebec and Canada. (In the previous sentence, my critique was: This could be useful to mention had you first explained more of the legal details of bill 21 and what happened in court. You're comparing this case to something that as a reader I'm not totally sure about yet). This bill has sparked controversy for potentially violating legal rights protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Critics argue it infringes upon freedom of religion and expression (Atchue, 2022). The Quebec government invoked the notwithstanding clause, allowing them to enforce the law even if it's found unconstitutional under the Charter. This raises concerns about the balance between individual rights and government authority. A related case, Riley et al. v. Canada, individuals claimed their rights under the ICCPR were violated when a Sikh officer was allowed to wear a turban in the Canadian police, but the Human Rights Committee dismissed the case due to a lack of demonstrated harm (Legault-Leclair & Wilkins-Laflamme, 2023). This case parallels debates over Quebec's Bill 21, which bans certain public employees from wearing religious symbols, raising similar concerns about freedom of religion, state neutrality, and questions about effective Charter rights claims by those impacted, all revolving around complex issues of human rights, religion, and state actions. In June 2019, the National Council of Canadian Muslims and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association challenged Bill 21, alleging it discriminates against religious minorities (Arlow, 2019). A hijab-wearing plaintiff, Ichrak Nourel Hak, argued that the law hinders her and violates Charter-protected rights (Ichrak, 2019). The case revolves around the assertion that Bill 21 violates Charter-protected rights, including freedom of religion, expression, and equality, with its outcome poised to determine the law's compatibility with Charter principles (Bodnaruk, 2022). Critics fear Bill 21 could disrupt societal balance and undermine justice (Atchue, 2022). In September 2019, the Coalition Inclusion Québec and others also challenged it, emphasizing the disproportionate impact on religious minority women (Mégret, 2022). The National Council of Canadian Muslims

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

emphasized the disproportionate impact on religious minority women, especially those wearing the hijab, arguing that it contravenes their right to equal protection under the law. This case highlights the intersection of religious freedom and gender equality, revealing dual marginalization based on faith and gender (Megret, 2020). (In my previous sentence my critique was: This is interesting, but i'm just not sure what work it is doing to further answering the essay question.) (In the paragraph above the general critique I got was: How is it helping you answer these questions: 1.The Bill was appealed in 2021 at the Superior Court Justice in Quebec. What was decided and what does this journey tell you? 2. If the Supreme Court of Canada decides to hear the matter, what do you think the decision of the Court would be? What could that mean for the future of this right in Canada? If you aren't offering evidence that answers these questions, you aren't following the instructions) Bill 21 exemplifies attempts to rationalize societal interactions, but it's noted that trust and understanding cannot solely rely on rationality. Recognizing emotions has gained importance in shaping civic society and politics. An agonistic view of democracy emphasizes acknowledging emotions to foster civic engagement and enhance public dialogue (Knight Abowitz & Mamlok, 2019). It acknowledges that conflicts are inherent in human relationships and addressing disputes, prejudices, and allowing diverse identities to be expressed are crucial for a healthy democratic society. This bill's legal journey in Canada highlights the delicate balance between religious freedom and public interests. While constitutionally protected, religious freedom is not absolute, as seen in the Superior Court's decision. If the Supreme Court intervenes, it may either uphold or strike down Bill 21. Upholding it would support state secularism, while striking it down could bolster religious freedom protections. This bill raises vital questions about religious freedom and state secularism in Canada, emphasizing the need to safeguard fundamental rights in a diverse society, regardless of the outcome.

Instructions (1)

Related Documents