A challenge to Quebec’s secularism law, Bill 21, will not be heard. The law bars some public sector employees from wearing religious symbols in the workplace. Most prominently featured in the media and religious rights and freedoms debate has unsurprisingly been Muslim women’s right to wear their veils.
Last year, Quebec Premier François Legault “shrugged off” complaints that the anti-religious symbols law encouraged “Islamophobia.”
“The National Council of Canadian Muslims (NCCM) expressed disappointment at the denial but said they plan to continue fighting the law in court.” The NCCM is CAIR-CAN renamed.
Should the court eventually declare Bill 21 a violation of constitutional rights and freedoms, then specifically niqabs and burqas should be banned on security grounds, as they should have in the first place, not all religious symbols. In addition, full female coverings are a violation of the principle of equal rights and freedoms under the law, since under the Sharia, women have inferior status. They are commanded to wear full coverings, or be abused (Quran 24:31, 33:59).
“Supreme Court of Canada won’t hear bid to suspend Quebec’s secularism law,” by Kalimantan Leframboise, Global News, April 9, 2020:
A challenge by Canadian civil rights groups and a university student to suspend parts of Quebec’s religious neutrality law will not be heard by the Supreme Court of Canada.
The law, known as Bill 21, bars some public-sector employees — including teachers, police officers and judges — from wearing religious symbols in the workplace. It was adopted in the provincial legislature in June 2019.
The decision comes after the groups sought leave at the Supreme Court after Quebec’s highest court rejected their challenge in December.
At the time, the Quebec Court of Appeal handed down a 2-1 ruling on their application for a stay of the secularism law until a full legal challenge could be heard in Quebec Superior Court.
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms’ notwithstanding clause allows governments to shield legislation against court challenges concerning the violation of fundamental rights and freedoms.
The Supreme Court’s rejection to hear the challenge was announced on Thursday. Following its usual practice, the court gave no reason for it decision.
In a statement, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) and the National Council of Canadian Muslims (NCCM) expressed disappointment at the denial but said they plan to continue fighting the law in court.
“We promised to defend Canadian civil liberties and we will continue to keep that promise,” said Mustafa Farooq, executive director of the NCCM.
“This decision, while not the one we were hoping for, is not the end of the battle.”……
Rosie Barnes says
The law applies to all religions, without exception. Contesting it is down to arrogance and their unswerving belief in their superiority as Muslims, and therefore they believe without question that they should be allowed to dress and generally behave as they please.
Breaking news: you’re NOT superior to anyone. One look around the Muslim world and the chaos and primitive behaviour therein is proof of that. Not a civilised, free, democratic country to be found.
ck2202 (@ck2202ck) says
Once again, our tax dollars spent on a situation that was imported into Canada by politicians that are all willingly selling our country out. This won’t be the last time taxes will be spent at the Supreme Court, but with a little time, they (Muslims) will get seats on the Supreme Court of what is no longer a Canada that we recognize.
Mobuyus says
Muslims defending Canadian civil liberties is a sick joke.
OTTER says
They will never give up.
It is a matter of utmost concern for non-Muslims to see the relentless pursuit of an Islamic agenda. No matter how many generations go, they fight and fight and eventually win the battle.
UNLESS We radically change a response.
What we need to realize is that they’re doing nothing more than what has been called LAWARE. .
Unless we realize that our values are going to be held against us by Muslims, there is no way we can win.
I call for legalized embedded discrimination against Muslims as the only way to survive in the long term.
Self defense and survival is the first law of nature.
gravenimage says
We don’t have to discriminate against Muslims to protect our rights. We need to enforce our laws, which is all too seldom done.
terry sullivan says
war will happen
mortimer says
Most employers have a dress code.
Ben Kennedy says
So true. Western Civilization as a whole has a dress code for many professions and places of employment. The moslem attacks these dress codes for the purpose of enforcing their own. There is no other reason, as is evidenced by the long held fact that moslems have adopted Western Attire for many years in the past, when traveling in the Western World for either work or pleasure. The moslem purpose here is to destroy the West and it’s culture and is just another facet of the operation where they blow up historical objects of art from past civilizations and even more recent art objects which the West would preserve for future generations. The Moslem World has often said in these days that they want a World where the entire World is a moslem civilization and a moslem civilization only. For them to ever be successful in this, they must also kill every moslem who identifies with a different sect than their own. To this end, it seems they will not be content until the world is encapsulated in a new flood (not of water, but of blood) making the entire world just a dung heap of dead and rotting carcasses. They are not unlike Hitler who in the days before his death he issued orders that Germany should be incinerated leaving nothing to the victors. I’m confident that like Hitler, the moslems (both general sects) will fail. But like Hitler, again they will do much harm and damage to life on this planet before they exterminate themselves.
Carolyn Marlin says
Sir in muslims leaving their joke nations law, why do muslims want to make anew nation a joke law nation?
gravenimage says
Because Muslim’s purpose in leaving is in most cases not to escape Islam, but to impose Islam here. This is a Hijira.
Rosie Barnes says
I would point the protesting Muslims to this news article from Europe six years ago: “The European Court of Human Rights upheld France’s 2010 ban on full-face veils in public. Judges at the Strasbourg-based court, by 15 to 2, said the ban did not violate religious freedom and aimed to ensure “respect for the minimum set of values of an open democratic society” which included openness to social interaction.
In their ruling, WHICH CANNOT BE APPEALED, the judges “accepted that the barrier raised against others by a veil concealing the face in public could undermine the notion of ‘living together’” that France defended in its argument.
Authorities said the full-faced veil is a security risk, preventing the accurate identification of individuals.
IslamKills says
And I thought representation was one of the fine qualities of the west. Boy was I stupid.
gravenimage says
I see that “IslamKIlls”–who despite his username is all about spouting apologia for Islamic supremacism–is back.
Will he explain why he believes that Muslims have the right to flout this law of the “filthy Infidels”? I doubt it.
The Truth says
Their supreme leader, Abu Trudeau, will surely save the day.
Jayme says
This is where the PM has to walk a very fine line in a couple ways
10There have been calls to take honour crimes out of the criminal code meaning they would get a waiver based on there religion to abuse etc.
2)The Liberals have been some what out spoken on the face covering bill but at the same time has said people coming on to the hill should have to show there face to enter.
gravenimage says
Jayme, are Muslims actually pushing having Honour Killings decriminalized? This is terrifying.
.Bridgette says
Legault is a tough cookie. Too bad he’s a damn separatist. CAIR are the most arrogant evil bunch of backward slime the west has ever encountered and maybe if Canada had a real leader for Canadians they’d be declared a terrorist entity which they are.
Kerry Wade says
Women have won rights and freedoms at the cost of their lives, and Islam wants to roll back civilised progress. Sickening.
Battle says
National Council of Canadian Muslims need Jesus.
gravenimage says
Canada: Supreme court won’t hear challenge to Quebec secularism law restricting religious symbols at work
……………………..
I have some issues with this law, but am glad that Canada is not bowing to Muslim supremacy here.
PRCS says
A minor correction and a note for Christine Douglass-Williams’ otherwise well-written article:
—
Qur’an 24:31 doesn’t involve ‘abuse’.
Qur’an 33:59 absolutely does.
https://quran.com/33/59
—
At the time Qur’an was written, women–all women–were subject to ‘abuse’ when out in public. In order to ‘protect’ Muslim women from that, Muhammad received another ‘revelation’ (33:59):
“O Prophet, tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to bring down over themselves [part] of their outer garments. That is more suitable that they will be known and not be abused.”
As Qur’an was written for and to Muslims, that sura told Muslim men that Muslim women were ‘off limits’.
Essentially–abuse them, not us.
In that regard, CD-W is correct: wear it or be abused.
PRCS says
Qur’an 33:59
While that applies where Islamic law is THE law, kuffar women in the West are NOT fair game–despite what Qur’an says.
Qur’an 24:31
This,is Islam’s ‘modesty’ edict. It, too, is an aspect of Islamic law–which does not apply here.
Re: the veil. Muslims are not asking the rest of us to respect their beliefs, they are demanding that we comply with Islamic law.
gravenimage says
PRCS, Qur’an 24:31 does condone forced veiling, as well as allowing sex slavery.
PRCS says
Forced. Yes–per both Qur’an 24:31 and 33:59.
Slavery, yes.
Sex slavery? No.
https://quran.com/24/31
And tell the believing women to reduce [some] of their vision and guard their private parts and not expose their adornment except that which [necessarily] appears thereof and to wrap [a portion of] their headcovers over their chests and not expose their adornment except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbands’ fathers, their sons, their husbands’ sons, their brothers, their brothers’ sons, their sisters’ sons, their women, that which their right hands possess, or those male attendants having no physical desire, or children who are not yet aware of the private aspects of women. And let them not stamp their feet to make known what they conceal of their adornment.
———-
“Qur’an 33:59
While that applies where Islamic law is THE law, kuffar women in the West are NOT fair game–despite what Qur’an says.
Qur’an 24:31
This,is Islam’s ‘modesty’ edict. It, too, is an aspect of Islamic law–which does not apply here.
Re: the veil. Muslims are not asking the rest of us to respect their beliefs, they are demanding that we comply with Islamic law.”
———
Muslims in the U.S. continue to demand SPECIAL religious accommodation and must be challenged–using their own texts–to explain why they think our nation’s kuffar are obliged to either respect or to comply–especially to comply–with THEIR religious beliefs and practices–or any one else’s.
We know the answer, and need to challenge them to state it in public.