Winnipeg Free Press

Winnipeg Free Press (Newspaper) - January 24, 2025, Winnipeg, Manitoba Read the Winter issue at: winnipegfreepress.com/fp-features Available in your Free Press (subscribers) on March 29 and at Manitoba Liquor Marts - while supplies last! SPRING 2025 ISSUE OF DON’T MISS THE COMING SOON! FRIDAY, JANUARY 24, 2025 B2 ● WINNIPEGFREEPRESS.COM NEWS I CANADA / WORLD Supreme Court agrees to hear appeal of Quebec’s secularism law M ONTREAL — The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision to hear a challenge of Quebec’s secularism law sets up a final legal bat- tle between the provincial government and minority and civil rights groups — and possibly a showdown between Que- bec and Ottawa. The country’s top court announced Thursday morning it has granted leave to appeal to several groups that oppose the law, which prohibits civil servants in positions of authority, including teachers and police officers, from wearing religious symbols on the job. Bill 21 was passed in 2019 by the Que- bec government, which pre-emptive- ly invoked Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, known as the notwithstanding clause, to shield the legislation from court challenges over fundamental rights violations. Though critics say the law is dis- criminatory and unconstitutional, the Quebec government has long argued Bill 21 is reasonable, and reaction from the province came swiftly following the court’s decision. “Quebec has chosen secularism in the public sector,” Quebec Premier François Legault said in a statement on X. “We will fight to the end to defend our values and what we are.” Elementary school teacher Bouchera Chelbi said she’s relieved the Supreme Court will hear the appeal. Chelbi, who is Muslim and wears a hijab, has taught in Montreal for 17 years. Because of a grandfather clause, she didn’t lose her job when Bill 21 was passed, but she was no longer able to apply to be a prin- cipal, as she had planned. Chelbi, one of the plaintiffs in the case, said the law represents “shat- tered dreams,” and she hopes it will be overturned. “I think it is important as Canadian citizens that all people have equal rights.” The federal government plans to intervene in the case, though the Liber- al party is now in the thick of a leader- ship race. “When it’s a matter of nation- al importance and there’s a national conversation about interpreting Char- ter rights that will have an impact right around the country, we are going to be there,” Justice Minister Arif Virani told reporters Thursday. “And what we’re going to do when we’re there is we’re going to defend the Charter that we helped create over 40 years ago.” Virani said he presumes that all can- didates for the Liberal leadership “will continue our support as a party and government to protect the rights that are in the Canadian Constitution.” But a possible spring election could lead to a change in government before the case is heard. The Conservatives have not said what approach they would take, though party leader Pierre Poilievre has said he opposes the law. In a statement, Quebec Justice Min- ister Simon Jolin-Barrette and Secular- ism Minister Jean-François Roberge warned that any federal government intervention would represent “not only a lack of respect, but could not be con- sidered anything other than an attack on the autonomy of federated states.” Their warning was echoed by Bloc Québécois Leader Yves-François Blan- chet, who denounced any federal in- volvement in the case. “We do not mind this debate being held in the Supreme Court of Canada. That’s normal, that’s why it’s there,” he said. “We do mind that every Canadian federalist party supports the idea to use the money of Quebecers against Quebec, against a law duly adopted in Quebec, which is largely supported in Quebec.” Several groups have fought the law since it was passed, and on Thursday they welcomed the chance to have the Supreme Court rule on its constitution- ality. Harini Sivalingam, director of the equality program at the Canadian Civil Liberties Association — one of the groups challenging the law — said she hopes the court will strike down Bill 21 and set guidelines on governments’ use of the notwithstanding clause. “What is at stake is whether govern- ments can violate our rights and free- doms without any judicial oversight,” she said during a press conference in Ottawa. Virani said the government has “sig- nificant concerns” about pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause. Since Bill 21 was passed, other prov- inces have made more frequent use of Section 33. In 2023, the Saskatchewan government invoked the clause to pass a policy requiring parental consent for students under 16 to use their preferred name or pronouns at school. Stephen Brown, CEO of the National Council of Canadian Muslims, said the Quebec government set a “devastating legal precedent” with Bill 21. “(Legault) let the genie of legal authoritarianism out of the bottle,” he told reporters in Ottawa. “What was supposed to be an extraordinary use of power has now be- come the norm.” Jérémy Boulanger-Bonnelly, a law- yer representing the Coalition Inclusion Québec, another plaintiff in the case, said that even if the top court finds that the use of the notwithstanding clause is valid, he’s hoping the judges will issue a declaration that Bill 21 violates Charter rights. Other plaintiffs are fighting the law on other grounds, including minority language and gender equality rights, which the notwithstanding clause does not override. On Thursday, official languages commissioner Raymond Théberge said he plans to intervene in the case to defend the English-speaking minority’s right to control their own education. To date, the secularism law has been largely upheld by lower courts. In April 2021, Quebec Superior Court Justice Marc-André Blanchard ruled Bill 21 was mostly legal, but exempted Eng- lish-language school boards. Blanchard criticized the govern- ment’s use of the notwithstanding clause, and found the law violates the rights of Muslim women and “dehuman- izes” those affected. Still, he found the government’s approach was “legally unassailable in the current state of the law.” Last February, the Quebec Court of Appeal upheld the secularism law and overturned the exemption for Eng- lish schools. — The Canadian Press MAURA FORREST JUSTIN TANG / THE CANADIAN PRESS Federal Justice Minister Arif Virani Judge temporarily blocks Trump’s executive order redefining birthright citizenship SEATTLE — A federal judge on Thurs- day temporarily blocked President Donald Trump’s executive order deny- ing U.S. citizenship to the children of parents living in the country illegally, calling it “blatantly unconstitutional” during the first hearing in a multi-state effort challenging the order. The 14th Amendment to the Constitu- tion promises citizenship to those born on U.S. soil, a measure ratified in 1868 to ensure citizenship for former slaves after the Civil War. But in an effort to curb unlawful immigration, Trump issued the executive order just after being sworn in for his second term on Monday. The order would deny citizenship to those born after Feb. 19 whose parents are in the country illegally. It also for- bids U.S. agencies from issuing any document or accepting any state docu- ment recognizing citizenship for such children. Trump’s order drew immediate legal challenges across the country, with at least five lawsuits being brought by 22 states and a number of immigrants rights groups. A lawsuit brought by Washington, Arizona, Oregon and Illi- nois was the first to get a hearing. “I’ve been on the bench for over four decades. I can’t remember another case where the question presented was as clear as this one is,” U.S. District Judge John Coughenour told a Justice Department attorney. “This is a bla- tantly unconstitutional order.” Thursday’s decision prevents the Trump administration from taking steps to implement the executive or- der for 14 days. In the meantime, the parties will submit further arguments about the merits of Trump’s order. Coughenour scheduled a hearing on Feb. 6 to decide whether to block it long term as the case proceeds. Coughenour, 84, a Ronald Reagan ap- pointee who was nominated to the fed- eral bench in 1981, grilled the DOJ at- torney, Brett Shumate, asking whether Shumate personally believed the order was constitutional. “I have difficulty understanding how a member of the bar could state un- equivocally that this is a constitutional order,” he added. Shumate assured the judge he did — “absolutely.” He said the arguments the Trump administration is making now have never previously been litigated, and that there was no reason to issue a 14-day temporary restraining order when it would expire before the execu- tive order takes effect. The Department of Justice later said in a statement that it will “vigorously defend” the president’s executive order, which it said “correctly interprets the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitu- tion.” “We look forward to presenting a full merits argument to the Court and to the American people, who are desperate to see our Nation’s laws enforced,” the de- partment said. The U.S. is among about 30 countries where birthright citizenship — the principle of jus soli or “right of the soil” — is applied. Most are in the Americas, and Canada and Mexico are among them. The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, in the aftermath of the Civil War, to ensure citizenship for former slaves and free African Americans. It states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” Trump’s order asserts that the chil- dren of noncitizens are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, and therefore not entitled to citizenship. Arguing for the states on Thursday, Washington assistant attorney general Lane Polozola called that “absurd,” not- ing that neither those who have immi- grated illegally nor their children are immune from U.S. law. “Are they not subject to the decisions of the immigration courts?” Polozola asked. “Must they not follow the law while they are here?” — The Associated Press GENE JOHNSON AND MIKE CATALINI ;