The Montreal English School Board appealed Bill 21 to the Supreme Court

Open this photo in the gallery:

The board of an English school in Montreal is seeking leave to appeal Quebec's controversial Bill 21 to the Supreme Court, hoping to overturn a law banning certain public employees from wearing religious symbols such as the hijab.

Joe Ortona, chair of the English Montreal School Board (EMSB), announced Thursday that his organization will continue to challenge Bill 21 to the Supreme Court of Canada on the grounds that it violates minority language and gender equality rights under the Charter of Rights. and freedoms.

The EMSB and other critics of the law said the province said those rights should be protected despite Bill 21's Charter immunity from judicial interference.

“We should be allowed to hire whoever we want,” said Mr. Ortona, who has been one of the most vocal critics of the law. “Government should not be allowed to impose completely arbitrary symbols such as religious headdresses that have nothing to do with the quality of education children receive and vice versa.”

Quebec Justice Minister Simon Jolin-Barret said his government will defend Bill 21 “to the end.” And Prime Minister Francois Legault has long argued that the law is necessary to protect secularism in the province.

“This is a fundamental law of the state of Quebec, a law that represents our values ​​and our history,” Mr. Barrett said in a statement Thursday.

Since its passage in 2019, 21 bills have banned public officials in “enforcement” positions, including police officers, prison guards and teachers, from wearing visible religious symbols. By law, people in workplaces wearing such symbols are allowed to continue working. But they cannot be promoted or transferred, and new hires must remove the religious symbol to work.

In a February ruling, Quebec's Court of Appeal largely upheld the law and ruled that the English school board should appeal, overturning a lower court decision that freed EMSB. The Court of Appeal found that Bill 21 did not infringe on the right of the English-speaking minority in Quebec to govern its education system.

When Mr Legault's government used the clause despite Bill 21, it sparked widespread condemnation across the country. The matter was expected to end up in the Supreme Court.

The federal Justice Department on Thursday pointed to a statement from Justice Minister Arif Virani in February that reiterated the Trudeau government's commitment to intervene in Bill 21 if it reaches the Supreme Court.

“Our government will be there to defend the Charter before the Supreme Court of Canada,” he said. “This case concerns fundamental freedoms and rights, the interpretation and application of the Charter.”

The Legault government believes that Quebec's history of aggressive separation of church and state, dating back to the Quiet Revolution of the 1960s, after generations of Catholic dominance in society, makes affirming the province's status as a secular society particularly important.

But many critics of Bill 21 say it is motivated by xenophobia. Several groups, including the Canadian Civil Liberties Union and the National Council of Canadian Muslims, opposed the constitution and denounced the law's impact on religious minorities.

The law comes after years of heated debate over the “reasonable accommodation” of religious minorities in Quebec amid rising immigration rates and a more diverse population.

Polls have consistently shown that a majority of Quebecers support the law, but a 2022 poll by the Canadian Research Association also found that Muslim women, in particular, have felt less welcome in Quebec since Bill 21 was passed.

McGill constitutional law professor Colleen Sheppard said she expects the Supreme Court to review the clause's application regardless of gender equality rights and that Bill 21 will protect Muslim women teachers, who are disproportionately affected.

He said that the decision of the appeals court did not respect the basic principle of interpretation that “human rights protected by the constitution should be given a broad and liberal interpretation and a restrictive interpretation should be given to the limitation of rights.”