Here at Attorneys on Demand, we try to offer as many resources for attorneys as we can. Most of the time, that comes in the form of appearance attorneys and local counsel services that you can access quickly and easily. Other times, it comes in the form of an article detailing changes in technology and the legal landscape. Today, though, we’re going to take a break from all that to give you a story about our neighbors from the North.

Here’s a quick background for you: Quebec is a province in eastern Canada and their relationship to the rest of the country is storied, multifaceted, and often contentious. In the late 1960s, the province was rocked by conflicts stemming from a terrorist separatist group, the FLQ, and in the 90s, a referendum almost separated Quebec from Canada. Most of this turmoil stems from cultural differences with the rest of the country; Quebec is majority Francophone (while the rest of Canada is majority Anglophone), and they have a strong tradition of secularism (that is too complicated to get into here).

All of this background brings us to Bill 21 which was passed in Quebec this year. This bill bans new public workers in positions of authority from wearing religious symbols. The bill is being challenged in court, and both the Government of Quebec and opponents of the bill have stated that they’re willing to take the challenge to the Supreme Court of Canada. Opponents believe the bill violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms because it disproportionately affects women.

The dynamics at play here are fascinating in part because they mirror some dynamics we’ve seen at play in the United States. The federal government of Canada is reticent to introduce legislation challenging the bill, fearing blowback from the residents of Quebec (who overwhelmingly support the bill). Some of Canada’s recent electioneering (they had a federal election in October 2019) involved politicians maneuvering around the question of whether or not they would even consider introducing legislation to repeal the ban. In the end, it seems likely that the courts will have to decide whether or not the law is constitutional - the fear of political blowback is too strong.

Currently, there’s a lot of discussion about whether or not the judicial branch legislates with some of its rulings, and whether or not judges can be accused of overreach. It’s worth noting that this discussion seems to be occurring in other nations, and for somewhat similar reasons. Legislators are often tied by what they see as the politically opportune decision; in other words, optics and politics can make it difficult for legislators to do what they feel is right. What’s more, in politically contentious situations, you might not even be able to get laws passed if you wanted to. When we consider why there are so many impactful decisions that have been made by the Supreme Court, rather than legislated into existence, it’s worth evaluating the confluence of factors that cause this to be the case.