Hijab a symbol of empowerment, not oppression, plaintiffs argue at trial of Quebec secularism law

Plaintiffs challenging Quebec's ban on religious symbols sought todismantle, on Tuesday, one of the main arguments made by supporters of the law that the hijab is a symbol of female oppression and undermines gender equality.

The Laicity Act, which was passed last year amid widespread controversy, bars public teachers, and some other civil servants, from wearing religious symbols at work.

Civil rights groups and educational organizations arejointly arguing before Quebec Superior Court that the law singles out Muslim women in particular, and is unconstitutional.

Bouchera Chelbi, an elementary school teacher in Montreal who wears the hijab and is one of the plaintiffs in the case, testified Tuesday that her headscarf doesn't foista particular worldview on her students.

Holding out the example of women who wear high heels, Chelbiasked: "Are they imposing high heels on me?"

Chelbi also told the court that she recently taught her students to stop using gendered insults. She said her female students readily embraced the lesson: "Did my headscarfprevent that?"

But supporters of the law, commonly referred to as Bill 21,believe religious symbols like the hijab convey messages to impressionable young students that run counter to widely shared values in the province.

"For us, the hijab is a sexist symbol. Men don't wear it. Only women do," said Michle Sirois, head of Pour les Droits des femmes du Qubec, a pro-Bill 21 women's advocacy group that has intervenor status in the case.

Guillaume Rousseau, a lawyer who represents another pro-Bill 21 group that hasintervenor status, said banning religious symbols at school helps make them safe spaces for girls trying to escape family pressure to don religious symbols.

"Obviously, a young girl forced to wear a religious symbol would be less likely to confide in a teacher who wears a religious symbol," Rousseau told reporters.

Hijab worn by choice, expert says

Those claims came under scrutiny during testimony Tuesday by sociologist Paul Eid, an expert in racial and religious discrimination in Quebec.

In a 100-page report submitted to the court, Eidnoted that all Quebec and Canadian studies show a majority of Muslim women say they choose, and are not forced, to wear the hijab.

"The vast majority of veiled women, in Quebec and Canada, firmly believe in the equality of the sexes and are conscious of reconciling their hijab with their feminist values,"Eidwrote.

WATCH | Muslim rights group calls Bill 21 'shameful'

'Shameful' that Bill 21 exists, says CEO of Muslim-Canadian council

4 years ago

Duration 1:04

It's 'shameful' Bill 21 exists and that a Sikh teacher, Amrit Kaur, had to leave the province due to the law, says National Council of Canadian Muslims CEO Mustafa Farooq.

In his testimony on Tuesday, he said there was a large gap between how Muslim women see the hijab and popularstereotypes that reduce it to a symbol of oppression.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs also used Eid's testimony to establish the broader social inequalities faced by Muslims in Quebec.

"They are among the most marginalized groups in Quebec and Canada, particularly Muslim women," Eid said, pointing to unemployment rates that are twice as high as the national average.

He said that while public opinion studies showQuebecersare suspicious of religionin general, they also harbour a particular "hostility"for Islam.

During cross-examination, a lawyer for the Quebec government, ric Cantin, asked if the word "hostility" wasreally an accurate way of describing the attitudeof Quebecers.

"Frankly, it's a term that corresponds well to the findings," Eid said.

Looking for ways around the notwithstanding clause

At this stage of the case, it is not clear yet what role the evidence presented Tuesday will play in the overall argument being made by the plaintiffsthat Bill 21 is unconstitutional.

Several plaintiffs maintain it violates Section 28 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a relatively unused provision that guarantees gender equality.

The plaintiffs will also try to argue that even though Bill 21 doesn't single out a particular religion, it generates indirect effects that are discriminatory. They claim that violates theunwritten principles of Canada's constitution.

These are among a long line of novel arguments the plaintiffs are using in their effort to get the law struck down. The more familiar route of claiming the law violates religious freedom has been cut off because the law invokes the notwithstanding clause.

Premier Franois Legault has defended his use of the clause by saying it ensures the Quebec legislature and not the courts will have the final say on what role religion should have in the public sphere.

The trial resumes on Wednesday morning, when an American expert in education and inequality,Thomas Dee,is expectedto testify.