(Quebec) In the wake of the legal challenge to Bill 21 on state secularism, Quebec Attorney General Simon Jolin-Barrette is asking a Supreme Court judge, Mahmud Jamal, to recuse himself, fearing that he does not have “the impartiality required to hear this case.”
The information, first reported by The dutywas confirmed by The Canadian Press.
In a letter sent to the Supreme Court on Wednesday, the Attorney General of Quebec indicates that Judge Mahmud Jamal was the president of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) at the time the association filed an appeal with the Superior Court to challenge the State Secularism Act in June 2019.
“As president of the Association, Judge Jamal was necessarily involved in some way in the preparation of this 194-paragraph procedure, whether in its drafting, its revision or simply to approve its content,” we can read in the missive of which The Canadian Press obtained a copy.
The letter also states that “the fact that Judge Jamal has to decide constitutional law issues raised by the Association when he was its president means that he would now be the judge in a case in which he was a party.”
The Canadian Press also obtained letters from the Mouvement laïque québécois (MLQ) and the group Pour les droits des femmes du Québec (PDF Québec), which are also calling for the removal of Judge Mahmud Jamal for reasons similar to those of Quebec.
However, in a letter dated June 25, the Supreme Court has already indicated that Justice Jamal does not intend to withdraw. “(He) believes that there is no real or reasonably perceivable conflict of interest that would cause him to recuse himself,” reads the letter, a copy of which was also obtained by The Canadian Press.
Mahmud Jamal was appointed a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada on March 1, 2018.er July 2021. He previously served as a judge of the Ontario Court of Appeal from 2019 to 2021, the Supreme Court website states. Prior to his appointment, Mr. Jamal was a lawyer with the firm Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt.
Several groups, including the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, have asked the Supreme Court to review the Quebec Court of Appeal’s ruling on Bill 21. The country’s highest court has not yet indicated whether or not it will take up the case.
The federal government has already indicated that it would participate in a possible legal challenge of Bill 21 before the Supreme Court, while in Quebec, they have always promised to defend the secularism of the State “to the end.”
The Court of Appeal ruled in favor of Quebec
Last February, the Court of Appeal almost entirely validated Bill 21, stating that it does not violate the linguistic rights of English school boards.
The Court of Appeal also stated that Quebec had the right to use the notwithstanding provision preventively as it did in the case of Bill 21.
This was a major setback for opponents of the legislation.
Law 21 prohibits government employees in positions of authority – including teachers – from wearing religious symbols such as the Muslim veil, the Jewish kippah, the Sikh turban and Christian crosses.