The Legault government calls the Judicial Council to action

The Conseil de la magistrature du Québec is escaping its responsibilities by refusing to follow up on the ban on the wearing of religious symbols aimed at persons in positions of authority within the State enshrined in Bill 21, is of the opinion of the government. Legault.

The Judicial Council has “not [jugé] useful” to modify the codes of ethics of judges after the entry into force of the Law on the secularism of the State in the spring of 2019. According to the organization, “the current ethical standards provide a sufficient framework for the conduct expected of judges, including with regard to the requirements relating to secularism”.

The Minister responsible for secularism, Jean-François Roberge, recalled on Wednesday that “Quebecers have made the legitimate choice to separate the State and religions by prohibiting the wearing of religious symbols by certain State employees in a position of authority, including judges. “That the judiciary is trying to avoid it is not acceptable,” he argued.

The Minister of Justice, Simon Jolin-Barrette, “invited [é] bluntly “the Council of the Judiciary to take the legal responsibilities that belong to it”. “The requirements of secularism must be translated by the Judicial Council towards the judges, that is very, very clear”, he declared, not without having previously recalled being the author of the law. 21. “The intention of the legislator is to the effect that, very clearly, persons in authority as well as judges do not wear religious symbols”, specified the elected caquiste.

On the other hand, Mr. Jolin-Barrette specified that “a judge cannot wear religious symbols […] in the exercise of his functions” since the entry into force of Law 21. That said, nothing prevents a Minister of Justice from appointing a person wearing a religious sign to the office of judge.

The Mouvement laïque québécois, for its part, invites the Conseil de la magistrature du Québec to follow the example of the Canadian Judicial Council, which amended its Principles of judicial ethics to specify that judges appointed by the federal government “should avoid to make statements or wear visible insignia indicating their support, particularly in the context of the judicial process”.

“Although judges may wish to express their support for certain causes or points of view, words or badges indicating this support, even when they seem innocuous, can be interpreted as a lack of impartiality or be seen as a means of using judicial office to make a political or other statement,” it reads here.

To see in video


source site-42