AFT Bulletin, 2021-05-03

Press Release, 2021-04-26

LPA-AFT denounces the theological tone of the judgment of Quebec Superior Court on Bill 21

“LPA-AFT denounces the categorically pro-religious nature of the judgment rendered on 20^th April 2021 by Justice Marc-André Blanchard of Quebec Superior Court.”

“Indeed, the judgment declares Bill 21 inoperative in Quebec’s English-speaking schools by virtue of the language rights of this minority set out in section 23 of the Canadian Charter […], depriving English-speaking children of the secular protection offered by Bill 21. In addition, the judgment removes the ban on sitting Members of the National Assembly (MNAs) wearing face coverings, on the pretext that this would violate the right to vote set out in Article 3 of the Charter. Thus, the judge would allow an MNA wearing a niqab to sit in the Assembly! Even worse, he would allow a teacher to wear the niqab in front of her students, when teaching.”

Read the complete text…

Quebec MNAs Respond Unanimously to Judge Blanchard

Affirming the right of the Assembly to adopt laws which apply to all Québécois, as well as its right to establish its own rules of deliberation.

Both resolutions were proposed by the CAQ government and adopted with a common voice by all MNAs and all four political parties.

Read this news story…

UPCOMING EVENT: Guillaume Rousseau

« LA LOI SUR LA LAÏCITÉ DE L’ÉTAT : PHILOSOPHIE, GENÈSE, INTERPRÉTATION ET APPLICATION »

On-line Talk (in French)

Sunday 9^th May 2021, 2 pm – 4 pm

Professeur Rousseau will present his book « Loi sur la laïcité de l’État commentée et annotée : philosophie, genèse, interprétation et application », before addressing the specific issues raised by articles 2 and 4 of Bill 21, namely freedom of conscience and the right to secular public services.

Language: French
Technology: The Zoom will be made available to those registered.
Open to all. Free.

Register for this event…

The Abysmal Hypocrisy of CFI-Canada

“[…] CFIC and CSA reject the principle of separation! There are numerous definitions of secularism, but this is the first time I have met one which explicitly excludes separation. The implications are dramatic. Without separation, the other aspects of secularism are seriously weakened. […]”

“By taking this bizarre stance, CFIC accomplishes a rather astonishing trick: it renders itself simultaneously more honest and more dishonest. How does it accomplish this paradoxical feat? The organization has not respected separation for years so, by finally admitting this, it becomes more transparent. However, at the same time, by adopting a definition of secularism which excludes separation, CFIC is playing a very dishonest game: pretending to be secular while rejecting the key element of secularism.”

Read the complete text…