Front Burner - Quebec teacher removed from classroom over hijab

Episode Date: December 14, 2021

The debate over Quebec’s controversial secularism law, known as Bill 21, has been reignited after a teacher was told she can no longer teach her Grade 3 class, because she wears a hijab. Fatemeh Anvari was hired this fall at Chelsea Elementary School, during a period of confusion over whether English school boards had to enforce the religious symbols ban. Now, in the wake of a recent court decision on the ban, Anvari has been forced out of classroom teaching. Today, we’re speaking to Montreal teacher Maha Kassef about the far-reaching consequences of Bill 21 for both teachers and students. Then, CBC reporter Jonathan Montpetit gives us the latest on the court and political battles surrounding the law — and how they call into question our understanding of how much Canada’s constitution really protects individual rights and freedoms.

In the Dragon's Den, a simple pitch can lead to a life-changing connection. Watch new episodes of Dragon's Den free on CBC Gem. Brought to you in part by National Angel Capital Organization, empowering Canada's entrepreneurs through angel investment and industry connections. This is a CBC Podcast. Hi, I'm Jamie Poisson. Honestly, at that second, it was just shock. It was very hard to process. This is Fatima Anvari, and she's talking to my colleague,

CBC Ottawa reporter Kimberly Molina, about what it felt like when she was told she could no longer teach her grade three class in Chelsea, Quebec. Anvari wears a hijab, and under Bill 21, the Quebec law passed in 2019. Some civil servants can't wear religious symbols while at work. Yes, I am Muslim, but for me,

it holds other meanings of just my identity and how I've chosen to represent myself as a strong person in a world that may not want me to be myself. And for me, it's identity and resilience and resistance. self. And for me, it's identity and resilience and resistance. Invari was hired by an English school board this fall. In April, according Quebec had ruled that English schools were exempt from the law. But the Quebec government appealed that ruling, so there was some confusion about what would and wouldn't be allowed before the appeal is heard. Then in November, the province's highest court clarified that until they've ruled on the government's appeal, the original law still applies. Which means Anvari has been moved to a non-classroom role, ironically enough, working on a literacy project focused on diversity. This doesn't just affect one person and an article of clothing that they wear. This goes beyond

all of this. It's at the level of what the kids take away from this, what they learn, and that's the biggest concern. To show their support, students and parents have been placing green ribbons and drawings on the schoolyard fence. My kids didn't know what had happened so I had to you know on the spot try to explain to them why a teacher had lost her job and and to explain why they don't want to have diversity in our in our communities. I also want to read you a bit of a letter from one of the third graders. Dear Miss Fatima, I really miss you. You were a great teacher. I liked when you read books to us.

I actually think your hijab is awesome. Now that Bill 21 is actually removing people from their jobs, we hear first from a teacher today, currently on the front lines. And then we're going to talk to friend of the pod, John Lampetit, about the latest, including all the politics, and how this all squares with our understanding of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

All right, first up, Maha Kasaf. She's a teacher at a French elementary school in Montreal, and she wears a hijab. Hi, Maha. Thank you so much for making the time to speak with me today. Pleasure. Thanks for having me. So I wonder if I could ask you how you've been feeling since Fatima Anvari was removed from her classroom position. Lots of frustration and anger.

First of all, some people are treating it as an isolated incident. That's the first thing that we have to talk about. This is not about one teacher being removed from their classroom. This is very important. This is about, on a daily basis, there are teachers suffering this consequence, be it one teacher who cannot look at new job listings or another who can't apply for a job. I know, of course, this bill was signed into law over two years ago now, and you have been able to keep your job because of

essentially a grandfather clause, but that comes with a lot of catches. And I'm wondering if you could tell us a bit about how Bill 21 has impacted your life and your dreams as a teacher. Very broadly, I cannot do anything else but be in the classroom at this point, precisely where I am geographically right now. So I cannot be hired elsewhere. Second thing, I can't move around in terms of positions. thing, I can't move around in terms of positions. My long-term goals used to be, and I'm hoping to go back to them, is that eventually I'd want to be vice principal and eventually principal. And that's on ice now until I figure out what's going on with this law. I'm passionate about teaching. I'm passionate about being in the classroom. At the same time, I know I have potential to do more. And I'm not being allowed that opportunity to show what I

can present. I'm really sorry to hear that you're feeling this way. And you mentioned before, younger teachers who can't look at certain job postings. And I wonder if you have heard from younger women in particular who are training to become teachers when this law was passed and how has it impacted their lives? Actually, I've heard from two different groups. I've heard from teens who are looking at wanting to be teachers but are now questioning their choices before they apply to university.

So these young ones who are looking towards their future and choosing a career are looking at doors being closed. And the other group is those who are still in university, who have invested thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars in their education or are in debt that much because it's a four-year program and that are now looking at maybe when I graduate I won't be able to teach but the only option open to these people is going into the private which already a lot of teachers are going into the private because The fact that Fatima and Vahri's students have left her these drawings and letters and ribbons on the fence at their schoolyard, what does that say to you?

It says what I've been saying since the beginning of this whole debate. It says that kids do not see difference that way. They see beyond that. Children are not even interested. You know, they miss her because they see her as somebody who is kind and gentle and caring and loving and who is teaching them and giving them the time of their lives. Otherwise, they would not, there wouldn't be this outpouring of support for her. These kids have lost on the opportunity of a good education. They've lost on the opportunity of, you know, being exposed to diversity. I mean, they've lost somebody that was a lifeline to them.

Let's think about them for a second. Report cards are coming up. Their teacher just left. What's that going to look like? And we only have two report cards now thanks to COVID. This is the importance of educating ourselves and speaking up before it's too late. Like in this case, parents are shocked because probably they weren't educated about the law beforehand. And now that it hit close to home, they're in reaction mode.

Mahai, I want to thank you so much for this. Thank you so much. You're very welcome. It's a pleasure. Hi, it's Ramit Sethi here. You may have seen my money show on Netflix. I've been talking about money for 20 years. I've talked to millions of people, and I have some startling numbers to share with you. 20 years. I've talked to millions of people and I have some startling numbers to share with you. Did you know that of the people I speak to, 50% of them do not know their own household income? That's not a typo. 50%. That's because money is confusing. In my new book and podcast, Money for Couples, I help you and your partner create a financial vision together. To listen to this

podcast, just search for Money for Couples. So now I want to shift to talking about the political and court battles around this and how they might call into question our understanding of how strongly rights and freedoms are really protected in Canada. And for that, I'm joined by Jonathan Montpetit. Right now, he's doing a journalism fellowship at Massey College. I'm very jealous. But normally, he's a CBC Montreal reporter, and he's been following the story closely for years. We've talked about it with him on the podcast before.

Hey, John, great to talk to you. Hey, Jamie. So firstly, I know there are different groups who have launched legal challenges to Quebec's Bill 21. We heard in the intro about how Fatima and Varee was hired in between these two court decisions in April and November of this year. And so I'm wondering if you could just briefly get us up to speed on where the legal saga around Bill 21 stands right now. And I know it could be quite lengthy, but maybe the Colesnotes version.

Okay, so here's the Colesnotes version. In April, the Quebec Superior Court said that the law can stand. And the big takeaway from that was that the judge said the law can stand because of the notwithstanding clause. And so the notwithstanding clause protects the law from claims that it violates basic freedoms like a freedom of religion or freedom of expression. So because the law contains an onwithstanding clause, it can't be thrown out based on these violations of fundamental charter rights. The other thing, though, that came out of that decision was that the law shouldn't apply to English school boards in Quebec. And that's because the judge said English school boards are protected under a different section of the charter, section 23, which guarantees minority language education

rights. And the notwithstanding clause doesn't apply to that part of the charter. And so the judge's ruling is that the law, Bill 21, shouldn't apply to English school boards. But Quebec immediately announced plans to appeal that decision. There's only one state here in Quebec. There's only one law that applies for everybody for the same thing. And that's why we're going on appeal on that. But because the Quebec government is appealing that decision, the law pending that appeal is still in effect for English schools. Okay. And that is why Fatima Anvari was removed from her position in the classroom. And I just

want to pause for a second for people who may not know what the notwithstanding clause is and why it's so crucial to the story. This is basically like a kind of get out of jail free card that governments can use in certain cases when they don't like a court decision, right? Yeah, section 33 of the charter allows provincial governments to either override court decisions or, in this case, preempt court decisions that say, you know, that a certain law violates fundamental freedoms or violates gender equality or uncertain other parts of the Charter. days and three nights of fierce bargaining, the First Ministers had at last agreed on a new constitution, on the ground rules that will shape Canadian society for decades to come. As Trudeau readily admitted, in some ways today's agreement is as much a reflection of the province's demand for regional diversity as of his own vision of a more unified and

centralized Canada. It kind of was inserted into the charter to kind of ensure that there's a balance between the legislatures on the one hand and the courts on the other. So it kind of gives legislatures in certain circumstances the final say over legislation. Okay. But to add another layer to this, this law is still winding its way up the courts, and a lot of people smarter than me think that it will end up at the Supreme Court, right, at the highest court in the country. And why is that? What do they think could happen there, especially with with the notwithstanding clause? So, yeah, a few things there, Jamie. So, one, there are a few people smarter than you. Two, that the the Constitution is not just the charter. And so basically some of the legal challenges are about finding other ways that the law may be unconstitutional. So, for example, it may violate federal jurisdiction, in which case that's not something guaranteed by the Charter, but it is against the Constitution.

So the notwithstanding clause would not protect the law from a decision based on it being a violation of federal jurisdiction. from a decision based on it being a violation of federal jurisdiction. And so these are some of the more technical legal questions that will be hashed out as the law kind of winds its way through the Quebec Court of Appeal and then probably ultimately the Supreme Court of Canada. Right. And essentially these courts will decide, like you just said, courts will decide, like you just said, that either the notwithstanding clause holds or there's some other things in the charter and the constitution that would allow them to strike this law down. And we don't know what's going to happen yet, obviously. So if we don't know what the courts are going to do, What about political avenues? Is there something that

opponents of this law could hope for from provincial or federal politicians that could get rid of this law? Yeah, so I guess there are three kind of obvious political options for federal political leaders. One, the federal government could invoke the disallowance clause, which is something that's in the 1867 Constitution Act, and that allows the federal government to strike down provincial laws. Now, this is something that hasn't been used since 1943. I think it's very unlikely that the federal government would go down this road, and certainly if they were to go down this road, it would almost certainly cause a major constitutional crisis. The second option available to the federal government is to seek intervener status in the court cases involving the law. So this is something that Justin Trudeau

has indicated he may be willing to consider when the law and if the law gets to the Supreme Court. And in this case, what would happen is lawyers for the federal government would make arguments before the justices on the Supreme Court and basically make an argument why the law should be struck down. And I guess the final thing is just purely the political option, which is trying to convince Quebecers that the law is illegitimate in some way, and that the government should take it off the books. But that's a strictly political option. That's just about engaging with debate in Quebec and trying to convince Quebecers to shift their attitudes about the law.

And how is that going right now? So at the moment, all indicators seem to suggest that support for the law is quite high among especially francophone Quebecers and especially francophone Quebecers who live outside of Montreal. The provincial government here, the CAQ, is way ahead of its opposition in the polls. And so right now, the kind of assumption in Quebec is that the law is untouchable in terms of public opinion. The public opinion is behind the law. And moreover, the provincial government, I should say,

has kind of done a very effective job of portraying anybody who is opposed to the law as kind of somehow being anti-Quebec. I am responsible to protect our values. And somebody is saying that I should not do that. It's unacceptable. That the law embraces or is a manifestation of a real Quebec value. And so to be against the law is somehow to be against Quebec. Trudeau sort of touched on this on Monday, if you think I'm right here.

You know, he said essentially that while he opposes the law, he's kind of not really embodies something particular about Quebec and that the federal government has no business getting involved in this debate, even at a political level, let alone at a legal level, and that any kind of wading into the controversy really is an affront to the National Assembly, and it's an affront to the government that was elected by the Quebec people to carry out this legislation. I can say clearly that the vast majority of Quebecers agree to forbid religious signs for people being in an authority position like police people. And that Bill 21 doesn't apply in the rest of Canada.

So please. Please. Please. It's not of your business. Definitely, we have heard more politicians on the federal level speak out about this recently in the wake of this case, Fatima Avari's case, from the opposition party as well. Conservative MP Kyle Seaback and former cabinet minister on the liberal side, Mark Garneau, and Catherine McKenna, who recently left politics. Current cabinet minister on the liberal side, Mark Miller, has spoken out against it. And what do you make of this?

I mean, I think one of the things I've noticed is how opposition to the law seems to ebb and flow. And certainly when I say opposition, I mean strictly the political opposition and not kind of opposition to the existence of civil society. So when there are events in the news that bring renewed scrutiny to the law, then you kind of get very vocal opposition to it. Whether, you know, we go back a few months around the terrorist attack in London, Ontario. months around the terrorist attack in London, Ontario. Here is where police say a man motivated by hate ran down a Muslim family just out for a walk. I think there are going to be reflections about a number of pieces of legislation,

including Bill 21, and also understanding how important it is for all of us to fight against intolerance and Islamophobia. Or just recently with this case in Chelsea, Quebec. And then at other times when the political calculus changes, we get a bit more tepid response from federal political leaders. federal political leaders. So notice the recent federal election campaigns when Quebec was a key battleground. All the federal leaders were much more, I think, restrained in terms of their criticisms directed at the law. Right. And maybe one example of that is how the federal leaders reacted in September to backlash over a question in the English language debate by the moderator, Sachi Koural. Thank you. Mr. Blanchet, to you. You deny that Quebec has problems with racism,

yet you defend legislation such as Bills 96 and 21, which marginalize religious minorities, anglophones, and allophones. Quebec is recognized as a distinct society, but for those outside the province, please help them understand why your party also supports these discriminatory laws. The question seems to imply the answer you want. Those laws are not about discrimination. They are about the values of Quebec. And they essentially admonished her for that. They admonished her for that. Last night we saw certain questions that were a little unfair. I was taken aback by the premise of the question last night on Bill 21. My position on this is no, I'm not in favor of that particular

law. But it is wrong to suggest that Quebecers are racist. As a Quebecer, I found that question really offensive. I think that's a good example of how the political context kind of can restrain what federal leaders feel they're able to say about the law. Okay, so before we go, John, I just want to bring some threads together here and talk about the bigger questions that this poses. So to take a stab at summarizing what you've been saying, and I love that every time you come on, we talk about 1867 or something very close to it, that essentially opponents of Bill 21 may or may not be able to get rid of it through the courts. And politicians, either federally or provincially, haven't been particularly forceful in trying to build opposition to the law at this time. Although, you know, as you mentioned, it kind of ebbs and flows. And this probably, as you said, has something to do with the fact

that the polls have found that the majority of Quebecers support the law. And I feel like that majority point is important here because we've got a constitution that's supposed to protect the rights of individuals and groups who very often are vulnerable because they are minorities. So how do we square this story with our understanding of how our charter rights are actually supposed to work in this country? our understanding of how our charter rights are actually supposed to work in this country. I think Bill 21 really does challenge our understandings of Canada as a country of individual rights, because the current situation is that a Muslim woman in Ontario has more rights than a Muslim woman in Quebec. And that would seem to run counter to the promises that were made by, you know, just two generations ago in laying out the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Now, so the Charter of Rights and Freedoms also contains this notwithstanding clause. And so what that means in kind of layman's terms is that the debate at at stake here is one in terms of who has the who has the final say whether something is legitimate or not is it the legislature is it uh the people uh you know the the will of the people expressed through the legislature or is it the courts and the courts applying rights laid out in a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, rights that were laid out specifically to limit the power of the legislature in order to protect the most vulnerable society? So which of those two things are more important to us right now? And I think that's the hard question that Bill 21 is really forcing us to ask.

John, this is super interesting. Thank you. It is always such a pleasure to talk to you. Always a pleasure to be on the show, Jamie. All right. So before we go today, a long-awaited apology was delivered on Monday to those who face sexual assault, misconduct and discrimination in the Canadian forces. The apology came from top military commander General Wayne Ayer, Defence Minister Anita Anand and Deputy Defence Minister Jody Thomas on behalf of the Government of Canada. In it, Minister Anand acknowledged that misconduct and abuse of power led to a crisis of broken trust. And she said that things can change. Things can change. They must change. And I say it to you, they will change. The apology comes after nearly a year of high-profile revelations of misconduct in the military, but was first promised in 2019

as part of the $900 million class action settlement for survivors of Canadian military sexual misconduct. That is all for today. I'm Jamie Poisson. Thank you so much for listening to FrontBurner. We'll talk to you tomorrow. For more CBC Podcasts, go to cbc.ca slash podcasts.