Canada

Quebec secularism law is ‘anti-religious ideology,’ bishops tell Canada Supreme Court #Catholic Canada’s bishops told the Supreme Court of Canada that Quebec’s secularism legislation Bill 21 “denies the divine” going well beyond provincial jurisdiction by imposing an anti-religious ideology on the province.The bishops were among more than 50 intervenors presenting arguments at a landmark Supreme Court of Canada hearing into the constitutionality of Quebec’s 2019 secularism law. The hearing, one of the longest in the court’s history, ran from March 23–26. The court reserved its decision, with a ruling expected later this year.The secularism law, which lower courts have twice upheld, prohibits certain public employees — such as teachers and police officers — from wearing religious symbols while at work.Toronto lawyer Phil Horgan, president and general counsel of the Catholic Civil Rights League (CCRL), argued on behalf of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB), summarizing a factum that argued the “purpose and effect” of Quebec’s legislation is to “amend Canada’s federal constitution by imposing an anti-religious, non-neutral ideology, which goes beyond Québec’s jurisdiction.”Such a “drastic” change can only be made by the federal government using its authority over criminal law or its constitutional “peace, order, and good government” powers, according to the bishops’ argument.Quebec preemptively invoked the notwithstanding clause of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms when it drafted Bill 21 to shield it from judicial review.Federal and provincial governments can invoke the notwithstanding clause of the Constitution to temporarily prevent courts from invalidating legislation as unconstitutional.The timing and impact of the use of Charter Section 33 became a significant issue during the four days of hearings and will likely be central in the court’s analysis, Horgan told The Catholic Register.The appellants challenging Bill 21 include individual teachers directly affected by it as well as advocacy groups including the National Council of Canadian Muslims (NCCM), the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA), and the Legal Committee of the Coalition Inclusion Québec. They argue Bill 21 is “ultra vires,” beyond the powers of provincial jurisdiction.In a five-minute oral argument, Horgan told the seven justices that “Canada’s existing federal constitution is pluralist and pro-religion.” Although “the doctrine of state neutrality is well established, Canada has never adopted laicity or an absolutist separation of church and state,” he said.Justice Malcolm Rowe questioned Horgan on the point, asking: “Other than the reference to the supremacy of God in the preamble to the Charter, would you direct me to the provision in the Constitution which is pro-religion?”Horgan cited Section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867, which protects denominational school rights and privileges, and noted federal charity law recognizes religion as a public good.Horgan said he wasn’t concerned by the pushback, noting judges often ask questions “not so much to get the answers from counsel but to help … persuade other members of the bench on some of the merits of the argument.”In its factum, the CCCB said Bill 21 “turns the expression of religious belief, through the wearing of symbols, into something to be punished because such expression now conflicts with the dominant philosophical posture of laïcité.”Just as religious symbols are an illustration of underlying personal faith, “the prohibition of religious symbols manifests an outlook from the provincial government that denies the divine,” the bishops said.Quebec has argued the notwithstanding clause disqualifies courts from weighing in on matters deemed political debates. Isabelle Brunet, a lawyer for the Quebec government, told the justices: “It is not up to a court to answer a question that doesn’t concern the courts.”Quebec received support from the attorneys general of Alberta, Ontario, and Saskatchewan, who maintain the courts should not interfere once the notwithstanding clause is invoked.Alberta and Ontario take a contrary position, arguing there is nothing in the notwithstanding clause that precludes judicial scrutiny of legislation.Guy J. Pratte, a lawyer for the attorney general of Canada, said Section 33 gives legislatures the power to override Charter rights but does not nullify the rights altogether or prevent judges from issuing an opinion if freedoms are violated.‘Imposing an anti-religious, non-neutral ideology’The following excerpts are from the factum submitted to the Supreme Court of Canada by the Canadian bishops:“The purpose and effect of the act is unilaterally to amend Canada’s federal constitution by imposing an anti-religious, non-neutral ideology, which goes beyond Québec’s jurisdiction.”“When a province makes itself laïc, it is adopting a non-neutral stance on religion. The provinces do not have that power.”“Québec is attempting to impose an atheistic posture on religious believers.”“Our constitution is founded on a political theory that sees fundamental rights and freedoms as God-given. To adopt an expressly anti-religious viewpoint, as the act purports to do, is an amendment of our existing federal constitution.”“In the place of a genuinely neutral, pluralist, and pro-religious approach, the act substitutes an anti-religious constitutional settlement where symbols of religion worn by individuals are not permitted.”“Just as religious symbols manifest an underlying personal faith, the prohibition of religious symbols manifests an outlook … that denies the divine.”This story was first published by The B.C. Catholic and is reprinted here with permission.
Read More

Quebec secularism law is ‘anti-religious ideology,’ bishops tell Canada Supreme Court #Catholic Canada’s bishops told the Supreme Court of Canada that Quebec’s secularism legislation Bill 21 “denies the divine” going well beyond provincial jurisdiction by imposing an anti-religious ideology on the province.The bishops were among more than 50 intervenors presenting arguments at a landmark Supreme Court of Canada hearing into the constitutionality of Quebec’s 2019 secularism law. The hearing, one of the longest in the court’s history, ran from March 23–26. The court reserved its decision, with a ruling expected later this year.The secularism law, which lower courts have twice upheld, prohibits certain public employees — such as teachers and police officers — from wearing religious symbols while at work.Toronto lawyer Phil Horgan, president and general counsel of the Catholic Civil Rights League (CCRL), argued on behalf of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB), summarizing a factum that argued the “purpose and effect” of Quebec’s legislation is to “amend Canada’s federal constitution by imposing an anti-religious, non-neutral ideology, which goes beyond Québec’s jurisdiction.”Such a “drastic” change can only be made by the federal government using its authority over criminal law or its constitutional “peace, order, and good government” powers, according to the bishops’ argument.Quebec preemptively invoked the notwithstanding clause of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms when it drafted Bill 21 to shield it from judicial review.Federal and provincial governments can invoke the notwithstanding clause of the Constitution to temporarily prevent courts from invalidating legislation as unconstitutional.The timing and impact of the use of Charter Section 33 became a significant issue during the four days of hearings and will likely be central in the court’s analysis, Horgan told The Catholic Register.The appellants challenging Bill 21 include individual teachers directly affected by it as well as advocacy groups including the National Council of Canadian Muslims (NCCM), the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA), and the Legal Committee of the Coalition Inclusion Québec. They argue Bill 21 is “ultra vires,” beyond the powers of provincial jurisdiction.In a five-minute oral argument, Horgan told the seven justices that “Canada’s existing federal constitution is pluralist and pro-religion.” Although “the doctrine of state neutrality is well established, Canada has never adopted laicity or an absolutist separation of church and state,” he said.Justice Malcolm Rowe questioned Horgan on the point, asking: “Other than the reference to the supremacy of God in the preamble to the Charter, would you direct me to the provision in the Constitution which is pro-religion?”Horgan cited Section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867, which protects denominational school rights and privileges, and noted federal charity law recognizes religion as a public good.Horgan said he wasn’t concerned by the pushback, noting judges often ask questions “not so much to get the answers from counsel but to help … persuade other members of the bench on some of the merits of the argument.”In its factum, the CCCB said Bill 21 “turns the expression of religious belief, through the wearing of symbols, into something to be punished because such expression now conflicts with the dominant philosophical posture of laïcité.”Just as religious symbols are an illustration of underlying personal faith, “the prohibition of religious symbols manifests an outlook from the provincial government that denies the divine,” the bishops said.Quebec has argued the notwithstanding clause disqualifies courts from weighing in on matters deemed political debates. Isabelle Brunet, a lawyer for the Quebec government, told the justices: “It is not up to a court to answer a question that doesn’t concern the courts.”Quebec received support from the attorneys general of Alberta, Ontario, and Saskatchewan, who maintain the courts should not interfere once the notwithstanding clause is invoked.Alberta and Ontario take a contrary position, arguing there is nothing in the notwithstanding clause that precludes judicial scrutiny of legislation.Guy J. Pratte, a lawyer for the attorney general of Canada, said Section 33 gives legislatures the power to override Charter rights but does not nullify the rights altogether or prevent judges from issuing an opinion if freedoms are violated.‘Imposing an anti-religious, non-neutral ideology’The following excerpts are from the factum submitted to the Supreme Court of Canada by the Canadian bishops:“The purpose and effect of the act is unilaterally to amend Canada’s federal constitution by imposing an anti-religious, non-neutral ideology, which goes beyond Québec’s jurisdiction.”“When a province makes itself laïc, it is adopting a non-neutral stance on religion. The provinces do not have that power.”“Québec is attempting to impose an atheistic posture on religious believers.”“Our constitution is founded on a political theory that sees fundamental rights and freedoms as God-given. To adopt an expressly anti-religious viewpoint, as the act purports to do, is an amendment of our existing federal constitution.”“In the place of a genuinely neutral, pluralist, and pro-religious approach, the act substitutes an anti-religious constitutional settlement where symbols of religion worn by individuals are not permitted.”“Just as religious symbols manifest an underlying personal faith, the prohibition of religious symbols manifests an outlook … that denies the divine.”This story was first published by The B.C. Catholic and is reprinted here with permission.

unitedyam

The Catholic bishops were among more than 50 intervenors presenting arguments at a landmark Supreme Court of Canada hearing into the constitutionality of Quebec’s 2019 secularism law.

Read More
Pew report examines how people rate fellow citizens’ morals #Catholic A Pew Research Center study found ​​Americans are more likely than people in other countries to question the morality of their fellow citizens.The report, “In 25-Country Survey, Americans Especially Likely To View Fellow Citizens as Morally Bad,” explores how adults in 25 countries rate the morality of others in their nation. It also examines if people consider different behaviors to be morally wrong including drinking alcohol, gambling, having extramarital affairs, using marijuana, viewing pornography, having abortions, homosexuality, getting divorces, and using contraceptives.The research was based on data from participants in Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Mexico, Netherlands, Nigeria, Poland, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States.Surveys conducted outside the U.S. were based on nationally representative surveys of 28,333 adults conducted from Jan. 8 to April 26, 2025. In the U.S., Pew surveyed 3,605 adults who are members of the Center’s American Trends Panel (ATP) from March 24–30, 2025. A March 2026 Pew report, “In 25-Country Survey, Americans Especially Likely To View Fellow Citizens as Morally Bad,” explores if adults in 25 countries consider nine behaviors to be morally unacceptable or acceptable. | Credit: Courtesy of Pew Research Center The report also includes some findings from a separate ATP survey of 8,937 U.S. adults conducted from May 5–11, 2025. The margin of sampling error for the full sample of 3,605 respondents is plus or minus 1.9 percentage points.According to the research, 47% of U.S. adults reported Americans have “very good” or “somewhat good” morals and ethics, which was the lowest of all countries. The majority of adults in Canada and Indonesia (92%) said the same of the people in their countries.Most and least accepted behaviors across the globeGetting a divorce and the use of contraception were found to be the most widely accepted of the nine behaviors. Only 12% of adults overall said getting a divorce is morally wrong, and 8% said using contraceptives is. The only countries with a slight majority that believe getting a divorce is morally unacceptable are India with 65% holding this view and Nigeria with 55%.Of the nine behaviors Pew asked participants about, married people having affairs had the strongest overall disapproval. Across the 25 countries, a median of 77% of adults said married people having affairs is morally unacceptable, with at least half of adults in every country holding this view.U.S. adults were among those to be most likely to condemn extramarital affairs as immoral. Nine in 10 Americans said having an affair is morally wrong, similar to the share of people in Indonesia and in Turkey (92%) who believe the same. A March 2026 Pew report, “In 25-Country Survey, Americans Especially Likely To View Fellow Citizens as Morally Bad,” explores how adults in 25 countries rate the morality of others in their country. | Credit: Courtesy of Pew Research Center Adults in Germany (55%) and France (53%) are among the least likely to believe having an affair is morally unacceptable.Behaviors with least international consensusThe report found that for most behaviors asked about, there is not an international consensus if they are morally acceptable or not.In the Latin American and African countries surveyed, half or more of adults said they believe abortions are morally unacceptable, but in most European countries, the vast majority of adults view abortions as either morally acceptable or not a moral issue at all. In the U.S., the group was fairly split with 47% reporting it is morally unacceptable to have an abortion.In the U.S., adults are the most accepting of using marijuana and gambling. Only 23% of Americans said using marijuana is morally unacceptable, and 29% said the same in regard to gambling. In most other countries surveyed, more than 40% of adults said they consider gambling and marijuana use to be morally wrong.In 10 countries, a majority said gambling is morally wrong, including 89% in Indonesia and 71% in Italy. In Australia, 25% said gambling is morally acceptable, and 43% do not see gambling as a moral issue.In the U.S., 39% of adults reported homosexuality is morally wrong, which was found to be much more than those who hold the same belief in Germany (5%) or Sweden (5%). In other nations including Indonesia (93%) and Nigeria (96%), the majority reported it is morally wrong.In regard to drinking alcohol, the majority of adults in Indonesia (83%) reported it is a morally unacceptable act. In contrast, only 7% of adults in Australia and Sweden reported the same. In the U.S., a small share of 16% said it is morally unacceptable.What factors affect views of behaviors?According to the report, a number of factors seem to affect how adults view the morality of behaviors including political party, religion, and gender.Democrats and independents who lean toward the Democratic Party are more likely than Republicans and Republican leaners to rate fellow Americans as morally and ethically bad (60% vs. 46%).Pew examined citizens’ stances based on religious belief and found those who said religion is very important in their lives were more likely to view the behaviors as morally wrong.In 13 of the 25 countries surveyed, the research looked specifically at the differences between Protestants and Catholics. The report detailed that Protestants are typically more likely than Catholics in the same country to believe homosexuality is wrong. In the U.S., 59% of Protestants reported homosexuality is morally wrong, while 34% of Catholics did.There is a large variation between Christians in different countries. The majority of Christians surveyed in Africa, Latin America, and the U.S. said having an abortion is morally wrong, but across Europe, the share of Christians who hold this view ranges from 40% in Spain to 7% in Sweden.Gender is also a factor in how people view moral behaviors. Women tend to be more likely than men to believe some behaviors are morally unacceptable. In nearly every country surveyed, women were more likely than men to say that viewing pornography is wrong. In contrast, men were more likely than women to report homosexuality is morally unacceptable. Overall, older adults were more likely than younger adults to report the behaviors are morally unacceptable. This is the case with using marijuana in 19 of the 25 surveyed countries. In Germany, adults ages 40 and older are twice as likely as younger adults to believe marijuana use is morally wrong, with 30% of older adults holding this belief and 15% of younger adults.
Read More

Pew report examines how people rate fellow citizens’ morals #Catholic A Pew Research Center study found ​​Americans are more likely than people in other countries to question the morality of their fellow citizens.The report, “In 25-Country Survey, Americans Especially Likely To View Fellow Citizens as Morally Bad,” explores how adults in 25 countries rate the morality of others in their nation. It also examines if people consider different behaviors to be morally wrong including drinking alcohol, gambling, having extramarital affairs, using marijuana, viewing pornography, having abortions, homosexuality, getting divorces, and using contraceptives.The research was based on data from participants in Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Mexico, Netherlands, Nigeria, Poland, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States.Surveys conducted outside the U.S. were based on nationally representative surveys of 28,333 adults conducted from Jan. 8 to April 26, 2025. In the U.S., Pew surveyed 3,605 adults who are members of the Center’s American Trends Panel (ATP) from March 24–30, 2025. A March 2026 Pew report, “In 25-Country Survey, Americans Especially Likely To View Fellow Citizens as Morally Bad,” explores if adults in 25 countries consider nine behaviors to be morally unacceptable or acceptable. | Credit: Courtesy of Pew Research Center The report also includes some findings from a separate ATP survey of 8,937 U.S. adults conducted from May 5–11, 2025. The margin of sampling error for the full sample of 3,605 respondents is plus or minus 1.9 percentage points.According to the research, 47% of U.S. adults reported Americans have “very good” or “somewhat good” morals and ethics, which was the lowest of all countries. The majority of adults in Canada and Indonesia (92%) said the same of the people in their countries.Most and least accepted behaviors across the globeGetting a divorce and the use of contraception were found to be the most widely accepted of the nine behaviors. Only 12% of adults overall said getting a divorce is morally wrong, and 8% said using contraceptives is. The only countries with a slight majority that believe getting a divorce is morally unacceptable are India with 65% holding this view and Nigeria with 55%.Of the nine behaviors Pew asked participants about, married people having affairs had the strongest overall disapproval. Across the 25 countries, a median of 77% of adults said married people having affairs is morally unacceptable, with at least half of adults in every country holding this view.U.S. adults were among those to be most likely to condemn extramarital affairs as immoral. Nine in 10 Americans said having an affair is morally wrong, similar to the share of people in Indonesia and in Turkey (92%) who believe the same. A March 2026 Pew report, “In 25-Country Survey, Americans Especially Likely To View Fellow Citizens as Morally Bad,” explores how adults in 25 countries rate the morality of others in their country. | Credit: Courtesy of Pew Research Center Adults in Germany (55%) and France (53%) are among the least likely to believe having an affair is morally unacceptable.Behaviors with least international consensusThe report found that for most behaviors asked about, there is not an international consensus if they are morally acceptable or not.In the Latin American and African countries surveyed, half or more of adults said they believe abortions are morally unacceptable, but in most European countries, the vast majority of adults view abortions as either morally acceptable or not a moral issue at all. In the U.S., the group was fairly split with 47% reporting it is morally unacceptable to have an abortion.In the U.S., adults are the most accepting of using marijuana and gambling. Only 23% of Americans said using marijuana is morally unacceptable, and 29% said the same in regard to gambling. In most other countries surveyed, more than 40% of adults said they consider gambling and marijuana use to be morally wrong.In 10 countries, a majority said gambling is morally wrong, including 89% in Indonesia and 71% in Italy. In Australia, 25% said gambling is morally acceptable, and 43% do not see gambling as a moral issue.In the U.S., 39% of adults reported homosexuality is morally wrong, which was found to be much more than those who hold the same belief in Germany (5%) or Sweden (5%). In other nations including Indonesia (93%) and Nigeria (96%), the majority reported it is morally wrong.In regard to drinking alcohol, the majority of adults in Indonesia (83%) reported it is a morally unacceptable act. In contrast, only 7% of adults in Australia and Sweden reported the same. In the U.S., a small share of 16% said it is morally unacceptable.What factors affect views of behaviors?According to the report, a number of factors seem to affect how adults view the morality of behaviors including political party, religion, and gender.Democrats and independents who lean toward the Democratic Party are more likely than Republicans and Republican leaners to rate fellow Americans as morally and ethically bad (60% vs. 46%).Pew examined citizens’ stances based on religious belief and found those who said religion is very important in their lives were more likely to view the behaviors as morally wrong.In 13 of the 25 countries surveyed, the research looked specifically at the differences between Protestants and Catholics. The report detailed that Protestants are typically more likely than Catholics in the same country to believe homosexuality is wrong. In the U.S., 59% of Protestants reported homosexuality is morally wrong, while 34% of Catholics did.There is a large variation between Christians in different countries. The majority of Christians surveyed in Africa, Latin America, and the U.S. said having an abortion is morally wrong, but across Europe, the share of Christians who hold this view ranges from 40% in Spain to 7% in Sweden.Gender is also a factor in how people view moral behaviors. Women tend to be more likely than men to believe some behaviors are morally unacceptable. In nearly every country surveyed, women were more likely than men to say that viewing pornography is wrong. In contrast, men were more likely than women to report homosexuality is morally unacceptable. Overall, older adults were more likely than younger adults to report the behaviors are morally unacceptable. This is the case with using marijuana in 19 of the 25 surveyed countries. In Germany, adults ages 40 and older are twice as likely as younger adults to believe marijuana use is morally wrong, with 30% of older adults holding this belief and 15% of younger adults.

unitedyam

U.S. adults were among those most likely to condemn extramarital affairs as immoral in a study of 25 countries.

Read More