Judges – United Yam

Why Pakistan’s bishops doubt government will act on minor’s forced marriage #Catholic LAHORE, Pakistan — The head of the Catholic Church in Pakistan has expressed a guarded response to government committees formed to review a recent ruling by the country’s top constitutional court that upheld the marriage and conversion of a Christian minor.Federal Minister for Information and Broadcasting Attaullah Tarar announced on Easter Sunday, April 5, that the government had constituted a committee to examine the March 25 judgment of the Federal Constitutional Court validating the marriage of 13-year-old Maria Shahbaz to 30-year-old Shaheryar Ahmad. A protest for Maria Shahbaz outside Hyderabad Press Club, organized by the Catholic Bishops’ National Commission for Justice and Peace, on April 4, 2026, in Pakistan. | Credit: Bishop Samson Shukardin Bishop Samson Shukardin of Hyderabad, president of the Pakistan Catholic Bishops’ Conference (PCBC), voiced skepticism about the initiative.“These issues often subside by the time such committees make their reports public. The process is deliberately delayed so that people forget,” he told EWTN News.“This is fundamentally a religious freedom issue. Consent is often coerced from minors. We await a genuine response from the government. Many Muslim clerics support us but have avoided joining public protests,” he added.A father’s accountAccording to Maria’s father, Shehbaz Masih, his daughter was abducted, forcibly converted to Islam, and married without consent.A certificate issued by the National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA) submitted by the family states that Maria was 13 at the time of the marriage — below the legal minimum age of 18. The family has since taken refuge in a shelter and was unavailable for comment.The case dates back to July 2025, when Masih, a resident of Lahore, reported that his daughter had been abducted by a Muslim man after stepping out to a nearby shop.Dismissing a petition filed by the father seeking custody, the court ruled that the marriage was valid under “Muhammadan law” and that the husband held lawful guardianship.Protests and backlashThe judgment triggered widespread reaction on social media, along with protests, press conferences, and conventions across the country. At least three Catholic bishops, along with the PCBC, issued statements urging authorities to review the ruling.The backlash prompted government engagement with the concerns of the country’s Christian minority, estimated at 1.37% (3.28 million people).Addressing an interfaith Easter gathering in Lahore, Tarar assured Christian leaders of his support, saying the committee’s recommendations would be submitted to the Ministry of Law and Justice within a week. Archbishop Azad Marshall, moderator/president bishop of the Church of Pakistan, a united Protestant denomination, meets with ecumenical leaders and Christian politicians following an April 6, 2026, consultation on the Maria Shahbaz case at Waris Road, Lahore. | Credit: Church of Pakistan Legal dimensionsMeanwhile, Punjab Minister for Minorities Affairs Ramesh Singh Arora said his department was forming a parallel committee to examine the legal dimensions of the case.Mary James Gill, a Christian lawyer, former lawmaker, and executive director of the Center for Law and Justice who serves on the committee, welcomed the move as a “genuine concern to find a way forward.”“It is highly encouraging that a state representative personally took up the issue. However, we are still in a consultative process,” she told EWTN News, noting shortcomings in both the lower courts and within the affected community.“The petition was filed under Section 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which pertains to habeas corpus, and not to determining the exact age of the girl — a question that remains disputed,” Gill said.“Regrettably, no such verification was carried out in the lower courts. In cases where documentation is ambiguous, magistrates and sessions judges tend to rely on in-person statements, consent, and their own observations.”She noted that the Christian Marriage Act of 1872 governs the solemnization of marriages involving one or more Christians.“Similarly, the personal laws of both Christianity and Islam in Pakistan remain silent on the age of conversion. Church leaders need to revisit and update these frameworks. At the same time, parents must place greater emphasis on the ideological and moral formation of their children,” she added.In an April 6 letter to the law ministry, Anthony Naveed, deputy speaker of the Sindh Assembly, urged the federal government to address “serious legal gaps” exposed by the ruling and called for uniform amendments aligning provincial laws with Balochistan’s legislation, which explicitly invalidates child marriages.A pattern of abuseFor decades, rights advocates have called for stronger legal and administrative measures to prevent the abduction and forced religious conversion of girls from minority communities.At least 515 cases of abduction and forced conversion of minority girls and women were reported between 2021 and 2025, according to the Center for Social Justice. Hindu girls accounted for 69% (353 cases), followed by Christian girls at 31% (160 cases). Most victims were under 18, with cases concentrated in Sindh and Punjab.Shukardin said courts in the Muslim-majority country are not consistently applying laws prohibiting marriage under 18.“The Church is not in favor of marriages involving conversion under such circumstances. We demand safety for our daughters and will continue to raise our voice for underage brides of any religion,” he said.

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 April 2, 2026

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.