One of the fascinating aspects of the Mouvement laïque québécois v Saguenay (City) case was the way state secularism was defined… repeatedly. Multiple versions of state secularism were discussed and contrasted over the course of the case.
Before the Supreme Court hearing for Mouvement laïque québécois v Saguenay (City), and before the debacle at the Québec Court of Appeal, the discrimination complaint was heard by Québec’s human rights tribunal.
Thus far in the series, I’ve told the story of the events leading up to the landmark Mouvement laïque québécois v Saguenay (City) ruling. Now it’s finally time to talk about the ruling itself.
The story leading up to Mouvement laïque québécois v Saguenay (City) spans almost 10 years, but it had a rather peculiar arc. After winning victories in Québec’s Human Rights Commission and Human Rights Tribunal, everything suddenly went sideways when the case reached Québec’s Court of Appeal. What went wrong, and why?
Before discussing the technicalities of Mouvement laïque québécois v Saguenay (City), I think it is important to know where it came from. Understanding its genesis will not only help frame the discussion of the judgment and its implications, it’s an interesting story in its own right about a fellow unbeliever standing up for our rights.
![[Photo of Joseph Watts]](https://www.canadianatheist.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/joseph-watts.jpg)
In a strange case of synchronicity, two curiously related news stories have been making the rounds the last week. One is the story of the Panama Papers, a leak of 11.5 million documents – 2.6 terabytes – from the law firm Mossack Fonseca that details evidence of how the ultra rich hide their wealth in… Read more »