The Potential Impact of Charter Section 28 on Quebec's Controversial Secularism Law and the Pursuit of Gender-Equality in Canadian Courts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Western liberal democratic order, anchored in respect for individual rights and constitutional norms, faces a critical challenge as Quebec follows the pattern of several European nations in enacting laws restricting religious attire. While the Quebec Law 21, “An Act Respecting the Laicity of the State,” is ostensibly neutral, it particularly restricts Muslim women's rights. This paper explores an ongoing, novel legal strategy challenging Quebec's secularism law, focusing on Section 28 of Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. While Section 28 mandates gender equality in Charter implementation, its potential remains largely unexplored in the decades since Charter enactment. Drawing on feminist legal scholarship and Critical Race Theory, this paper examines the implications of Section 28's application in gender-equality and intersectional analysis, particularly in combating laws like Quebec's. By contrasting Supreme Court cases that overlook Section 28 with those few recognizing its significance, this paper evaluates its role in challenging discriminatory legislation, including the use of Section 33's notwithstanding clause. Furthermore, it contextualizes Quebec's Law 21 within broader discussions of secularism, citizenship, and gendered Islamophobia. By utilizing Critical Race Theory and intersectional analysis, this paper sheds light on the hidden implications of ostensibly neutral laws, particularly for marginalized groups like Muslim women. Finally, it considers the potential impact of a revitalized Section 28 on the ongoing pursuit of substantive women's equality in Canada. Through an examination of the Hak et al. case and the broader legal landscape, this paper advocates for a reinvigoration of Section 28 to address contemporary challenges to gender equality in Canada.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".