'Realistic' chance that SCC ruling on Bill 21 inspires violent extremist rhetoric: intelligence assessment

OTTAWA — No matter what the decision is, the Supreme Court’s upcoming ruling on Quebec’s controversial secularism law will probably inspire violent extremist rhetoric, warns a federal intelligence assessment.

In a March intelligence brief, Canada’s Integrated Threat Assessment Centre (ITAC) said it was “very unlikely” that violent extremists would target the court’s four days of hearings later that month on the challenge of the law known as Bill 21.

But, ITAC noted, “it is a realistic possibility that the Court’s decision — whether the law is found to be constitutional or not — will inspire violent extremist rhetoric.”

Quebec’s controversial secularism law Bill 21 prohibits certain Quebec public sector workers, such as judges, police officers, teachers and prison guards, from wearing religious symbols at work. It also requires them to perform their duties with their faces uncovered.

Though popular in the province, the 2019 law is fiercely opposed by religious groups, civil liberties advocates and many groups representing women’s or anglophones’ rights.

To pass the bill seven years ago, then-Quebec Premier François Legault invoked section 33 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, better known as the notwithstanding clause.

The pre-emptive invocation of the clause — which allows a government to suspend the application of certain Charter rights for up to five years before needing to renew it — to block a court challenge of the law is at the heart of the case at the Supreme Court.

Over four hearing days in March, dozens of challengers and interveners opposed the law and asked the top court to rule it to be unconstitutional or impose limits on the invocation of the notwithstanding clause.

On the other hand, seven provinces including Quebec and Ontario argued that the court had no power to limit the invocation of the clause and to do so would amount to a constitutional amendment.

The top court’s decision is expected in the coming months.

In its unclassified March brief, ITAC assessed that there was a higher chance of a violent extremist attack linked to the enforcement of Bill 21 than there was against the apex court.

“State actions seen to be sacrilegious or blasphemous could be a mobilizing factor for a violent extremist with intent, or a radicalizing factor for an individual with existing grievances,” reads the brief, though noting that there was no information at the time indicating such action was brewing.

ITAC is a part of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service that focuses on assessing the risks of violent extremism in the country. It also sets Canada’s national terrorism threat level, which is currently at “medium” or “realistic possibility.”

In an interview, foreign interference and national security specialist Jean-Christophe Boucher said no matter the decision, he expects the outcome of the decision to be “instrumentalized” by groups on either side of the issue.

“If Bill 21 gets shut down, then you’ll have probably a lot of possibly far-right, but also Quebec separatists… amplifying issues around judicial overreach,” said the political science professor at the University of Calgary.

“If Bill 21 is upheld, then of course ethnic communities will feel wronged, and that will increase… not necessarily extremism, but at least kind of conversations around whether or not Canada is as welcoming as it used to be,” he added. “And I can see how other actors could actually kind of use this as a way to recruit and radicalize.”

He also said foreign actors who are trying to undermine Canada’s democratic institutions like the courts or governments will also seize on the decision to sow further division.

In a statement, Supreme Court spokesperson Vanessa Racine said the court had the appropriate security measures in place during the March hearings.

She also noted that “any potential security concerns will not affect the outcome of the decision in this case.”

In its assessment, ITAC said it that violent extremists in Canada are unlikely to even be able to breach the security of a secure location like the Supreme Court.

In the unlikely eventuality of an attack on the fortress-like building, “it would likely involve an inspired lone actor using basic weaponry and targeting security checkpoints or areas outside the building perimeter,” reads the brief.

National Post

cnardi@postmedia.com

• 'Extreme' hypothetical scenarios won't decide notwithstanding clause appeal, chief justice says
• New limits on notwithstanding clause would be 'irreparable' attack on federation, Ontario argues

Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our politics newsletter, First Reading, here.