Multani v. Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys

Religious and Legal Context

The kirpan is a symbolic weapon resembling a dagger. It is one of the five sacred objects or attributes that must be worn at all times by practicing Sikhs, more specifically, by those initiated into the Khalsa, the Sikh fraternity. The kirpan is placed in a sheath on a canvas belt called the gatra. The members of the Sikh community consider the kirpan to be a symbol of their faith and their commitment to protecting the oppressed. Its purpose is to remind us of the need to fight against oppression and injustice.

Wearing the kirpan does, however, raise safety concerns in schools, since it is in theory a potentially dangerous edged weapon. In 2001, Gurbaj Singh Multani, a Sikh student, accidentally dropped his kirpan in the schoolyard. Following this event, he refused to remove his kirpan and was expelled from his public elementary school in Montreal, triggering a series of legal proceedings. In March 2002, the Superior Court of Québec first ruled in Multani’s favour. It invalidated the decision of the governing body of the school, which had refused to allow the kirpan to be worn in accordance with its code of conduct prohibiting the carrying of weapons. However, two years later, the Quebec Court of Appeal overturned the Superior Court’s decision and reinstated the school’s kirpan ban.

In 2006, the case finally reached the Supreme Court of Canada. The key point was whether the kirpan ban violated the freedom of religion guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favour of Multani, stating that the ban violated his freedom of religion. However, reasonable safety measures must be put in place to mitigate the risks. Therefore, the kirpan must be placed in a cloth bag sewn into the clothing so that it cannot be opened. The eight judges also mentioned that multiple objects can be used to commit an act of violence in classrooms and schools (such as scissors, baseball bats, etc.). They also pointed out that no cases of kirpan-related violence had been reported in Canadian schools to date, and that it is impossible to ensure complete safety.

Although the Supreme Court ruled in in favour of Multani, the decision did not affect him directly because he no longer attended that school, but rather a private one that allowed the kirpan. Nevertheless, this decision sets a precedent and is an important case for the rights of religious minorities in Canada.

Social Impacts

Multani v. Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys had a profound impact on Quebec society. It remains a benchmark to this day. If someone else requests the same accommodation, wearing a kirpan at school should be permitted under certain conditions. In more general terms, the Supreme Court’s decision sets an important precent by affirming that students have the right to express their faith, even at school, as long as it does not pose a major safety risk.

However, even if the issue of wearing a kirpan has been settled at the school level, there have been other disputes since 2006.

In September 2008, a 13-year-old student was accused of threatening two other teenagers with his kirpan. However, he was acquitted of the charge the following year.

In February 2011, the National Assembly of Quebec unanimously adopted a motion to ban the wearing of the kirpan in all parliament buildings.

Finally, in 2007, Transport Canada authorized the presence of knives with blades of 6 cm or less and, in so doing, officially permitted a reduced size kirpan to be carried on board an aircraft, with the exception of flights to the United States. This change in policy sparked strong reactions, particularly in the National Assembly of Quebec.

Public Opinion and Political Impact

During this time, requests for accommodation led to feelings of incomprehension, mistrust and sometimes rejection towards certain religious communities. In 2006, a survey released by Repère communication recherche indicated that 6 out of 10 Quebecers were opposed to the wearing of religious symbols in public schools. In the eyes of the courts, however, unfavourable feelings do not justify restricting the right to the freedom of religion. Two years later, a CROP/La Presse poll confirmed that the majority of the Quebec population (87%) was opposed to the wearing of kirpans in schools.

This high-profile legal case was among the first to spark the debate on reasonable accommodations in Quebec in the 2000s. It led to discussions on the need to clarify the guidelines surrounding the rights of religious minorities. Some see the Supreme Court’s decision as an intrusion into their province’s secular preferences (see Secularism in Quebec), while others see it as an affirmation of the values of tolerance and diversity. In 2007, the Quebec government also put in place a committee of inquiry, the Bouchard-Taylor Commission, to examine the issue of reasonable accommodation and make recommendations. The commission’s work influenced subsequent political debates and contributed to the development of the Québec Values Charter and Bill 21.

Since 2007, the issue of reasonable accommodations and secularism in schools has continued to be the subject of debates and political changes in Quebec, and it remains an important subject in the provinces sociopolitical landscape.