by Trevor Greenway
Fatemeh Anvari is exhausted.
But the former Chelsea teacher who was banned from her Grade 3 classroom for wearing a hijab in 2021 says she will never give up the fight over Quebec’s controversial Bill 21.
“I think that if I don’t speak out any chance I get, then it will just be forgotten,” said Anvari. “And this is not just about me; it’s just that so many people are affected. And you know, if I have the chance to speak about it, why wouldn’t I?” Anvari’s comments come on the heels of the Jan. 23 announcement from Canada’s highest court – the Supreme Court of Canada – that it would hear a challenge to Quebec’s controversial Bill 21. This will be the final legal battle between Quebec and civil rights and community groups who argue that the bill is discriminatory and unconstitutional.
Bill 21 prohibits certain public workers in positions of authority, such as judges, police officers, prison guards and teachers, from wearing religious symbols while on the job. The Bill was passed in 2019 during the first mandate of the Coalition Avenir Québec (CAQ) government. To protect the law from court challenges, Quebec legislators invoked the Constitution’s notwithstanding clause, a provision that must be renewed every five years. It was last renewed in 2024.
Anvari said while she’s happy that Canada’s high court will finally take on the case, it’s “alarming” that people are celebrating their right to be heard.
“It was a relief that it finally got to this stage,” Anvari told the Low Down. “But at the same time, it really made me think that, if in 2025 in Canada we’re being excited about having the right to be heard in the Supreme Court, that’s pretty alarming.”
The face of Bill 21
Anvari became the face of Bill 21 in Quebec after she was removed from her Grade 3 classroom at Chelsea Elementary School on Dec. 8, 2021. The Low Down first reported the story, which was later picked up by every major news outlet across the country, and some US-based publications. Anvari even penned an op-ed for Maclean’s magazine last October, defending her decision to wear a hijab in Canada.
It’s been three years since her story reignited the debate over secularism in Quebec, and politicians as high up as the Prime Minister have weighed in on her personal story.
“Nobody in Canada should ever lose their job because of what they wear or their religious beliefs,” PM Justin Trudeau wrote in a statement to the Low Down at the time. In his statement, he praised parents and students in Chelsea, who launched a “For Fatemeh” campaign that included letters from students and parents and green ribbons tied to the fence of the school – Anvari’s favourite colour. “What we’re seeing in Chelsea is a community coming together to stand up for their neighbour – a teacher, Fatemeh Anvari. And parents are having really difficult conversations with their kids,” wrote Trudeau.
Anvari also said the support from the school, her students, parents and this local paper are what keep her motivated to stay in the fight.
Empowered by Chelsea community
“Honestly, it was just the community in Chelsea, you know, if it hadn’t been for you guys – the parents, the Low Down, the kids, it just, it wouldn’t have been at all possible because I wouldn’t have felt empowered to talk about it ever,” said Anvari. “I really hope everybody acknowledges that – that it’s not something that is achievable without this support. It takes a village.”
And she knows it will still be a big fight at the Supreme Court. Quebec Premier François Legault on Jan. 24 posted on X that the government will “fight” for secularism in Quebec.
“Quebec has opted for secularism in the public sector, banning religious symbols and covered faces for government employees in positions of authority,” he wrote on X. “We’ll fight to the bitter end to defend our values and who we are.”
This response isn’t surprising to the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA), especially since Quebec has won every Bill 21 challenge it has faced in the lower courts. However, the CCLA, which first launched a challenge against Bill 21 in 2019, is hopeful that the high court will provide some clarity and a precedent on Quebec’s use of the notwithstanding clause, which it used to push the bill through in 2019.
Restricted by notwithstanding clause
“I think what the problem was that the lower courts recognize the harms of Bill 21, but they felt restricted because of the use of the notwithstanding clause,” said CCLA spokesperson Harini Sivalingam. “Because of the use of the notwithstanding clause, it’s an opportunity for the highest court to provide some clarity on what the rules should be of the courts when governments use the notwithstanding clause to pass laws that violate fundamental rights and freedom.”
The CCLA argues that the bill violates Canadian rights and freedoms, whether or not the notwithstanding clause was used. The CCLA also argues that the Quebec government has overstepped its powers. “There’s actually a power that is beyond the scope of the provincial government because of federalism and the distribution of power. The government is actually trying to regulate morality, which has traditionally been the domain of criminal law, which is a federal power.”
The CCLA said it won’t be satisfied until the bill is struck down in its entirety.