Judge Gérard Dugré upholds Freedom of Religion in Schools and stands against imposed "Totalitarian Secularism".

And then he is removed from the Bench by the same type of Committees removing Jordan Peterson

Here’s an article from the Globe and Mail some might find interesting.

“In a decision that sets back Quebec's efforts to strip religion from the province's institutions, a judge has ruled that the government showed Inquisition-like intolerance in the way it imposed a secular ethics course on a private Roman Catholic school.

The ironic reference to religious zealotry in the pursuit of secularism came in a ruling that handed a victory to Montreal's Loyola High School. The Jesuit boy's school went to court for the right to keep teaching its ethics course from a Roman Catholic perspective.

In a decision handed down Friday, Superior Court Judge Gérard Dugré said that not only did Quebec violate Loyola's religious freedoms by insisting it teach the secular course, but also it went about it in a "totalitarian" manner.

"In this age of the respect of fundamental rights, of tolerance, reasonable accommodation and multiculturalism, the attitude adopted by the [education] minister is surprising," Judge Dugré wrote.

"The obligation imposed on Loyola to teach the ethics and religious culture course in a lay fashion assumes a totalitarian character essentially equivalent to Galileo's being ordered by the Inquisition to deny the Copernican universe."

The strongly worded decision sparked a renewed round of discussion over how far Quebec, which has struggled with the place of religion in the face of growing immigration, can go in imposing a secular vision on the province.

Premier Jean Charest, who has faced political pressure to give a secular face to Quebec, immediately announced on Monday that his government would go to appeal.

"It is too serious an issue which has been debated for a long time," the Premier said.

The government's ethics and religious course, introduced in 2008, aimed to give equal time to world religions, including Judaism, Islam and first nations spirituality, in response to growing immigration and pluralism in schools.

Loyola High School, an English-language school that has been educating boys since 1896 - among them former governor-general Georges Vanier and Finance Minister Jim Flaherty - argued that the government course imposed a "one-size-fits-all" approach to ethics and religion. It asked for an exemption.

The government said no. In a letter to the school, it said that while the government course was "cultural and not founded on faith," Loyola's aimed to "adopt a Jesuit perspective of Christian service." The two approaches to the notion of "common good" are very different, an Education Ministry official wrote.

Jacques Darche, the lawyer for Loyola, said the Quebec government's course prevented teachers from bringing their contributions to the debate. Under the government program, a discussion on abortion would lead the teacher to simply hear out all points of view, rather than favouring the Catholic belief that abortion is wrong.

"The teacher couldn't contribute. He's like an emcee," Mr. Darche said Monday in an interview after a news conference at the west-end Montreal school.

The judge, he said, drew "a line in the sand" over religion. "Where will the state stop in invading institutions like Loyola High School, especially on a question of religion?" he asked.

(Like most private school in Quebec, Loyola receives provincial government subsidies).

Mr. Darche noted that the judge referred in his ruling to the preamble of the Canadian Charter and its mention of God; it was Jesuit-educated prime minister Pierre Trudeau who proposed the inclusion in the constitution.

"Canadian democratic society," the judge wrote, "is based on principles recognizing the supremacy of God and the primacy of the law - both of which benefit from constitutional protection."

Proponents hailed Quebec's course as a historic shift after nearly two centuries dominated by Catholic and Protestant education, and a further move away from confessional schools in the province.

Although the court ruling applied to a private institution, parents of children in public schools who have also been fighting the government-mandated course said they hoped it handed them a moral, if not legal, victory. A group of parents lost a legal challenge in their bid to obtain an exemption for their children when a judge in Drummondville last year concluded their rights to religious freedom were not being violated.

Jean Morse-Chevrier, president of the Association of Catholic Parents of Quebec, said that while she was pleased with Judge Dugré's ruling, she felt is was creating two tiers of rights - those for parents in the private sector and those in the public system.”

Ok so Justice Dugré's ruling is a precedent that flies afoul of how Schools are interpreting the present need to educate children about sexual topics, LGBTQUIA across all curricula, and transgenderism. Two arguments flow from these teaching in the curriculum from detractors.

a) it infringes on their religious beliefs;

b) it is a form of cult or religion itself and thus becomes the state Religion and they are now not free to be truly secular; and

c) it is not set in a vacuum, it sits within the pharma business profit pipeline, thus profit is part of the equation and should not be within schools;

Those on the other side of the debate indicate having the LGBTQIA and transgender teachings in the curriculum is necessary to insure safe spaces for children, and to adhere to workplace harassment policies that ensure ‘safety’ for their spaces. Thus their mantra is endhate.

How would Dugré's decision fit in with either of these positions?

Would you believe he has been removed as a Judge by the same type of Committee that is in the process of removing Jordan Peterson.

The decision to remove him from the Bench can be found here.

“On March 4, 2020, the Inquiry Committee provided Justice Dugré with a written notice detailing 13 allegations of potential judicial misconduct (the “Notice of Allegations”) which stated:

Allegation 1A Did Justice Gérard Dugré fail in the due execution of his office by delivering judgment in K.S. (J.B. c. K.S. #500-12327801-159) more than nine months after taking the case under advisement given that the Code of Civil Procedure stipulates a six-month time limit, except for an exemption from the Chief Justice?

Allegation 1B Did Justice Gérard Dugré fail in the due execution of his office by not replying to the letter from a party in K.S. (J.B. c. K.S. #500-12-327801-159) reminding him of the urgency of delivering judgment in light of his undertaking to do so quickly?

Allegation 1C Does Justice Gérard Dugré’s conduct reveal a chronic problem to deliver judgment, and, if so, has Justice Dugré become incapacitated or disabled from the execution of the office of judge?

Allegation 2A Did Justice Gérard Dugré fail in the due execution of his office at the hearing he presided over on September 7, 2018, in S.S. (S.S. c. M.L. #700-04-029513-188) by his conduct or by his comments made at the hearing? Allegation 2B Was Justice Gérard Dugré guilty of judicial misconduct at the hearing he presided over on September 7, 2018, in S.S. (S.S. c. M.L. #700-04-029513-188) by his conduct or by his comments made at the hearing? Page 10

Allegation 3A Did Justice Gérard Dugré fail in the due execution of his office at the hearing he presided over on April 3, 2018, in A. (A.A. c. E.M. #540-12-021200-175) by his conduct or by his comments made at the hearing?

Allegation 3B Was Justice Gérard Dugré guilty of judicial misconduct at the hearing he presided over on April 3, 2018, in A. (A.A. c. E.M. #540-12-021200-175) by his conduct or by his comments made at the hearing?

Allegation 4A Did Justice Gérard Dugré fail in the due execution of his office at the hearing he presided over on March 18 and 19, 2019, in Doron (Roch et als. c. Doron et als. #500- 17-087739-150) by his conduct or by his comments made at the hearing?

Allegation 4B Was Justice Gérard Dugré guilty of judicial misconduct at the hearing he presided over on March 18 and 19, 2019, in Doron (Roch et als. c. Doron et als. #500-17 087739-150) by his conduct or by his comments made at the hearing?

Allegation 5A Did Justice Gérard Dugré fail in the due execution of his office at the hearing he presided over on November 28, 29 and 30, 2017, in Gouin (Karisma Audio Post Vidéo et film inc. c. Morency #500-17-076135-139) by his conduct or by his comments made at the hearing?

Allegation 5B Was Justice Gérard Dugré guilty of judicial misconduct at the hearing he presided over on November 28, 29 and 30, 2017, in Gouin (Karisma Audio Post Vidéo et film inc. c. Morency #500-17-076135-139) by his conduct or by his comments made at the hearing?

Allegation 6A Did Justice Gérard Dugré fail in the due execution of his office at the hearing he presided over on April 11, 12 and 13, 2018, in S.C. (D.F. c. S.C. #540-04-013357- 162) by his conduct or by his comments made at the hearing?

Allegation 6B Was Justice Gérard Dugré guilty of judicial misconduct at the hearing he presided over on April 11, 12 and 13, 2018, in S.C. (D.F. c. S.C. #540-04-013357-162) by his conduct or by his comments made at the hearing? [16] After receipt of the

Notice of Allegations, Justice Dugré, through counsel, brought motions in relation to several preliminary issues. The Inquiry Committee Page 11 heard the motions and issued a decision in November 2020 (the Preliminary Decision).

[17] The hearing by the Inquiry Committee began in April 2021 and concluded in December 2021. Throughout the proceeding, Justice Dugré was represented by legal counsel. The Inquiry Committee also engaged legal counsel to assist in the conduct of the inquiry. There were 38 sitting days and the Committee heard testimony from approximately 60 witnesses (including one expert witness), reviewed extensive documents and received two expert reports.

—

[80] We have already outlined our reasons for accepting the factual findings of the Inquiry Committee. We have considered, and agree, with the Inquiry Committee’s conclusions that in 11 of the 13 allegations Justice Dugré’s actions amount to either judicial misconduct or failure in the due execution of his office

**

[89] Justice Dugré has been a judge of the Québec Superior Court since 2009. He has made positive contributions to the administration of justice in Québec. The record indicates that he has rendered many decisions and successfully resolved a significant number of disputes through judicial conciliation. The question for us to consider is whether these positive attributes have been sufficiently overshadowed by our findings of judicial misconduct and failures in the due execution of office that we ought to recommend his removal from office.

[90] Federally appointed judges enjoy the protection of judicial independence. It is essential that judges be independent in order for them to properly exercise their important role in our constitutional structure. Threats to independence are damaging to the administration of justice as well as public confidence in the judiciary. In exceptional circumstances, though, a judge must be removed from office in order to ensure the public’s confidence in the judiciary is secured. That is this case. [

91] We must also assess whether the inappropriate behaviour would continue should Justice Dugré remain a member of the Québec Superior Court.

[92] Justice Dugré’s in-court behaviour was unacceptable. It demonstrates a significant lack of respect for parties and counsel and, in some cases, demonstrated Page 53 a lack of objectivity. The language chosen by the Inquiry Committee to describe its impression of the audio recordings from the hearings is significant. It described Justice Dugré’s actions as “shocking”, “bullying”, “unpleasant and often aggressive” which demonstrated “a lack of restraint, civility and composure”. In one case, he was described as being “sarcastic and disrespectful” and as making comments which were “condescending and disdainful”. Such behaviour adds to the rationale underscoring our recommendation for removal.

[98] We have considered the Inquiry Committee’s comprehensive report and accept its factual findings. We have also carefully reviewed and considered Justice Dugré’s comments in response to the report.

[99] After due deliberation we conclude Justice Dugré’s misconduct significantly damages the administration of justice. Considered as a whole, his conduct is so manifestly and profoundly destructive of the concept of impartiality, integrity and independence of the judicial role, that the public’s confidence in Justice Dugré is sufficiently undermined that he is incapable of executing the judicial office. For this reason, we find him to be incapable of executing his judicial office and recommend his removal from that position.”

Do you find that as interesting as I do?