Off Topic

Quebec set to pass law banning face coverings for anyone receiving public service — even a bus ride

  • Last Updated:
  • Nov 22nd, 2017 8:09 am
Tags:
None
Deal Expert
Feb 29, 2008
16459 posts
1764 upvotes
Montreal
hugh_da_man wrote:
Oct 24th, 2017 2:00 pm
I thought the Quebec charter was worthless? Can't they except anything from the charter just by saying it is in the legislation?




There are probably 7 or 8 can't lose seats in the Montreal area. The rest of Quebec is up for grabs and this legislation is still polling north of 70% support so taking a position against it can't help.

62 will be around for years and it's only going to get worse. Next October is the Quebec provincial election and this will be a central issue. I don't see how that won't linger into the 2019 election.
I thought the charter had language stipulating it is above all other laws:

http://legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/fr/showdoc/cs/C-12

52. Aucune disposition d’une loi, même postérieure à la Charte, ne peut déroger aux articles 1 à 38, sauf dans la mesure prévue par ces articles, à moins que cette loi n’énonce expressément que cette disposition s’applique malgré la Charte.


I think the way out is the part of bill 62 that allows exemptions based on religion, if someone requests it. The application is somewhat nebulous though. Do you need to carry "concealed face" permit with you?
Deal Addict
User avatar
Jan 6, 2011
3173 posts
283 upvotes
GTA
Actually, there's one possibility this ban makes perfect sense, to the civil servants.

Now the AI facial recognition techs are popping up on iPhone X and in security tech, could the ban be a set-up for tracking/surveillance applications?
Deal Fanatic
Jul 5, 2005
5975 posts
224 upvotes
mr_raider wrote:
Oct 24th, 2017 8:14 pm
I thought the charter had language stipulating it is above all other laws:

http://legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/fr/showdoc/cs/C-12

52. Aucune disposition d’une loi, même postérieure à la Charte, ne peut déroger aux articles 1 à 38, sauf dans la mesure prévue par ces articles, à moins que cette loi n’énonce expressément que cette disposition s’applique malgré la Charte.


I think the way out is the part of bill 62 that allows exemptions based on religion, if someone requests it. The application is somewhat nebulous though. Do you need to carry "concealed face" permit with you?
http://legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/en/ShowDoc/cs/C-12

52. No provision of any Act, even subsequent to the Charter, may derogate from sections 1 to 38, except so far as provided by those sections, unless such Act expressly states that it applies despite the Charter.

So basically you can exempt everything from the charter, no?

Allowing the religious exemption probably doesn't do much as no one would ever be able to qualify for a religious exemption. There are no religious face coverings that I'm aware of and it doesn't suggest exemptions based on cultural practices.
Deal Expert
Feb 29, 2008
16459 posts
1764 upvotes
Montreal
hugh_da_man wrote:
Oct 26th, 2017 3:36 pm
Allowing the religious exemption probably doesn't do much as no one would ever be able to qualify for a religious exemption. There are no religious face coverings that I'm aware of and it doesn't suggest exemptions based on cultural practices.
There's been precedent for that from the SCC. The court does not require that religious practice be ordained in scripture. The only requirement is that the practitioner sincerely believe that it's a requirement and that the practice is rooted in their belief.

As for the QUebec charter exemption, here is the full text of loi 62:

http://www.assnat.qc.ca/Media/Process.a ... e/vG7/YWzz

Section III 10 specifically states that allowances can be made in accordance with section 10 of the Quebec charter.

Le membre du personnel d’un organisme qui traite une demande
d’accommodement pour un motif religieux doit s’assurer :
1° qu’il s’agit d’une demande d’accommodement résultant de l’application
de l’article 10 de la Charte des droits et libertés de la personne (chapitre C‑12);
2° que l’accommodement demandé respecte le droit à l’égalité entre les
femmes et les hommes;
3° que l’accommodement demandé ne compromet pas le principe de la
neutralité religieuse de l’État.
L’accommodement doit être raisonnable, c’est à dire qu’il ne doit imposer
aucune contrainte excessive eu égard, entre autres, au respect des droits d’autrui,
à la santé ou à la sécurité des personnes, à ses effets sur le bon fonctionnement
de l’organisme ainsi qu’aux coûts qui s’y rattachent.
Un accommodement ne peut être accordé que si le demandeur a collaboré
à la recherche d’une solution qui satisfait au caractère raisonnable.
So this law does not specifically abrogate the Quebec charter, but tries to dance around it. We'll see what the courts say.
Deal Fanatic
Jul 5, 2005
5975 posts
224 upvotes
mr_raider wrote:
Oct 26th, 2017 4:55 pm
There's been precedent for that from the SCC. The court does not require that religious practice be ordained in scripture. The only requirement is that the practitioner sincerely believe that it's a requirement and that the practice is rooted in their belief.
I'd love to see this precedent as I can't find it. As far as I'm aware that's not the case and there are no protections for someone wearing a face covering or head covering based on cultural requirements. Depending on how tight the Liberals want to be on this, they could require someone to prove the religious significance of their face covering in a court of law and that would be nearly impossible with the niqab and burqa. That's really what everyone wants anyways. They (the royal 'they' - bigots, racists, critics of islam, etc) want Islamic scholars to have to prove the requirement of the face covering so they can use it as a irrefutable criticism of islam.

Otherwise pastafarians wouldn't continue to be persecuted for their beliefs...

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/pastafaria ... -1.1960281

mr_raider wrote:
Oct 26th, 2017 4:55 pm
As for the QUebec charter exemption, here is the full text of loi 62:

http://www.assnat.qc.ca/Media/Process.a ... e/vG7/YWzz

Section III 10 specifically states that allowances can be made in accordance with section 10 of the Quebec charter.


So this law does not specifically abrogate the Quebec charter, but tries to dance around it. We'll see what the courts say.
Yeah but 52 is the section often referenced similarly to the notwithstanding clause in the Canadian charter. I think they can use section 52 to block any challenges like they can use the notwithstanding clause.
Deal Addict
Nov 27, 2007
3311 posts
440 upvotes
Come to Canada, prepare to blend in, otherwise go back to where you came from, that is all that should be said.
Deal Addict
May 17, 2005
3654 posts
456 upvotes
Engi-Nir wrote:
Oct 26th, 2017 8:30 pm
Come to Canada, prepare to blend in, otherwise go back to where you came from, that is all that should be said.
+1
Penalty Box
User avatar
Aug 23, 2006
2950 posts
186 upvotes
So now the by-elections are over will PM challenge this in SCOC? Or wait till next federal election nears? Or can they challenge it or wait till someone like Galati?
Image
“There are some things money can’t buy, and for everything else there’s MasterCard. Well, get out your checkbooks ladies and gentlemen, because it seems like the entire liberal cabinet can be bought. TRUDEAU: I CAN’T BE BOUGHT...LMAO. Because its 2017
Deal Expert
Feb 29, 2008
16459 posts
1764 upvotes
Montreal
sandeeS wrote:
Oct 27th, 2017 12:44 pm
So now the by-elections are over will PM challenge this in SCOC? Or wait till next federal election nears? Or can they challenge it or wait till someone like Galati?
Image
It would not be strategic for the govt of Canada to seek an advance ruling. Better to wait for an egregious case (i.e. old lady refused boarding a bus in -30 weather) and let it work its way up the courts.

OTOH that may not happen soon, since the bus driver's union in Montreal clearly said they don't want to be in the business of adjudicating who gets on or not. And I strongly doubt any hospital will deny care to someone for a niqab, since it would violate almost every code of ethics from professional orders.
Deal Fanatic
Jul 5, 2005
5975 posts
224 upvotes
mr_raider wrote:
Oct 27th, 2017 7:28 pm
Majority rules does not apply to minority rights. That's why we have a charter?
Tell that to the anti-abortion protestors in Ontario!
Banned
Aug 2, 2017
1219 posts
120 upvotes
Logtown
hugh_da_man wrote:
Oct 27th, 2017 7:33 pm
Tell that to the anti-abortion protestors in Ontario!
Their opinions and views offend me so their charter rights don't matter.
Deal Guru
User avatar
Feb 24, 2007
11172 posts
874 upvotes
Richmond Hill
mr_raider wrote:
Oct 27th, 2017 7:28 pm
Majority rules does not apply to minority rights. That's why we have a charter?
Section 33
Deal Expert
Feb 29, 2008
16459 posts
1764 upvotes
Montreal
eldiablo wrote:
Oct 27th, 2017 8:27 pm
Section 33
That's pretty much a minority rules clause since it allows one province to override the charter.

Top