Off Topic

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

  • Last Updated:
  • Nov 17th, 2017 12:03 pm
Tags:
None
Deal Guru
User avatar
Feb 24, 2007
11163 posts
874 upvotes
Richmond Hill
mr_raider wrote:
Oct 27th, 2017 8:33 pm
That's pretty much a minority rules clause since it allows one province to override the charter.
Minority or majority..we may disagree on that. It seems that much of Quebec (and other provinces) population supports Bill 62. Invoking Section 33 would give rise to majority making that final decision then.
Deal Expert
Feb 29, 2008
16450 posts
1763 upvotes
Montreal
eldiablo wrote:
Oct 27th, 2017 8:43 pm
Minority or majority..we may disagree on that. It seems that much of Quebec (and other provinces) population supports Bill 62. Invoking Section 33 would give rise to majority making that final decision then.
That's political bomb. Even Quebec stopped invoking section 33 for it's language laws by re-writing them to conform to the charter. Plus it has a 5 year sunset provision. But I guess that covers the next election.
Deal Guru
User avatar
Feb 24, 2007
11163 posts
874 upvotes
Richmond Hill
Absolutely. We will have to wait.
Member
May 2, 2013
345 posts
182 upvotes
Toronto
Civil liberties advocates have launched a legal challenge over the constitutionality of Quebec's face-covering ban, arguing it "directly infringes on the freedom of religion of individuals."
The law passed last month requires people to uncover their face to receive public services under certain circumstances.
The legal challenge, filed Tuesday in Quebec Superior Court, contests a section of the province's religious neutrality law under both Quebec's Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
"Such blatant and unjustified violations of freedom of religion, as well as of the quality guarantees of the Quebec and Canadian charters, have no place in Quebec or Canada," the plaintiffs argue in a court filing.
"These violations cannot be justified in Quebec's free and democratic society."
The National Council of Canadian Muslims, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and Marie-Michelle Lacoste, a Quebec woman who converted to Islam and wears a niqab, are also plaintiffs in the case.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/ ... -1.4390962
Deal Addict
Aug 2, 2017
1191 posts
120 upvotes
Logtown
Democratic.. well then, how about a vote?
Deal Guru
User avatar
Nov 15, 2004
14181 posts
1533 upvotes
Toronto
I want whoever claims to be the judge and the lawyers in this case to spend the duration of all legal proceedings wearing these:
48434c2a516c4b92d0f51ce8828fa966.jpg

I'd be interested in seeing if anyone has any problem with that. This face covering has just as much of a relationship to religion as the niqab does.
Could HAVE, not could OF. What does 'could of' even mean?
Deal Addict
Dec 21, 2011
3215 posts
570 upvotes
London
I just can't get my liberal self to agree with the allowance of wearing the niqab. It has no real religious grounds and if it is leveraging some previous religious allowance direct comparisons would need to be defined. I get your hair is sacred but I want to see your face.
Deal Fanatic
Jul 5, 2005
5966 posts
221 upvotes
AndySixx wrote:
Nov 7th, 2017 9:48 pm
Democratic.. well then, how about a vote?
In their "democracy" the government "protects" the minority from the majority by any means necessary. That's what got us into this mess in the first place but now that it's being used against them they're all about rights and freedom.

I hope they win but I'm interested in seeing how they prove the religious requirement of covering their faces. The Pastafarians still can't legally wear their colanders in drivers license photos so it'll be very hypocritical for any court to find that cultural garments are somehow protected by the charter.
Deal Expert
Feb 29, 2008
16450 posts
1763 upvotes
Montreal
snow00774 wrote:
Nov 7th, 2017 11:56 pm
I just can't get my liberal self to agree with the allowance of wearing the niqab. It has no real religious grounds and if it is leveraging some previous religious allowance direct comparisons would need to be defined. I get your hair is sacred but I want to see your face.
But that of course is irrelevant. The question is does it violate the charter, not whether it meets a popularity standard. My guess the govt lawyers will be doing some pretty fancy footwork.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Mar 16, 2010
1541 posts
672 upvotes
Hamilton
I can't wait until we advance enough as a society where we realize all religion is meaningless.
Deal Addict
Dec 21, 2011
3215 posts
570 upvotes
London
mr_raider wrote:
Nov 8th, 2017 11:34 am
But that of course is irrelevant. The question is does it violate the charter, not whether it meets a popularity standard. My guess the govt lawyers will be doing some pretty fancy footwork.
what part of the charter?
Deal Addict
Jul 13, 2012
2737 posts
297 upvotes
Ottawa
I'd be curious to see the results of a referendum among female Muslim residents of Quebec to see if they really want to wear a niqab or not. A secret vote, where they could vote according to their own beliefs, and lie to anyone who asks (including their husband) about how they voted...
Deal Expert
Feb 29, 2008
16450 posts
1763 upvotes
Montreal
snow00774 wrote:
Nov 8th, 2017 8:18 pm
what part of the charter?
Section 10 of the Quebec charter:

Every person has a right to full and equal recognition and exercise of his human rights and freedoms, without distinction, exclusion or preference based on race, colour, sex, gender identity or expression, pregnancy, sexual orientation, civil status, age except as provided by law, religion, political convictions, language, ethnic or national origin, social condition, a handicap or the use of any means to palliate a handicap.Discrimination exists where such a distinction, exclusion or preference has the effect of nullifying or impairing such right.
Deal Addict
Dec 21, 2011
3215 posts
570 upvotes
London
mr_raider wrote:
Nov 9th, 2017 7:55 am
Section 10 of the Quebec charter:

Every person has a right to full and equal recognition and exercise of his human rights and freedoms, without distinction, exclusion or preference based on race, colour, sex, gender identity or expression, pregnancy, sexual orientation, civil status, age except as provided by law, religion, political convictions, language, ethnic or national origin, social condition, a handicap or the use of any means to palliate a handicap.Discrimination exists where such a distinction, exclusion or preference has the effect of nullifying or impairing such right.
Which part of section 10 specifically is being violated by a niqab ban?
Deal Addict
Jul 13, 2012
2737 posts
297 upvotes
Ottawa
mr_raider wrote:
Nov 9th, 2017 7:55 am
Section 10 of the Quebec charter:

Every person has a right to full and equal recognition and exercise of his human rights and freedoms, without distinction, exclusion or preference based on race, colour, sex, gender identity or expression, pregnancy, sexual orientation, civil status, age except as provided by law, religion, political convictions, language, ethnic or national origin, social condition, a handicap or the use of any means to palliate a handicap.Discrimination exists where such a distinction, exclusion or preference has the effect of nullifying or impairing such right.
Just about every charter/constitution recognizes that religious freedoms aren't absolute and can be limited according to the greater needs of society as a whole.

Top