OT: The News Thread

[Wayward DP]

There is zero chance the law survives a Charter challenge.

How is this justifiable? What is the legitimate public policy goal?

Only way it survives is notwithstanding clause.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Altair]

Where did I say Quebec isn't homogenous? Clearly they are, especially in rural Quebec.

That provides an explanation, but not an excuse for why they're backwards, intolerant & fearful of other cultures to the point where a significant portion of Quebecquers want to impose a dress code on people that don't fit neatly into their own comfortable, cultural box.

Are the Germans, austrians, French, belgians, dutch, also backwards, intolerant, and fearful of other cultures?

 

[Altair]

There is zero chance the law survives a Charter challenge.

How is this justifiable? What is the legitimate public policy goal?

Only way it survives is notwithstanding clause.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Good chance the SCOC rules along the lines of the European court on human rights, that having everyone to have their face uncovered while giving or receiving a public service isn't a violation of human rights.

 

[Wayward DP]

Good chance the SCOC rules along the lines of the European court on human rights, that having everyone to have their face uncovered while giving or receiving a public service isn't a violation of human rights.

You should read the Charter


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Wayward DP]

When you are done reading the Charter, you should read some s2 jurisprudence.

I suspect you are literally talking out of your ass here, because any familiarity with our judicial system would lead an informed observer to the conclusion that there is no chance in hell this law is constitutional.

Freedom of religion is a thing in Canada. Constitutionally protected. The courts take that seriously.

Again, what is the compelling public policy decision that justifies an infringement on Muslim women's freedom to practice their religion?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Wayward DP]

Good chance the SCOC rules along the lines of the European court on human rights, that having everyone to have their face uncovered while giving or receiving a public service isn't a violation of human rights.

Also, do you base this opinion on any legal authority?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BKerr]

Good chance the SCOC rules along the lines of the European court on human rights, that having everyone to have their face uncovered while giving or receiving a public service isn't a violation of human rights.

Europe is not governed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. You should read it some time, its a great document.

 

[Altair]

When you are done reading the Charter, you should read some s2 jurisprudence.

I suspect you are literally talking out of your ass here, because any familiarity with our judicial system would lead an informed observer to the conclusion that there is no chance in hell this law is constitutional.

Freedom of religion is a thing in Canada. Constitutionally protected. The courts take that seriously.

Again, what is the compelling public policy decision that justifies an infringement on Muslim women's freedom to practice their religion?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This law isn't discriminating against a religion. Its against all face coverings.

Quebec already has laws on the books banning face coverings in certain circumstances

 

[BKerr]

Also, do you base this opinion on any legal authority?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He bases it on the decision of a european court which has different laws than us, and no binding authority on us.

 

[BKerr]

This law isn't discriminating against a religion. Its against all face coverings.

Quebec already has laws on the books banning face coverings in certain circumstances

The law does not have to be expressly discriminatory to have the effect of being discriminatory.

 

[leafman101]

I'm a little torn on this one. On one hand, yes absolutely freedom of religion, and this is not a legitimate safety issue. The law is pure Islamaphobia and nothing more.

On the other hand **** religious beliefs that make women wear cloaks so they cannot interact with society. Do we really have to respect that?

 

[Wayward DP]

This law isn't discriminating against a religion. Its against all face coverings.

Quebec already has laws on the books banning face coverings in certain circumstances

If the effect of the law is to discriminate against people of a certain faith (which it clearly is), then neutral wording does not save it.

In certain circumstances there are compelling public policy reasons to see someone's face (ie to verify identity). Those circumstances do not exist here.

I ask a third time, what are the compelling policy reasons that justify this type of discrimination?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Altair]

Also, do you base this opinion on any legal authority?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quebec has been able to legally repress and restrict the rights of English quebecers for decades, and it has survived every challenge launched against it.

Quebec is great drafting legislation that skirts around the charter, this one should be even easier.

To top it off, this is the most watered down version of the bouchard report recommendations, and the two opposition parties want even more restrictive rules in place, quebec no doubt flips the bird at at any ruling against it and uses the notwithstanding clause.

 

[Wayward DP]

Quebec has been able to legally repress and restrict the rights of English quebecers for decades, and it has survived ecery challenge launched against it.

Quebec is great drafting legislation that skirts around the charter, this one should be even easier.

To top it off, this is the most watered down version of the bouchard report recommendations, and the two opposition parties want even more restrictive rules in place, quebec no doubt flips the bird at at any ruling against it and uses the notwithstanding clause.

Language rights are also protected though, so not quite the same comparison.

And Quebec politics is a different beast.

There really isnt any way to draft it that doesn't offend the Charter


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[hockeylover]

Can't say I've met many Muslim women who wear a burqa but the ones I've talked to re: hijab all express that it's extremely important to them and they choose to happily wear one... they don't see it as an oppressive thing whereas if someone dictated they couldn't wear one on a city bus... that'd be something they would see as oppressive.

The fact that city buses are included pretty much betrays that its stated purpose (safety concerns) is BS.

 

[LeafGm]

Are the Germans, austrians, French, belgians, dutch, also backwards, intolerant, and fearful of other cultures?

Any society that passes laws aimed specifically at outlawing the traditional clothing of a specific minority religion is to some degree backwards, intolerant and fearful of other cultures, yes.

And I don't really accept that there's any real rationale to pass such a law except for plain and simple xenophobia.

I'm a little torn on this one. On one hand, yes absolutely freedom of religion, and this is not a legitimate safety issue. The law is pure Islamaphobia and nothing more.

On the other hand **** religious beliefs that make women wear cloaks so they cannot interact with society. Do we really have to respect that?

Yeah, I hear you on this.

Really, when you get right down to it, niqabs and all the rest are all about the subjugation of women, and nothing else. It's a constant reminder to the woman wearing it that even something as basic as their own physical appearance belongs solely to the men in her life---father, brothers or spouse.

But even with that being said, I can't get past the fundamental contradiction where you're going to empower women by legally taking away their ability to choose how they adhere to their religion, and what they wear in public. And I just don't see how any such law could ever square with a true societal commitment to freedom of religion.

 

[hockeylover]

Any society that passes laws aimed specifically at outlawing the traditional clothing of a specific minority religion is to some degree backwards, intolerant and fearful of other cultures, yes.

And I don't really accept that there's any real rationale to pass such a law except for plain and simple xenophobia.



Yeah, I hear you on this.

Really, when you get right down to it, niqabs and all the rest are all about the subjugation of women, and nothing else. It's a constant reminder to the woman wearing it that even something as basic as their own physical appearance belongs solely to the men in her life---father, brothers or spouse.

But even with that being said, I can't get past the fundamental contradiction where you're going to empower women by legally taking away their ability to choose how they adhere to their religion, and what they wear in public. And I just don't see how any such law could ever square with a true societal commitment to freedom of religion.

That last paragraph is pretty well stated, IMO.

 

[Habspatrol]

There's little doubt that Burkas and the like were "invented" to oppress women. Much like Mennonite women wearing a bonnet and long dress. It's to desexualize them in public.

But many, probably most women in those religions believe that it's necessary in their God's eyes. So they want to do it.

Religion in general is oppressive to their followers. Don't do this or you'll go to the bad place... you better to that if you want to go to the good place.

I'd like all these religions to just go away... but as long as they're here, I'm not going to tell people they can't dress how they want.

 

[hockeylover]

There's little doubt that Burkas and the like were "invented" to oppress women. Much like Mennonite women wearing a bonnet and long dress. It's to desexualize them in public.

But many, probably most women in those religions believe that it's necessary in their God's eyes. So they want to do it.

Religion in general is oppressive to their followers. Don't do this or you'll go to the bad place... you better to that if you want to go to the good place.

I'd like all these religions to just go away... but as long as they're here, I'm not going to tell people they can't dress how they want.

On an entirely personal level, I think religion is mostly complete hogwash other than the shit that says "don't be dicks to each other."

 

[Habspatrol]

Definitely. Religions were invented to control people and keep them in line... so there's a lot of good advice in there.