Bill 62 (anti-face covering) becomes law

196 posts / 0 new
Last post
lagatta4

https://www.facebook.com/GNadeauDubois/posts/503140563378517

More from Gabriel Nadeau Dubois about the law.

pietro_bcc

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Serious question. Why are they doing this? Is there that big and that vocal a sector of the public that is demanding this? Did it come out of a party convention? Or did they just spring it on everyone?

It's not like there aren't plenty of racists out here, and I expect it is far worse in SK than in Quebec. But honestly the issue of trying to stop people wearing headgear is not on anyone's radar. At all.

A law regulating the dress of Muslim women is absolutely popular, look at any poll on the Quebec Charter of Values from a few years back.

According to the most recent poll I can find 87% support Bill 62, even 67% of anglos support this bill. Now with all the ridicule the bill is getting with the bus ban stuff, it would likely lose a few points, but it's likely still way over 50%. http://montrealgazette.com/news/quebec/quebecers-strongly-support-religi...

A lie that is constantly regurgitated by the media in the ROC is that the PQ lost the election because the Charter of Values was unpopular, no. They lost because of Peladeau's raised fist for Quebec sovereignty.

 

 

6079_Smith_W

Thanks for the responses.

So why does this have political traction there, when it does not elsewhere? Again, I don't think it is that people are any more racist there. After all, here we kill people and the media has more concern for the killers who are worried about having their stuff stolen. 

I have read comments from elsewhere in Canada and there are plenty who say they are in support of the niqab ban, but other than Harper's attempts, I don't see any other government trying something like this, nor even a public movement for it, other than fringe racist groups.

In a similar way there are European nations which are far more centrist than our Sask Party, but still banning religious wear is seen as an acceptable policy. So it doesn't have a direct relation to how racist a society is. It seems to have as much to do with how much government intervention is seen as acceptable, in particular when a society sees itself as under siege. I know people who I spoke with overseas framed their support for these measures that way.

So what are the roots of this in Quebec? Is it an anti-clerical holdover from the quiet revolution? Does the pressure of anti-Quebec racism from the rest of Canada play a role?

voice of the damned

Smith wrote: In a similar way there are European nations which are far more centrist than our Sask Party, but still banning religious wear is seen as an acceptable policy. So it doesn't have a direct relation to how racist a society is. It seems to have as much to do with how much government intervention is seen as acceptable, in particular when a society sees itself as under siege.

But which European countries can honestly see themselves as "under seige"? EU regulations notwithstanding, I think it's safe to say that, culturally speaking, the French, Germans, Austrians etc are all pretty much maitre chez nous.

6079_Smith_W

I said "sees itself". And while it is not a true reflection of the power dynamic, there is very definitely a stark divide in some cases.

Ian Buruma's book about the murder of Theo Van Gogh is a good illustration of that divide in Netherlands, and how those Dutch cultural values were in some ways progressive, but conservative at the same time in their resistance to inclusion.

 

voice of the damned

Is it an anti-clerical holdover from the quiet revolution?

I wouldn't think so, because then it shouldn't be that tall an order to take down the Union Nationale's crucifix. In fact, that should have been right at the front of the agenda, if it was all about continuing the Quiet Revolution.

Does the pressure of anti-Quebec racism from the rest of Canada play a role?

Well, maybe if racists in the other provinces had traditionally framed their attacks in terms of claiming to defend the rights of religious minorities(the way in reality they often claimed to be defending Quebec anglophones), I could see people in Quebec getting their backs up.

But I've heard a lot of anti-Quebec rhetoric in my time, and it was almost never presented as a defense of immigrants or religious minorities. In fact, the people engaged in such polemics tended also to be the ones most hostile to "foreigners" and members of non-Christian faith groups.

"Once Trudeau and Levesque are finished shoving French down everyone's throat, they'll make sure that it's bilingual turbans we're all being forced to wear!!"

^ Was a typical letter to the Edmonton Sun circa 1983.

 

6079_Smith_W

Except this anti-Quebec rhetoric, like that about Hérouxville, is exactly that - using supposed concern for immigrants as a foil. And a lot of it is coming out of the mouths of right wingers. Pointing out others' shortcomings while ignoring our own is a pretty universal pastime. An easy mental exercise really, because the point isn't concern for those who are suffering, but showing how bad your opponent is.

But I was talking about anti-Quebec racism in a more general sense.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

The chador and hijab is acceptable. The niq ab and burqa,not really.

Explain to me why this kind of dress is acceptable in Canada? Why are people here so quick to defend this? In Canada,women and men are EQUAL,women shouldn't be shamed for being female.

But fine. If it's acceptable to live ones life in Canada wearing such clothing,can we at least agree that these women should have to identify themselves when receiving or giving public services?

The public transit ban is stupid but the public services ban isn't.

And what's so racist in obliging women in burqas and niqabs to uncover their faces when applying for a Medicare card,a driver's license and/or a passport?

I also understand older citizens,especially those who grew up in the 1950's and early 1960's would be uncomfortable with this or even genuinely afraid of such clothing?

I empathize with older people such as my mother's age who grew up at a time when the city was predominately white. This is just too weird and too foreign for them to wrap their minds around.

I consider myself somewhat of a feminist. The burqa and niqab is not acceptable. What feminist would look at that and think that it's normal and acceptable? I seriously don't understand.

But if it's acceptable,I still strongly agree with the provision of the law obliging uncovering ones face when it comes to public services.

And I'm tired of being smeared a racist for supporting that.

josh

Because they are exercising their freedom of religion, and not imposing it on anyone or harming anyone in the process.  You don't like it?  Fine, no one's asking you to like it.  But that's a far cry from forcing them not to wear it.

6079_Smith_W

There are people who grew up in the 50s who are upset about a non-white person using the same toilet or drinking fountain as them. That is not a value worthy of protection.

And people do have to show their faces when getting a driver's license. That is not the same as forcing them to walking around in public.

And how is it reasonable to refuse someone access to going to a government office for a health issue, a housing issue, or a work issue?

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

josh wrote:

Because they are exercising their freedom of religion, and not imposing it on anyone or harming anyone in the process.  You don't like it?  Fine, no one's asking you to like it.  But that's a far cry from forcing them not to wear it.

B ecause this is Canada where women are not inferior nor should they be oppressed by a male supremist cult.

You don't like it? Fine. But this does not belong here. End point.

BTW josh..In certain parts of the world you can be beheaded for BLASPHEMY. Should we import that in the name of freedom of religion?

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

6079_Smith_W wrote:

 

And how is it reasonable to refuse someone access to going to a government office for a health issue, a housing issue, or a work issue?

Because EVERYONE in this country regardless of ethnicity is obliged to SHOW THEIR DAMN FACE if they want these services.

6079_Smith_W

I don't like it alan. But something I dislike even more is government using racist and paternalist measures that wind up doing more harm than good.

(edit)

And no, there is no law to that effect here. And attempts to bring in that rule at the federal level have all been quashed in principle. The only exception is when there is a compelling reason in court. Again, I see women wearing a niqab on a weekly basis. They don't get challenged going into schools, and I am fairly sure it doesn't happen on busses, libraries, or at Service Canada.

 

6079_Smith_W

I mean, if it is the state's job to police people's behaviour and save them from themselves how far should it go? Forbid women from wearing makeup or clothing that is too far above or below the knee? Or is it just restricted to things that allegedly don't belong here in Canada?

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

6079_Smith_W wrote:

I mean, if it is the state's job to police people's behaviour and save them from themselves how far should it go? Forbid women from wearing makeup or clothing that is too far above or below the knee? Or is it just restricted to things that allegedly don't belong here in Canada?

Don't be ridiculous. We're talking about freedom of religion,right? How far should we go to protect every facet of every culture's religious rules?

As I asked josh. Should we accept beheadeings for blasphemy and drug smuggling? Should we accept honour killings? Yes,the government has to step in at some point and limit freedom of religion where necessary.

cco

6079_Smith_W wrote:

So why does this have political traction there, when it does not elsewhere? Again, I don't think it is that people are any more racist there. After all, here we kill people and the media has more concern for the killers who are worried about having their stuff stolen. 

It didn't seem to have much traction until the PLQ lost a seat to the CAQ. The Liberals then calculated "Maybe that loss wasn't about people being sick of us, but a reaction to immigration. Let's pivot. The bill will get us a few votes, but most of all, it'll stir up Quebec-bashing in English Canada, which will enable us to be seen as defenders of the nation with an election coming up."

Quote:

So what are the roots of this in Quebec? Is it an anti-clerical holdover from the quiet revolution? Does the pressure of anti-Quebec racism from the rest of Canada play a role?

Both, I'd say. I'm sure there are some older rural devout Catholics who support the crucifix in the National Assembly but are angry at seeing burkas on TV, but there are also some (like QS) who want the crucifix down as well. Also, the "Quebec is racist and only anglophones can defend minorities" trope has been recycled as readily as always, with help from far-right social conservatives in cultural communites like Adil Charkaoui who are eager to say that feminism is racism.

It reminds me of a moment in the American fight over same-sex marriage when white Christian conservatives suddenly discovered that black Christian conservatives were also homophobic, and leapt in front of cameras to declare that gay rights were racist.

Basically, social conservatives (of any religious stripe) will shamelessly exploit every progressive movement they can hijack. Support the right to choose? Well, what about sex-selective abortion and higher abortion rates in marginalized communities? Support women's rights? Well, then you must also support a woman's right to refuse to leave home without a burka on because her imam tells her she's a whore who's going to hell otherwise.

Curiously, a lot of the leftists who supported Québec's ban on marital name changes (because it was a necessary advance for feminism, women got pressured, it was the government's job to take that pressure away) are all of a sudden sticking their heads in the sand when it comes to the niqab, as if misogynistic social conservatism only exists among Catholics.

voice of the damned

Should we accept beheadeings for blasphemy and drug smuggling? Should we accept honour killings?

Beheading for blasphemy and honour-killing violate existing laws. So, no, they should obviosuly not be allowed. But that's not really comparable to a woman wearing a veil, since that was never considered worth criminalizing to begin with.

Worst case scenario, religious facial coverings are comparable to a woman's t-shirt with "Who needs brains when you've got these?" written across the chest. I don't like the message, and I don't think a teacher should be allowed to wear one in school, for example, but I don't think you can justify refusing to hand a woman her driver's license if she's wearing one.

 

 

voice of the damned

cco wrote:

Curiously, a lot of the leftists who supported Québec's ban on marital name changes (because it was a necessary advance for feminism, women got pressured, it was the government's job to take that pressure away) are all of a sudden sticking their heads in the sand when it comes to the niqab, as if misogynistic social conservatism only exists among Catholics.

Personally, speaking as a non-Quebecker, I would not support making it illegal for a woman to take her husband's name. I would, however, support removing it as the automatic default procedure, ie. a woman's name shouldn't automatically change when she gets married, but she should be able to request a name change if she so desires, just as anybody else should be free to request a name change for any reason they want.

josh

alan smithee wrote:

josh wrote:

Because they are exercising their freedom of religion, and not imposing it on anyone or harming anyone in the process.  You don't like it?  Fine, no one's asking you to like it.  But that's a far cry from forcing them not to wear it.

B ecause this is Canada where women are not inferior nor should they be oppressed by a male supremist cult.

You don't like it? Fine. But this does not belong here. End point.

BTW josh..In certain parts of the world you can be beheaded for BLASPHEMY. Should we import that in the name of freedom of religion?

 

No.  That's called murder.  But I understand how you could confuse covering one's face with cutting off one's head.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

josh wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

josh wrote:

Because they are exercising their freedom of religion, and not imposing it on anyone or harming anyone in the process.  You don't like it?  Fine, no one's asking you to like it.  But that's a far cry from forcing them not to wear it.

B ecause this is Canada where women are not inferior nor should they be oppressed by a male supremist cult.

You don't like it? Fine. But this does not belong here. End point.

BTW josh..In certain parts of the world you can be beheaded for BLASPHEMY. Should we import that in the name of freedom of religion?

 

No.  That's called murder.  But I understand how you could confuse covering one's face with cutting off one's head.

Boy,talk about hyperbole. Forget it josh,you clearly can't recognize  a blatant rhetorical point.

lagatta4

Women have the right to use the change of name procedure if they want to be an appendage of their husband as for any other reason, but it is difficult and expensive here in Québec.

Québec solidaire voted AGAINST the law.

Caissa

I receive service regularly without showing my face. the telephone and computer facilitate this process.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Lol...look at all these stupid counter arguments. Just admit you have no respect for women and move on.

pookie

Coming from an actual woman, go to hell Alan.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

pookie wrote:

Coming from an actual woman, go to hell Alan.

That's all you got?

Well,sure thing pookie. And the next time I'm reading a thread in the feminism forum and you say anything,I won't take you seriously.

You just lost all credibility.

Have a good one.

pietro_bcc

Curiously, a lot of the leftists who supported Québec's ban on marital name changes (because it was a necessary advance for feminism, women got pressured, it was the government's job to take that pressure away) are all of a sudden sticking their heads in the sand when it comes to the niqab, as if misogynistic social conservatism only exists among Catholics.

I believe that women should have the right to choose either their husband's name or to keep their own (though by default she should keep her own name and have to make a request to change it), freedom isn't saying someone can't do something its saying that they have the right to choose whether they do so or not unless it hurts others. A woman choosing to take their husband's name hurts no one else, I think abandoning her individuality and identity is stupid and shows her to be weak, but I believe that in a democracy people should have the right to be stupid.

Same as the niqab, I don't like the niqab and I believe that those who wear it look ridiculous. In a democracy you have the right to look ridiculous, unless it affects other people in society like in regards to issues of security then I don't care whatsoever. Niqabs have no effects on me, nor do turbans, kirpans, giant othodox Jewish hats and coats, kipahs, hijabs, burqas, burkinis, etc. I am confident enough in my identity that I don't see any of these as a threat to it. Negative values codified in law hurt our identity and culture more than some pieces of cloth that some of our fellow Quebecers place religious and cultural value in.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

@Alan:  would you agree, or disagree, that a woman with her face covered should be allowed to deposit a cash fare in a transit vehicle and be permitted to ride without having to "identify" herself?

josh

pietro_bcc wrote:

Curiously, a lot of the leftists who supported Québec's ban on marital name changes (because it was a necessary advance for feminism, women got pressured, it was the government's job to take that pressure away) are all of a sudden sticking their heads in the sand when it comes to the niqab, as if misogynistic social conservatism only exists among Catholics.

I believe that women should have the right to choose either their husband's name or to keep their own (though by default she should keep her own name and have to make a request to change it), freedom isn't saying someone can't do something its saying that they have the right to choose whether they do so or not unless it hurts others. A woman choosing to take their husband's name hurts no one else, I think abandoning her individuality and identity is stupid and shows her to be weak, but I believe that in a democracy people should have the right to be stupid.

Same as the niqab, I don't like the niqab and I believe that those who wear it look ridiculous. In a democracy you have the right to look ridiculous, unless it affects other people in society like in regards to issues of security then I don't care whatsoever. Niqabs have no effects on me, nor do turbans, kirpans, giant othodox Jewish hats and coats, kipahs, hijabs, burqas, burkinis, etc. I am confident enough in my identity that I don't see any of these as a threat to it. Negative values codified in law hurt our identity and culture more than some pieces of cloth that some of our fellow Quebecers place religious and cultural value in.

 

Well said.  

 

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

@Alan:  would you agree, or disagree, that a woman with her face covered should be allowed to deposit a cash fare in a transit vehicle and be permitted to ride without having to "identify" herself?

If you paid attention to what I've been saying about where and when one should identify themself,you'd know the answer. If not,I'll answer your question.

Yes,I agree.

josh
josh
Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
If you paid attention to what I've been saying about where and when one should identify themself,you'd know the answer.

I paid attention.  Here's what you said.:

Quote:
Safety first. Sorry if you disagree. And I understand why people would be concerned with someone unidentifyable walking into institutions and public transit.

Quote:
Public transit? I agree in theory but there is a coherent argument against that part of the law.

Pardon my confusion, if, all along, you were opposing this.

Doesn't really look like that, though.

 

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
If you paid attention to what I've been saying about where and when one should identify themself,you'd know the answer.

I paid attention.  Here's what you said.:

Quote:
Safety first. Sorry if you disagree. And I understand why people would be concerned with someone unidentifyable walking into institutions and public transit.

Quote:
Public transit? I agree in theory but there is a coherent argument against that part of the law.

Pardon my confusion, if, all along, you were opposing this.

Doesn't really look like that, though.

 

I understand some people's fears. I personally find ,especially these days we're living in,myself suspicious of anyone who I can't identify on the bus or metro.

But I'm not opposed to someone in religious garb taking the bus or metro. What I am in full agreement with is a law requiring people to be identifyable when receiving or giving public services. Which is the 15th fucking time I've said this.

voice of the damned

Reading about the political fallout, I actually do agree with Trudeau that the federal government has no business challenging the law. Though is it a standard practice for the federal government to launch court cases against provincial laws? Serious question, because I really don't know how these things work.

If it's generally not the thing for feds to challenge provincial laws in court, then I guess Trudeau is just stating the obvious. But if it is something they'd rouinely do, and given the Liberals' own expressed views on these sorts of issues, I suppose he could be accused of compromising his principles for political gain. (And yes, I realize that's no big shocker.)

voice of the damned

Alan wrote:

But I'm not opposed to someone in religious garb taking the bus or metro. What I am in full agreement with is a law requiring people to be identifyable when receiving or giving public services. Which is the 15th fucking time I've said this.

Alan, if that's what you think, it's a reasonable argument. But then, you should have avoided getting into the segue about secularism, women's rights, and how many white people lived in Montreal when your mother was growing up. Because those issues don't really have anything to do with the security benefits of seeing someone's face, and just muddy up the issue.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
I personally find ,especially these days we're living in,myself suspicious of anyone who I can't identify on the bus or metro.

But what do you even mean by "identify"?  If you can see their whole face then the threat has been neutralized?

Quote:
What I am in full agreement with is a law requiring people to be identifyable when receiving or giving public services. Which is the 15th fucking time I've said this.

Um, OK.  But evidently a bus ride is "receiving public services".  And you said in #80 that you don't think someone riding the bus should need to "identify" themself, and now you seem to be saying that you think they need to.  Here's hoping the sixteenth time is a charm.

Riding a bus:  identify, or just pay your fare like everyone else?

I don't disagree with you -- and I don't think (m)any others do either, that when reliable identification of someone is a reasonable requirement then showing one's face is a necessity.  But we're still circling round the "need" for this when there doesn't seem to be a need for this. 

If you don't think it should be a requirement for riding a bus, and given that riding a bus is "recieving a public service", could you clarify once and for all?  Without being all grumpy, as though you haven't been contradictory (see above)?

 

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
I personally find ,especially these days we're living in,myself suspicious of anyone who I can't identify on the bus or metro.

But what do you even mean by "identify"?  If you can see their whole face then the threat has been neutralized?

Quote:
What I am in full agreement with is a law requiring people to be identifyable when receiving or giving public services. Which is the 15th fucking time I've said this.

Um, OK.  But evidently a bus ride is "receiving public services".  And you said in #80 that you don't think someone riding the bus should need to "identify" themself, and now you seem to be saying that you think they need to.  Here's hoping the sixteenth time is a charm.

Riding a bus:  identify, or just pay your fare like everyone else?

I don't disagree with you -- and I don't think (m)any others do either, that when reliable identification of someone is a reasonable requirement then showing one's face is a necessity.  But we're still circling round the "need" for this when there doesn't seem to be a need for this. 

If you don't think it should be a requirement for riding a bus, and given that riding a bus is "recieving a public service", could you clarify once and for all?  Without being all grumpy, as though you haven't been contradictory (see above)?

 

Holy fuck...no offense but you have a thick head. When I'm talking about public service I'm talking about Medicare,driver's license,passports,if you work a government job and have to identify yourself when working with the public,receiving social services,stuff like that.

I'm certainly not talking about riding a bus or a metro which is vaguely a public service unlike getting a medicare card and having to identify yourself on anything that requires a photo ID.

Am I making myself clear or am I going to have to explain things to you with pictures,graphs anf hand puppets?

WWWTT

voice of the damned wrote:

Reading about the political fallout, I actually do agree with Trudeau that the federal government has no business challenging the law. Though is it a standard practice for the federal government to launch court cases against provincial laws? Serious question, because I really don't know how these things work.

If it's generally not the thing for feds to challenge provincial laws in court, then I guess Trudeau is just stating the obvious. But if it is something they'd rouinely do, and given the Liberals' own expressed views on these sorts of issues, I suppose he could be accused of compromising his principles for political gain. (And yes, I realize that's no big shocker.)

im going to disagree with this point here you’re making(the first part of your comment) Justin is failing to defend the charter of rights and freedoms! Big failure as PM! It’s his job to defend it. This issue just didn’t drop on his lap a few days ago. He’s fully aware of what’s he’s doing. If not then he’s incompetent and unfit to be PM. He’s doing this for political gain. In my opinion he even used Gord D death to try and divert media attention and score some sympathy points! Playing his corporate media circus freek side show persona to a T!

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

voice of the damned wrote:

Alan wrote:

But I'm not opposed to someone in religious garb taking the bus or metro. What I am in full agreement with is a law requiring people to be identifyable when receiving or giving public services. Which is the 15th fucking time I've said this.

Alan, if that's what you think, it's a reasonable argument. But then, you should have avoided getting into the segue about secularism, women's rights, and how many white people lived in Montreal when your mother was growing up. Because those issues don't really have anything to do with the security benefits of seeing someone's face, and just muddy up the issue.

You've got to excuse me. Sometimes my thoughts race through my head and I get side tracked. I'm happy you understand my ultimate point.

WWWTT

Caissa wrote:

I receive service regularly without showing my face. the telephone and computer facilitate this process.

this comment is relevant to the debate in my opinion and I give it merit!!!!!!!

this Helps prove the bill is driven by Islamophobia.  

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Holy fuck...no offense but you have a thick head. When I'm talking about public service I'm talking about Medicare,driver's license,passports,if you work a government job and have to identify yourself when working with the public,receiving social services,stuff like that.

I'm certainly not talking about riding a bus or a metro which is vaguely a public service unlike getting a medicare card and having to identify yourself on anything that requires a photo ID.

Then what did you mean when you said "What I am in full agreement with is a law requiring people to be identifyable when receiving or giving public services.".

Are buses not public services now?  Sorry if I misunderstood, but I think public transit is definitely a public service, Alan.  Do you feel otherwise?

Quote:
Am I making myself clear or am I going to have to explain things to you with pictures,graphs anf hand puppets?

No need for pictures, graphs or hand puppets.  Just tell us what you think is a public service.

And maybe you could tell us why you have fears about someone you can't "identify" on the bus.  What do you mean by that?

WWWTT

@pietro bcc

i agree and disagree. How is a woman giving up her identity by accepting her husbands family name? You are aware that we all have 2 parents, 4 grandparents and 8 great grandparents etc etc. All of which are part of you. So how many names do you freekin want?  Because I’m not good with names. And guess what, I’m not the only one.  now I don’t really care about religion or have any positive credit for it but I wouldn’t be so hard on someone for practicing one form or other. Other than that I agree 

pookie

alan smithee wrote:

pookie wrote:

Coming from an actual woman, go to hell Alan.

That's all you got?

Well,sure thing pookie. And the next time I'm reading a thread in the feminism forum and you say anything,I won't take you seriously.

You just lost all credibility.

Have a good one.

Your arguments are full on id, Alan. Nothing but emoting and increasingly hysterical attacks. You're not worth it.

pookie

voice of the damned wrote:

Reading about the political fallout, I actually do agree with Trudeau that the federal government has no business challenging the law. Though is it a standard practice for the federal government to launch court cases against provincial laws? Serious question, because I really don't know how these things work.

If it's generally not the thing for feds to challenge provincial laws in court, then I guess Trudeau is just stating the obvious. But if it is something they'd rouinely do, and given the Liberals' own expressed views on these sorts of issues, I suppose he could be accused of compromising his principles for political gain. (And yes, I realize that's no big shocker.)

The feds wouldn't have standing to challenge a provincial law on Charter grounds - only private parties can do that.   They could challenge the law on division of powers, but it's clearly within Quebec's legislative authority to pass this.

The feds could, however, refer the validity of the law to the Supreme Court for its opinion.  I highly doubt they'll do that.

6079_Smith_W

pookie wrote:

The feds could, however, refer the validity of the law to the Supreme Court for its opinion.  I highly doubt they'll do that.

Indeed. Speaking of political actions which would do nothing but make things worse.

peterjcassidy peterjcassidy's picture
voice of the damned

Pookie:

Thanks for the rundown. I'm assuming that if the feds submit something to the SCOC for an opinion, it's non-binding?

I agree with Smith that it would probably just aggravate the situation for Trudeau to be the one dragging the issue to court, even if it was just to get their random thoughts on the matter.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Holy fuck...no offense but you have a thick head. When I'm talking about public service I'm talking about Medicare,driver's license,passports,if you work a government job and have to identify yourself when working with the public,receiving social services,stuff like that.

I'm certainly not talking about riding a bus or a metro which is vaguely a public service unlike getting a medicare card and having to identify yourself on anything that requires a photo ID.

Then what did you mean when you said "What I am in full agreement with is a law requiring people to be identifyable when receiving or giving public services.".

Are buses not public services now?  Sorry if I misunderstood, but I think public transit is definitely a public service, Alan.  Do you feel otherwise?

Quote:
Am I making myself clear or am I going to have to explain things to you with pictures,graphs anf hand puppets?

No need for pictures, graphs or hand puppets.  Just tell us what you think is a public service.

And maybe you could tell us why you have fears about someone you can't "identify" on the bus.  What do you mean by that?

OK.. And hopefully this is the last time I have to explain myself.

I haven't seen any women in a burqa here. At least not around my area. But I've seen the niqab.

Personally I don't like either. But I'm not going to go too much further than that.

There is this man who uses the same bus I use almost everyday. He wears a towel on his head,kept in place with a baseball cap,he wears a hankerchief over his face and big dark glasses. He's unidentifyable. And I admit,the first couple of times,especially the first time I saw him,he made me very nervous. Who is this person? Why is he hiding? What is he up to? Reasonable questions imo. 

The first time I saw some women wearing the niqab on the bus,in the back of my mind I couldn't help but wonder who they are. Again,a human thing. Sorry I don't pass your progressive purity test. On the other hand I shouldn't give a fuck.

If someone wants to use public transit they can. It's vaguely a public service. It's very expensive. $83 a month or $3.25 a shot..that's not much of a 'public' service.Every other public service I have ever used cost me one big donut,nothing,not a penny. My medicare costs nothing besides having to pay for a picture (something that never existed until it was discovered certain people were using them fraudulently),my hospital visits,my regular appointments,my doctor,costs nothing. My CT scans and MRI's,my recent colonoscopy cost me nothing,I have insurance for the dentist,the cost? zero.

But that's neither here or there...For the last fucking time,read this carefully ok,I'll tell you as slowly and as simply as possible because you don't fucking get it.

I agree (are you with me so far?) that one must identify themselves (clear so far?) when applying for a social service,a court appearance, a medicare card,a driver's license,a passport or anything else that requires a photo ID. I also agree (now pay attention) that if you work for the government,especially when you're dealing with the public,providing services, those people have a right to see who they are talking to hence,you must uncover your face while performing such work.

Now I'm done explaining myself over and over and over to you and your thick head. If you don't get it this time,then tough,I'm not explaining it again.

Pondering

pietro_bcc wrote:
Negative values codified in law hurt our identity and culture more than some pieces of cloth that some of our fellow Quebecers place religious and cultural value in.

When Quebecers, especially those outside of Montreal, find out a large percentage of Montrealers speak a different language at home that represents a threat to Quebec culture just like English signs were a threat. It was important to maintain an outwardly French face but not like a movie set. The goal was for Montreal to be French Canadian in culture as well as language. That people are speaking a different language at home means they are not culturally French Canadian. They just speak French.

I'm sure that somewhere the Transit system of Montreal has a POC working but I have never seen one drive a bus. I even had a transgender driver on the 55. The STM wants the public face of the transit system to be French Canadian. Same goes for the public face of licence bureaus and any other government service you can think of. Hydro Quebec as far as I can tell all visble are French Canadian born.

To many Quebecers the burka and niqab, even though most have never seen one, are a threat to Quebec culture the same way English was a threat even though most people outside of Montreal never met any English people unless they were tourists.

Quebecers are used to passing laws to maintain the French language and culture. This is no different than mandating that English on signs must be smaller than the French. The goal has always been to keep Montreal a French Canadian city culturally not just a city that outwardly operates in French.  Montreal schools have large immigrant populations and parents want their children in a culturally French Canadian school so they leave Montreal. It's not that they mind a few immigrants. It's that in some schools immigrants are the majority in some classes or close to it. They want their kids raised in French Canadian culture not just in French. 

It is inevitable that the immigrant population in Montreal will grow faster than the French Canadian population. Every time a poll is taken on language spoken at home the percentage of those not speaking French will grow. 16% will become 20%- and then 25%.

Everytime it increases anti-immigrant sentiment and racism will rise. They did not drive out the English only to turn Montreal over to immigrants and their children.

nationalism definition. The strong belief that the interests of a particular nation-state are of primary importance. Also, the belief that a people who share a common language, history, and culture should constitute an independent nation, free of foreign domination.

Quebec is a distinct society because its people share a common history and culture not just because they happen to speak French. That is what they believe is threatened. It used to be threatened by the English now it is threatened by immigration. Nationalism is so entrenched in Quebec I have no doubt that there will be growing unrest as Montreal becomes increasingly diverse.

Bill 62 was intended to pacify nationalists like saying "see, I will protect Quebec's culture". After decades of pumping up nationalism in Quebec it can't just be shoved back into a box.

WWWTT

pookie wrote:

voice of the damned wrote:

Reading about the political fallout, I actually do agree with Trudeau that the federal government has no business challenging the law. Though is it a standard practice for the federal government to launch court cases against provincial laws? Serious question, because I really don't know how these things work.

If it's generally not the thing for feds to challenge provincial laws in court, then I guess Trudeau is just stating the obvious. But if it is something they'd rouinely do, and given the Liberals' own expressed views on these sorts of issues, I suppose he could be accused of compromising his principles for political gain. (And yes, I realize that's no big shocker.)

The feds wouldn't have standing to challenge a provincial law on Charter grounds - only private parties can do that.   They could challenge the law on division of powers, but it's clearly within Quebec's legislative authority to pass this.

The feds could, however, refer the validity of the law to the Supreme Court for its opinion.  I highly doubt they'll do that.

you have a link to back up your opinion?

Pages