CupidS Escorts
Garden of Eden Escorts

Quebec Charter of Values

Previous Thread Next Thread
B

blackrock13

Banned
Jun 6, 2009
40,084
1
0
train said:
Polls and past Commissions indicate that a majority of Francophones support this. What does that tell you? And blackie no one really cares about your 20 family members, its obviously anecdotal not relevant to the discussion.
Click to expand...

Of course it's anecdotal, but indicative of how JTKs claim is false. As for your claims of the majority of francophones, 57% of Quebecers and 65% of francophones, is not an overwhelming majority and not even all francophone which is what was implied by JTK.

The whole story is a different story.


A survey of Quebecers shows the majority support the idea of a Charter of Quebec Values, but do not think it will actually solve any problems in the province.
Leger Marketing conducted the poll on Friday and Saturday, several days after details of a new secular values law were reported in one of the most widely-read newspapers in the province.
According to the poll 57 percent of Quebecers think the proposed Charter of Quebec values is a good idea that will protect the values of Quebecers, however 48 percent think it will create more bickering and disagreements, while only 28 percent think a new law will solve the problem of religious accommodation.

This statue of Jesus Christ is located in the Council Chambers in Saguenay
Many of the polling results showed a stark difference between francophones and those of other ethnic groups, with 65 percent of francophones thinking the Charter would be a good idea, while 62 percent of anglophones and 51 percent of allophones disagreed.
Similarly, just 27 percent of francophones thought the law, which would ban the wearing of religious symbols by many members of the public, would limit individual freedoms. 61 percent of anglophones said that was a limitation on freedom.
65 percent of francophones said the Charter would protect Quebec Values; only 19 percent of anglophones and 39 percent of allophones agreed.
The only question where everyone was in agreement was whether a new law would "end the problems of religious accommodation." 32 percent of francophones, with 14 percent of allophones and 8 percent of anglophones thought it would ease problems.
The poll showed that most Quebecers thought it acceptable to ban the wearing of all religious symbols, including veils, kippas, or crosses, by government employes including police officers, teachers, civil servants and doctors.
The poll asked by individual job, and a high of 78 percent thought it acceptable to ban police officers from wearing religious icons, with a low of 63 percent for daycare teachers.
Support for a ban on icons was lowest in the Montreal area, while it was highest in rural Quebec and the Quebec City region.
Charter of Quebec Values has CAQ support
On Monday Francois Legault, leader of the Coalition Avenir Quebec, said he was in favour of parts of the proposed legislation.
He said the PQ approach was too extreme, and he was not a supporter of hiding all religious symbols, however he said it was crucial to prevent those in authority, especially if paid by the government, from wearing religious icons.
Legault said the CAQ might propose its own changes to the Quebec's Charter of Rights to make equality between the sexes superior to all other rights.
He also said that while religious icons should not be worn by police officers, prison guards or teachers, he saw no problems with doctors, nurses or daycare workers wearing veils, scarves or kippas.
"I think we have no choice. We've seen in the last five years examples of accommodations that should not have been given," said Legault.
"Why is that? Because the Liberal party did not have the courage of giving some guidelines and that is what we need to do as soon as possible."
Legault suggested that the Charter of Quebec Values, as proposed by the PQ, would likely violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and so would require the use of the notwithstanding clause.
Premier Marois said Monday that she was pleased by Legault's position.
"I'm happy Mr. Legault is ready to discuss and debate this," the PQ premier said Monday. She was asked about the subject during a news conference where she offered details about a $60 million reconstruction fund for the devastated town of Lac-Megantic.
"I hope we have a serene, harmonious debate so that we can collectively draw some conclusions that allow us to live better together. That's what we want."
Federal NDP opposed
Speaking in Ottawa, NDP leader Thomas Mulcair said his party opposed the idea of limiting freedom of expression and freedom of religion.
"I don't want to see scapegoating, particularly of Muslim women," said Mulcair.
He also agreed that any proposal to ban the wearing of religious symbols was likely to violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and he said he would do what he could to convince politicians in Quebec to change their minds.
"We're not going to allow something that goes against the Charter."


Read more: http://montreal.ctvnews.ca/most-que...-it-to-solve-problems-1.1426835#ixzz2eVVkQge6



Any bets this won't be an election issue and the PQ will back? The support from the CAQ, which some members said was possible and the PQ needs, is iffy and full of conditions at best.
 
B

blackrock13

Banned
Jun 6, 2009
40,084
1
0
The PQ are already backtracking, allowing small crosses on chain neck lasses, but not saying how big is too big, and rings with religious symbols on them. They are talking a page out of Harpers book by throwing out an idea and seeing what the publics says and then backing away. Remember Harpers decision to change the national anthem?
 
L

LickingGravity

New member
Sep 9, 2010
962
0
0
blackrock13 said:
The PQ are already backtracking, allowing small crosses on chain neck lasses, but not saying how big is too big, and rings with religious symbols on them. They are talking a page out of Harpers book by throwing out an idea and seeing what the publics says and then backing away. Remember Harpers decision to change the national anthem?
Click to expand...
We shall see. Your track record on Quebec is poor however. I wouldn't call it backtracking to allow small crosses on chains, I would call that catering to the Catholic Church so you continue to have the majority of Francophones supporting this. A good bigot doesn't mind his own symbols just those of others.
 
G

GPIDEAL

Prolific User
Jun 27, 2010
23,334
13
38
oagre said:
This PoS has no chance at all to survive a constitutional challenge. And if Quebec wants to use the "notwithstanding clause" over this useless garbage, then we can all kiss good-bye our constitutional rights forever.

The notwithstanding clause has been vaguely threatened only once in the 31 years since the Charter of Rights has been enacted. The Tories threatened to over-turn a decision of the BC Court of Appeal to allow the "Artistic Value" defence for some kiddyporn accused, if the SCC upheld the BCCA. The SCC avoided the controversy and overturned the BCCA decision, thus avoiding the political issue of the notwithstanding clause.

In fact, there appears to be a "gentleman's unwritten agreement" for govts NOT to threaten to use the clause. Obviously routine use of the clause would completely destroy the Charter of Rights and turn us into virtually a police state. Not even the lowest creepiest politician wants this.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the constitutional law recap Oagre. I don't like what the sovereignists are doing either.
 
B

blackrock13

Banned
Jun 6, 2009
40,084
1
0
LickingGravity said:
We shall see. Your track record on Quebec is poor however. I wouldn't call it backtracking to allow small crosses on chains, I would call that catering to the Catholic Church so you continue to have the majority of Francophones supporting this. A good bigot doesn't mind his own symbols just those of others.
Click to expand...
I always thought that a cross of any size was a religious symbol. Of course it pandering the RC church, but what about a Star of David, another religious symbol at any size, yet exempt when small and worn around the neck. My track record is far from poor. Where did I call it wrong?
 
L

LickingGravity

New member
Sep 9, 2010
962
0
0
If it comes to a constitutional challenge there will be no winners. It will be a great big wedge. Seems to me that there were vague stomping of feet and similar predictions over some of the language laws that trod over various rights.

And oagre I believe you are quite incorrect in your claim as to frequency of use of Section 33.

From the Parliament of Canada website:

http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/lop/researchpublications/bp194-e.htm

Section 33 Invocation

Events surrounding Quebec language law stimulated vigorous debate on section 33 of the Charter. In the 1981 constitutional accord, the federal government and all the provinces except Quebec agreed upon the terms of constitutional change. The Quebec government expressed its strong opposition to those terms by including a notwithstanding clause in every piece of legislation put before the National Assembly between 1982 and 1985. It also caused every Quebec law in place at the time the Charter came into force to be amended with like effect.
This practice largely ceased after 1985: section 33 has been used only occasionally by both Liberal and Parti Québécois governments since that time. Quebec resorted to the notwithstanding clause after the Supreme Court of Canada, in the Ford and Devine cases on the language of commercial signs, ruled that an outright prohibition of the use of languages other than French was an unreasonable limitation on the freedom of expression guaranteed by the Charter. The Quebec government thereupon introduced an amendment to the language law that would maintain unilingual French signs outside premises while permitting the use of bilingual signs inside. To ensure that the amendment would not become the object of another legal challenge, the amending legislation invoked the legislative override authority of section 33 and the similar provision in the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. This marked the first time that the override had been used in direct response to a Supreme Court of Canada decision, rather than in anticipation of litigation. The debate that followed was more intensive than it would have been in the latter case, perhaps because the Court had already ruled on the issue, and had identified the rights and freedoms at stake. Moreover, minority language rights have long been an emotional issue in Canada; there are few subjects where the use of the override would invite more controversy.

In 1993, when the notwithstanding clause reached the end of its five-year life, the Quebec National Assembly lifted the ban on English language signs and amended the law to require only that French be “markedly predominant.”27 The amended legislation was not protected by a notwithstanding clause.
Click to expand...
 
F

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
79,966
8
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
blackrock13 said:
The PQ are already backtracking, allowing small crosses on chain neck lasses, but not saying how big is too big, and rings with religious symbols on them. They are talking a page out of Harpers book by throwing out an idea and seeing what the publics says and then backing away. Remember Harpers decision to change the national anthem?
Click to expand...
And they are keeping a giant crucifix in their legislature.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Previous Thread Next Thread
Toronto Escorts
Top Bottom