Former Lancastrian

I could probably offer more articles on both sides of the argument. Who is right who is wrong? who on here determines what a credible source is as we are all somewhat different. We all have different views on a multitude of subjects.

So the Bill has passed and the PM made this comment
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau spoke for the first time about Quebec's controversial religious neutrality legislation today, saying it's not up to his government to challenge the law but that he would "always defend" people's rights under the charter.

Now this is a Provincial Law not Federal yet however when the PC's in 2015 suggested this become a Federal Law he was very outspoken against the PC's so why not the Quebec Provincial Govt.

This bill will bring the spotlight on racism and could end up not being positive but hey what do I know and it doesn't affect me as Im not female and in Quebec but should I care about it? Well thats my decision to make.

dave_j

Bill 62. Why now? Who benefits? What are the implications of it's use?

IMHO, and it is very humble, this is a sideshow dreamed up by a bunch of worthless politicians who see a bandwagon and are so very eager to climb aboard. The fear and hatred that is constantly being whipped up against the muslim community resulting from the acts of a few fanatics has created an opportunity for some.

In another place, and within living memory, another politician saw an opportunity and whipped up dislike of various groups and I'm not talking about Trump although he fits the bill quite nicely, and the result is burned into the pages of history.

It's what they do. The issue being discussed shouldn't be the right or wrong of the veiled face but ethics of political action.

And implications? Easy to imagine. A veiled woman enters a bus. The driver doesn't care but some upright canadian takes it upon himself to defend Bill 62. He demands the woman leaves, she refuses and the result is preditable. It'll happen over and over again in various forms.

Bill 62 is a nasty little piece of legislation designed for one purpose only and that's to win votes by persecuting a minority.

magnumpi

And I bet YouTube and Facebook will be saturated with cell phone videos of these interactions

BristolUK

Indeed. However, that particular source - the Bynum one - doesn't appear to have different views, they all seem the same and a highly predictable one once introduced. It's somewhat obsessive.

Jingsamichty

I don't want to see women subjugated by misogynistic religious extremists, but I am afraid that you are exactly right in how this legislation will pan out.

caretaker

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trud.../news/politics
"I will always stand up for the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It's what Canadians expect of me," he said.

Former Lancastrian

So I guess the Charter doesn't apply in Quebec? Or perhaps its Quebec and he is scared of this
Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is part of the Constitution of Canada. It is commonly known as the notwithstanding clause (or la clause dérogatoire in French), or as the override power, and it allows Parliament or provincial legislatures to override certain portions of the Charter. It was, and continues to be, perhaps the most controversial provision of the Charter.[1]

Come on PM Trudeau be a leader and take Quebec to task on this bill.

Almost Canadian

Quebec uses that section all the time.

caretaker

Here is clarification, of sorts.
Quebec justice minister apologizes for confusion around new face-covering law - Montreal - CBC News
"Vallée said the law is in effect and applies across the province. But she also said a Muslim woman wearing a niqab or burka would be eligible for an exemption to the law on religious grounds. There are no sanctions listed in the legislation for those who don't comply."

dave_j

Quote Justice Minister: "I'm sorry that it wasn't as clear," she said. "Maybe what I'm doing today I should have done the day after we adopted the bill."

I often wonder what we pay these people for and why there's no sanction when they just can't be bothered to get it right. I've said before that not enough people play chess and stop to ask the question "What if?" It shouldn't have been necessary to clarify the law at a press briefing, it should have been clearly stated in the legislation, and does what the justice minister say constitute an ammendment to the law? I think not, the law will say what it says.

There is another current thread concerning the recovery of a 33cm steel plate left inside a woman following surgery and the role that procedures, probably not sufficiently clear, governing the accounting for such items played in the mistake.

I suspect that, like other politicians, this minister would have been high in the queue demanding explanations and heads from the hospital as to why this happened and rightly so.

The next time I'm done for speeding, my defence will be "that bit about not doing over 100 wasn't clear enough, did you really mean it?" I don't suspect the justice minister'll offer me much support.