
Quebec's National Assembly continues, focus shifts to religious symbols bill - throwmex
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/as-marathon-weekend-sitting-of-quebec-s-national-assembly-continues-focus-shifts-to-religious-symbols-bill-1.5177587
======
dang
The title of this submission broke the site guidelines quite badly. They ask:
" _Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don 't
editorialize._" We take away submission privileges from accounts that do that,
so please don't do that.

Submitted title was "Québec will ban hijab & other religious symbols to be
worn by govt. employees."

------
ab_c
The title of this link is so grossly sensationalized. Nothing has been set
yet, and Quebec hasn't banned anything. Politicians just proposed a bill and
will likely face steep opposition since this sort of thing has happened
before.

In Canada, everyone must wear helmets when operating a motorcycle; riders who
wore turbans were exempt from this rule. A bill was proposed to ratify the
exemption, ppl cited discrimination and the bill was shot down.

~~~
throwmex
> Quebec hasn't banned anything. Politicians just proposed a bill and will
> likely face steep opposition since this sort of thing has happened before.

The bill is passed on June 16, 2019 (yesterday).

Source: National Assembly of Quebec. [http://www.assnat.qc.ca/en/travaux-
parlementaires/projets-lo...](http://www.assnat.qc.ca/en/travaux-
parlementaires/projets-loi/projet-loi-21-42-1.html)

------
mabbo
It's disgusting, and most of the rest of Canada is against it.

The part that really bugs me about it is that Christian symbols are allowed-
because that's "a part of our culture".

~~~
kalenx
Christian symbols aren't allowed either.

~~~
mabbo
Really? My understanding was crosses were to be allowed.

------
throwmex
> The Coaliton Avenir Québec government wants to pass a bill today that will
> bar public-school teachers, government lawyers, judges and police officers
> from wearing religious symbols while at work.

> The bill also invokes the notwithstanding clause in an effort to spare it
> from court challenges about its constitutionality.

~~~
palunon
> The bill also invokes the notwithstanding clause

What's that ?

~~~
mabbo
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_33_of_the_Canadian_C...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_33_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms)

> The Parliament of Canada, a provincial legislature or a territorial
> legislature may declare that one of its laws or part of a law applies
> temporarily ("notwithstanding") countermanding sections of the Charter,
> thereby nullifying any judicial review by overriding the Charter protections
> for a limited period of time. This is done by including a section in the law
> clearly specifying which rights have been overridden. A simple majority vote
> in any of Canada's 14 jurisdictions may suspend the core rights of the
> Charter.

Basically, imagine if states could pass temporary laws that were not allowed
to be challenged as unconstitutional. For some reason, Canada allows that.

~~~
Majromax
> Basically, imagine if states could pass temporary laws that were not allowed
> to be challenged as unconstitutional. For some reason, Canada allows that.

One argument in favour is that it preserves the ability to pass emergency acts
without contorting the definition of 'rights'.

As a negative example, look at current US rhetoric regarding a "national
emergency" over immigration. That is being used to justify acts that might
under other circumstances be unconstitutional, but the only way the courts can
allow it is to also allow broad, ad-hoc "national security" exceptions to
constitutional rights.

If the US had something similar to the notwithstanding clause, the line of
authority would be much clearer. An act that would otherwise be
unconstitutional can still pass and become effective if the elected government
certifies the need, on a temporary basis.

While this clause (and similar language in s.1 of the _Charter_ , which states
that rights are guaranteed to "such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can
be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.") ostensibly
weakens the strength of rights in Canada, I believe that this presence invites
courts to paradoxically take a _stronger_ view of rights on a day-to-day
basis. In particular, they're much more likely to truly inquire whether
government actions are reasonable.

------
throw7
If Quebec wants to ban "religious symbols" for its govt. employees, then they
must affirmatively put forth a strict "this is what _everyone_ must wear"
uniform similar to grade school/military codes. I personally wouldn't have a
problem with that, but I wonder if that could pass through the political
process (hence this backdoor bill shenanigans I suppose).

