Quebec Values Charter vs Bill 101

[no color]

In comparing bill 101 with the new Quebec Values Charter, it's interesting to analyze which of the two pose a greater violation of civil rights.

Once bill 101 was passed, public service workers that did not speak French in many cases were forced to leave their jobs. For many of us who were schooled in English in Quebec, learning a second language late in life is extremely difficult, so as a result of bill 101, many non-bilingual public service workers were forced out of their jobs. It resulted in lots of folks being denied their livelihood because of new language laws.

The Quebec Values Charter does not appear to be as discriminatory as bill 101. It does discriminate based on religious/cultural background, however folks will not lose their jobs as a result. Many who work for the state knew that their work was secular in nature when they first accepted the job, and they likely signed paperwork acknowledging this. Also, removing a religious symbol prior to starting work is nowhere near as hard as trying to learn a new foreign language. There is no comparison. Those folks who started working for the state prior to the separation of church and state, would have a valid argument here.

So in summary, since bill 101 did pass back in 1977, and it appears to be far more discriminatory than the Quebec Values Charter, I'm betting that the new Charter will pass as well.

Details of the charter can be found at the following link:

Quebec releases controversial ‘values charter,’ proposes that anyone giving, receiving public services would need face uncovered | National Post

 

[WLDB]

Bill 101 affects almost everyone in Quebec. The "values charter" only affects civil servants while they are at work. The only reason why Bill 101 is still in force is the notwithstanding clause. It is well known that the bill is unconstitutional. That is one of the reasons I want the notwithstanding clause removed from the constitution. It allows all of the governments to potentially pass discriminatory laws like Bill 101 or worse and get away with it indefinitely.

 

[SLM]

Lucien Bouchard comes out against Quebec charter

 

[PoliticalNick]

Bill 101 affects almost everyone in Quebec. The "values charter" only affects civil servants while they are at work. The only reason why Bill 101 is still in force is the notwithstanding clause. It is well known that the bill is unconstitutional. That is one of the reasons I want the notwithstanding clause removed from the constitution. It allows all of the governments to potentially pass discriminatory laws like Bill 101 or worse and get away with it indefinitely.

I would prefer to tear up the charter and start from scratch entrenching the individual citizens rights as supreme in all matters. It seems to have worked for Iceland.

 

[WLDB]

I would prefer to tear up the charter and start from scratch entrenching the individual citizens rights as supreme in all matters. It seems to have worked for Iceland.

Im open to that. Whenever the constitution is opened again Im sure there will be no shortage of ideas to debate.

 

[Durry]

I'm sure not sure about this dress code issue.
I think we already have minimum dress laws/codes in place, I mean women can't go topless in public, so it would only seem reasonable to have maximum dress laws/codes in place.
I kinda see a face very similar to seeing your car driving plates when your in public.

 

[WLDB]

I'm sure not sure about this dress code issue.
I think we already have minimum dress laws/codes in place, I mean women can't go topless in public

Actually they can. In Ontario anyway. The only real thing that stops them is themselves and people with prudish hangups who would scream if women didnt.

 

[Goober]

In comparing bill 101 with the new Quebec Values Charter, it's interesting to analyze which of the two pose a greater violation of civil rights.

Once bill 101 was passed, public service workers that did not speak French in many cases were forced to leave their jobs. For many of us who were schooled in English in Quebec, learning a second language late in life is extremely difficult, so as a result of bill 101, many non-bilingual public service workers were forced out of their jobs. It resulted in lots of folks being denied their livelihood because of new language laws.

The Quebec Values Charter does not appear to be as discriminatory as bill 101. It does discriminate based on religious/cultural background, however folks will not lose their jobs as a result. Many who work for the state knew that their work was secular in nature when they first accepted the job, and they likely signed paperwork acknowledging this. Also, removing a religious symbol prior to starting work is nowhere near as hard as trying to learn a new foreign language. There is no comparison. Those folks who started working for the state prior to the separation of church and state, would have a valid argument here.

So in summary, since bill 101 did pass back in 1977, and it appears to be far more discriminatory than the Quebec Values Charter, I'm betting that the new Charter will pass as well.

Details of the charter can be found at the following link:

Quebec releases controversial ‘values charter,’ proposes that anyone giving, receiving public services would need face uncovered | National Post

Both laws are a violation of rights.
What does not appear to be discriminatory to you is in fact discrimination and a violation of the Charter.
Then you attempt to justify your bias.

 

[PoliticalNick]

I mean women can't go topless in public

They can in BC too.

 

[Goober]

They can in BC too.

And at my house, front or backyard, OK with me.
Please have them arrive when my wife is at work.
Thank you.
Goober

 

[Machjo]

Actually they can. In Ontario anyway. The only real thing that stops them is themselves and people with prudish hangups who would scream if women didnt.

I'm a man and I've never in adult life walked outside topless in the city.

I guess I'm prudish, or maybe it's just that I respect the others who share the city with me.

In comparing bill 101 with the new Quebec Values Charter, it's interesting to analyze which of the two pose a greater violation of civil rights.

Once bill 101 was passed, public service workers that did not speak French in many cases were forced to leave their jobs. For many of us who were schooled in English in Quebec, learning a second language late in life is extremely difficult, so as a result of bill 101, many non-bilingual public service workers were forced out of their jobs. It resulted in lots of folks being denied their livelihood because of new language laws.

The Quebec Values Charter does not appear to be as discriminatory as bill 101. It does discriminate based on religious/cultural background, however folks will not lose their jobs as a result. Many who work for the state knew that their work was secular in nature when they first accepted the job, and they likely signed paperwork acknowledging this. Also, removing a religious symbol prior to starting work is nowhere near as hard as trying to learn a new foreign language. There is no comparison. Those folks who started working for the state prior to the separation of church and state, would have a valid argument here.

So in summary, since bill 101 did pass back in 1977, and it appears to be far more discriminatory than the Quebec Values Charter, I'm betting that the new Charter will pass as well.

Details of the charter can be found at the following link:

Quebec releases controversial ‘values charter,’ proposes that anyone giving, receiving public services would need face uncovered | National Post

In reality though, Bill 101 is not much worse than the Official Languages Act in its intent, except that it takes it to a new extreme.

In one sense though, one could even argue that the OLA is even more intrusive in that a person whose mother-tongue is neither French nor English needs to learn only one language besides his own to work in the Quebec public service, whereas he would need to learn two besides his own to work in the federal public service. This especially affects certain more isolated northern communities.

In the poll I voted values charter, since freedom of religion is a pretty fundamental right, and as mentioned above in this post, Bill 101 in comparative terms is no worse than the OLA (less intrusive in the public service, more so outside the public service, so more or less equally intrusive overall).

Bill 101 affects almost everyone in Quebec. The "values charter" only affects civil servants while they are at work. The only reason why Bill 101 is still in force is the notwithstanding clause. It is well known that the bill is unconstitutional. That is one of the reasons I want the notwithstanding clause removed from the constitution. It allows all of the governments to potentially pass discriminatory laws like Bill 101 or worse and get away with it indefinitely.

Being blocked form even applying for a job in the public service affects not just public servants but anyone who might have wanted to work for it, thus affecting all Quebecers.

 

[Durry]

Sometimes I think some people think that freedom should be absolute in every respect. But this is obviously just not practical in a civil society. All freedoms has limits and restrictions. It's the only way a civil society can live in peace and harmony.

When it comes to freedom of religion, I don't see anyone saying your not allowed to practice your religion in Quebec, I only see that they are restricting you from practicing or displaying your religious symbols in certain workplaces. I guess if it's in the interest of maintaining peace and harmony in the workplace, I have difficulty understanding why I would have a problem with this. I mean no one is saying your not allowed to practice your religion in Quebec.

 

[Colpy]

Sometimes I think some people think that freedom should be absolute in every respect. But this is obviously just not practical in a civil society. All freedoms has limits and restrictions. It's the only way a civil society can live in peace and harmony.

When it comes to freedom of religion, I don't see anyone saying your not allowed to practice your religion in Quebec, I only see that they are restricting you from practicing or displaying your religious symbols in certain workplaces. I guess if it's in the interest of maintaining peace and harmony in the workplace, I have difficulty understanding why I would have a problem with this. I mean no one is saying your not allowed to practice your religion in Quebec.

One has the right to freedom of expression, and wearing religious headgear (a turban), a crucifix, or a headscarf is part of that expression.

The problem is the niqab, the Muslim facial veil. In western society, going masked is always suspect, and the niqab is a symbol of the oppression of women.........and a civil servant wearing it in the workplace is denying co-workers and the public that deal with her their right to read her expressions.

Simple. Ban the niqab in court, in the gov't workplace, and make it clear that police, elections officials etc can demand you bare your face for ID purposes.

Oh, and back on subject.....both the new "charter" and Bill 101 are unconstitutional. Bill 101 is kept alive by the "notwithstanding" clause, which the goose-stepper Marois is just itching to apply in this case. While, of course, she screams to high heavens about the imperialism of the RoC.

Once again proving the absolute worthlessness of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the gov't giveth, and the gov't taketh away.

 

[Durry]

Well banning the niqab is one way of dealing with the current problem but those that wear the niqab will claim its a religious issue and they have a right to wear it. And they will also state that you don't need to see their faces or their expressions when they are dealing with you. You only have to assess them on their performance of service.

So I don't think banning the niqab by itself will work, it's either everybody or nobody!!

Bill 101 maybe unconstitutional, but the constitution itself is not a perfect document either. It's only a document drawn up by mankind who gave it their best effort at the time it was created. Times change, so should the constitution. Too many seem to think the constitution is once set should be forever. Society and it's norms change, so should the constitution.

 

[PoliticalNick]

Well banning the niqab is one way of dealing with the current problem but those that wear the niqab will claim its a religious issue and they have a right to wear it. And they will also state that you don't need to see their faces or their expressions when they are dealing with you. You only have to assess them on their performance of service.

So I don't think banning the niqab by itself will work, it's either everybody or nobody!!

Yep!

Bill 101 maybe unconstitutional, but the constitution itself is not a perfect document either. It's only a document drawn up by mankind who gave it their best effort at the time it was created. Times change, so should the constitution. Too many seem to think the constitution is once set should be forever. Society and it's norms change, so should the constitution.

 

[Machjo]

I'd be opposed to banning the niqab since that is merely targetting a specific group.

I could support requiring the face to be visible except for eye protection and any other face covering required for medical, safety, or other authorized reason, but that would not apply to the niqab only, but anything that obscured the face.