Anti-maskers forbidden at Palais de justice
Prominent anti-masker François Amalega Bitondo was forbidden to enter the Palais de justice Friday to defend himself against charges of breaking curfew, thus racking up more fines he has no intention of paying. Another anti-masker was also barred from entering on different charges, but was apparently able to participate in court via his phone.
ant6n 03:59 on 2022-01-15 Permalink
It’s a bit odd, legally speaking. As long as there’s no legal mandate to vaccinate, it seems odd to bar people from basic government services (that are closely related to your civic rights). This reduction of civic rights for unvaccinated is problematic since in practical terms, vaccinated people can also catch and spread the virus, and a same day corona test (even antigen) is likely a better protection against the spread for a particular event than being vaccinated.
My feeling is they should allow quick tests to access services that relate to your rights. Or they should legally required vaccination.
The anti vaxxers will probably also reject the test, so perhaps it’s moot in practical terms. But refusing a legally mandated, simple nose test would really be on them, compared to refusing what is arguably a non legally mandated medical procedure.
Dominic 09:04 on 2022-01-15 Permalink
” it seems odd to bar people from basic government services”
Is it that odd? To enroll in school you need proof of all kinds of vaccinations.
John B 10:14 on 2022-01-15 Permalink
Before reading the article I thought that Bitondo was refused access because he didn’t vaccinate, but that’s not the case, he was refused access because he refused to put on a mask. That’s not a reduction in civil rights because of the unvaccinated, that’s refusing to follow a dress code.
Also, at least according to the judge, Bitondo could have made arrangements to participate by videoconference, but didn’t. I assume by now he knows how the justice system works, so these are choices that he made intentionally, and 100% on him.
I’m not trying to start a fight – I just expected to see an actual rights violation based on the headline, but instead found someone trying to stir up even more trouble!
dhomas 13:32 on 2022-01-15 Permalink
When I was about 18 years old, I contested a speeding ticket. At the time, I was working in a factory, cleaning some metal milling machines, so I was quite dirty to the point that even my hair was greasy and gross. The court appearance was during my lunch break, so I thought it best to keep my baseball cap on to hide my unkempt hair. The first thing the judge told me was that one does not wear a hat in court and that I should remove it or remove myself. Needless to say, I lost that court appearance.
The dress code in court is that “every person appearing before the court shall be suitably attired.” (http://www.legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/en/document/cr/C-72.01,%20r.%201%20/)
The wording leaves enough wiggle room to allow it to be the judge’s decision as to what it means to be “suitably attired”. Right now, that means wearing a mask.
walkerp 14:45 on 2022-01-15 Permalink
I caught shit from a lawyer for wearing shorts to court. He said it wasn’t “respectful”. But they didn’t block me from testifying. Was a boring neighbours conflict that we got caught up in just because we lived in the same building.
I felt that “respect” in the courthous as your example underlines dhomas seems to really mean this is a place for the rich and powerful (and white) to make decisions for you.
Kate 15:26 on 2022-01-15 Permalink
That principle was cited by the judge in 2015 when she told Rania El-Alloul she couldn’t wear hijab in court. The judge apologized five years later.
ant6n 10:37 on 2022-01-16 Permalink
@johnb
Fair. I admit I just read the headline and assumed the issue was vaccination.