Montreal City Weblog

Kate 16:30 on 2024-02-29 Permalink Reply  

• H. John 17:10 on 2024-02-29 Permalink

  The decision, 277 pages long, is written by Chief Justice Manon Savard, and two judges who are former law professors: Marie-France Bich who taught at the University of Montreal, and Yves-Marie Morissette who taught at McGill (as well as serving as Associate Dean, and Dean).

  https://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qcca/doc/2024/2024canlii15135/2024canlii15135.html

• Kate 19:43 on 2024-02-29 Permalink

  Thank you, H. John

• Ian 08:24 on 2024-03-01 Permalink

  They did strike down the rule taht elected officials are subject to bill 21 – but they also decided it should apply to English school boards after all.
  Off to the Supreme Court!
  That said, invoking the notwithstanding clause was a smart move becasue there’s no way the Supreme Court wants tofiddle with that constitutional flapdoodle.

• PatrickC 10:24 on 2024-03-01 Permalink

  Isn’t there some proviso that gender equality issues are not subject to the notwithstanding clause? I thought I saw somewhere that the disproportionate effect of bill 21 on Muslim women could fall under that category.

• Meezly 10:38 on 2024-03-01 Permalink

  False secularism upholding a “threatened” monoculture. Meanwhile, if I complain that my kid is going to a supposedly secular elementary school named after baby Jesus, they’ll say “but it’s part of our culture and history.”

  These distinguished and highly educated judges, still treating the Sikh turban as a purely religious symbol. The ignorance and hypocrisy is strong in Quebec.

  There is a powerful case that Loi 21 is intended to be exclusionary to religious minorities. QC has set a precedent for other provinces to wield the notwithstanding clause to diminish the rights and freedoms of “others”. Alberta just pulled the same damn stunt on the trans community.

  The Supreme Court needs to nip this in the bud because otherwise our charter will mean jack shit and this country ain’t gonna be no different than some states in the US.

• Joey 11:37 on 2024-03-01 Permalink

  Are there any judicial grounds for ‘nipping this in the bud’?

• Poutine Pundit 11:47 on 2024-03-01 Permalink

  The notwithstanding clause does not apply to section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, so English language school boards can take this to the Supreme court.

• Chris 14:04 on 2024-03-01 Permalink

  >False secularism upholding a “threatened” monoculture.

  The “threatened” culture is Quebec?

  Usually the argument goes ‘Quebec is a small lake of French in an ocean of English in North America, it needs protecting’ but the counterargument goes ‘yeah, but French is the #5 spoken language on the planet, it’s fine’.

  Seems the parallel is ‘Islam is a small lake in an ocean of Christianity in North America, it needs protecting’ but then wouldn’t the counterargument be ‘yeah, but Islam is the #2 religion on the planet, it’s fine’?

  >…still treating the Sikh turban as a purely religious symbol…

  I mean, it’s right there in the name: “Sikh turban”. Sikhism is a religion. How can a ‘Sikh turban’ be anything but a religious symbol? Perhaps you meant ‘turban’ alone without the Sikh adjective? Because, yeah, turbans exist outside Sikhism too.

  Is the baby Jesus a ‘purely religious symbol’? Or can it degrade into “just cultural” too? You seem against that idea for the baby Jesus, but for it for the turban. Or perhaps I’ve misunderstood you.

• Meezly 14:18 on 2024-03-01 Permalink

  You absolutely did misunderstand me.

• Ian 19:26 on 2024-03-01 Permalink

  Chris : “catholaïcité” is the issue.

• Meezly 17:59 on 2024-03-02 Permalink

  I’m in the midst of reading the court’s decision. The CBC’s use of uphold, in that the Appeal Court upholds Law 21 is completely wrong. “Uphold” implies supporting or defending something when in fact, the judges clearly state that they cannot make a ruling because of the notwithstanding clause. They simply did their jobs in a neutral and objective manner.