NationStates Jolt Archive

Obligatory link (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=bca2b544-518e-4163-a29d-4fe8c23d1910&k=95849)

The people of Herouxville, Que., say they welcome immigrants to their small town, but there are a few things they want to make clear: for instance, there will be no public stoning of women, and facial coverings are reserved for Halloween.

A code of standards sent to the federal and provincial governments last week by Herouxville's municipal council has put the town of 1,300 inhabitants, about 150 kilometres northeast of Montreal, at the centre of Quebec's increasingly divisive debate over integrating minorities.

So, as an immigrant living in Quebec, I guess I'll soon have to read up on these things so that I don't throw acid in a girl's face, or think that women can't be cops.

Morons.

Some of the 'problems' the Québecois have been having with immigrants include the following:
In recent months, Quebec media have been full of stories suggesting public officials are going too far to accommodate religious practices. These included a Montreal YMCA that agreed to tint its windows to ensure students at a Hasidic boys' school would not be distracted by exercising women, and guidelines to Montreal police officers suggesting female officers should leave it to their male colleagues to interview Hasidic men.

That Hassidic school and its surrounding community have been in Montreal and Quebec for at least 60 years. And the YMCA was built alot later than the school. What does this have to do with immigration, anyway?

And the police HQ in Montreal was built about ten years ago. The old building didn't have bathrooms for female officers, because there weren't any. That's right. Less than twenty years ago, Montreal had no female police officers. And I've only started seeing non-white officers within the last ten years. Again, this seems like a problem that has nothing to do with immigration.

Reactionary fools.

The Young Men's Christian Association is run by public officials?

The Young Men's Christian Association is run by public officials?

Good point.

Police officers, however, are puiblic officials, and here is what one had to say about current policies on immigration:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2007/01/29/qc-policesong20070129.html

A cop is in trouble for writing a song saying that immigrants should either assimliate or get to the airport.

"Face coverings are reserved for Halloween?"

This is very disappointing. I really don't want Canada to start turning reactionary.

"Face coverings are reserved for Halloween?"

This is very disappointing. I really don't want Canada to start turning reactionary.
Yeah. That's Alberta's job. On a serious note, does this have any legal standing? I can't see anything but Federal/Provincial government having the kind of power to enact this kind of thingy into law, but these days...

"Face coverings are reserved for Halloween?"

This is very disappointing. I really don't want Canada to start turning reactionary.

Really, that was my thought. The "no stoning" rule is probably covered under the statutes that govern assault and battery or murder and attempted murder. I think immigrants should make an effort to assimilate by learning the language of their new country, though I do understand that some adults and older people will have a harder time of that than kids. As for Old Country dress and ways, a generation or two should take care of that aspect.

This is very disappointing. I really don't want Canada to start turning reactionary.

I must confess that my first thought on reading this was 'Yeah! all those reactionaries should go back to their own countries!'.

Yes. I am a moron too.

I was thinking that the next time I drove through, I would explain that I am an immigrant, and that we are only beginning to have these liberties in my original country because of religious reppression.

When they make the inevitable Muslim comment, I will inform them that my country of origin is Catholic. You know, just like Quebec.

When they make the inevitable Muslim comment, I will inform them that my country of origin is Catholic. You know, just like Quebec.

My husband gets mistaken for Lebanese or Arabic all the time. Moreso post 911. Crazy.

My husband gets mistaken for Lebanese or Arabic all the time. Moreso post 911. Crazy.

Well, there is a remedy (http://www.manbehindthedoll.com/images/scoobydoofredhskn.jpg) for that, Neesika ... :p

None of you are looking at the bigger picture here. There is a chance, in the defence of religion, to make halloween a 365 day event. Let me spell it out for you: Free candy every damned day of the year! You just have to play it right.

Quebec is perpetually shifting from one identity crisis to another. Some times ago it was the independance thing and rampant clericalism in social institutions, issues that helped mold the province's current values (tolerance, multiculturalism, etc.) in the sixties during the "quiet revolution". Now, in reaction to growing immigration, and the perception of incoming cultures as having a more affirmed national identity (less open, more strict in its value), quebeckers feel they must affirm positive values themselves, and they resort to a clumsy exhumation of their christian tradition. Hence, among other things, the inexplicable surge in conservative votes in Quebec in the last federal election.

Most of all, I think all of this is due to a very dishonest and sensationalist media campaign that spins any small incidents into nationwide controversies and seeming disprookfs of current policies. There has been a sore lack of good news in the last few months, and it shows.

"Face coverings are reserved for Halloween?"
I hope they like an absence of scarves...

None of you are looking at the bigger picture here. There is a chance, in the defence of religion, to make halloween a 365 day event. Let me spell it out for you: Free candy every damned day of the year! You just have to play it right.

This, I like.

Yeah. That's Alberta's job.
Alberta's the last place that would do that. Remember, we were the first province to legalise gay civil unions. And we're one of the few provinces that haven't banned replacement workers.

Alberta's all about individual freedom.

That Hassidic school and its surrounding community have been in Montreal and Quebec for at least 60 years. And the YMCA was built alot later than the school.

What does this have to do with immigration, anyway? It has nothing to do with Immigration.

the Jews are on the spotlight since the YMCA incident...
now Policewomen and CLSC nurses have complained about special rules for Jews ..

Do not worry.. its not going to last long.. its a fade.

On a serious note, does this have any legal standing? I can't see anything but Federal/Provincial government having the kind of power to enact this kind of thingy into law, but these days...

No, not at all

Only 2000 redneck morons trying to put their town on the map...:rolleyes:

Okay, I'm in favor of not stoning woman, however what's wrong with face coverings? Did they just outlaw those full burka things?

"Face coverings are reserved for Halloween?"

This is very disappointing. I really don't want Canada to start turning reactionary.

Then don't be guilty of not being "pur laine" in Quebec.

To be clear, we're talking about the province that used the 'notwithstanding clause' to keep road signs from being bilingual right? I'm usually a little leery of ethnocentric politics, and Quebecs been playing that card for decades now. Nothing new here.

To be clear, we're talking about the province that used the 'notwithstanding clause' to keep road signs from being bilingual right? I'm usually a little leery of ethnocentric politics, and Quebecs been playing that card for decades now. Nothing new here.

No doubt. Living in rural western Canada as an immigrant was bad enough. Hicks and rednecks, you know. But here in Quebec, they're nationalist rednecks and hicks. Proud to be xenophobic. :rolleyes:

I propose that Herouxville be made the capital of the world. Yay for Herouxville!

I don't see why this town should not be able to lay down some ground rules for immigrants.

If you immigrate to another country, you are expected, and rightly so, to assimilate into the culture of that country and laws of said country.

The Young Men's Christian Association is run by public officials?Technically, the YMCA would not have to do that are their expense if they wanted as, even if it offends them, as long as they are not flashing them, though if that happened I would buy the school, they are not doing anything illegal and infact the school should have to accodmate to their own needs and to general public outside of the school grounds, while still respecting their relgious freedom.

I propose that Herouxville be made the capital of the world. Yay for Herouxville!

So, do you have anything intelligent to add to this debate, or do you simply enjoy supporting other's ignorance concerning immigrants?

So, do you have anything intelligent to add to this debate, or do you simply enjoy supporting other's ignorance concerning immigrants?

Ignorance? What's ignorant about "We don't do this fucked up medieval shit here?"

I don't see why this town should not be able to lay down some ground rules for immigrants.

If you immigrate to another country, you are expected, and rightly so, to assimilate into the culture of that country and laws of said country.

The town has a total population of 1300, less than ten of which are immigrants. All the immigrants speak french. One of them is a little boy who has been adopted by a local family. None have immolated their wives, or publicly stoned anyone. However, you seem to believe the town is right in assuming that these folks would do just that if they were not warned.

Since you are not Canadian, you may not know that Canadian multiculturalism is not like US multiculturalism. No one is "expected to assimilate", as you put it. We have a mosaic culture, not a melting pot. We are expected to follow the laws, not the cultural traditions. Becoming Canadian does not mean: Drink Tim Hortons at the local hockey rink, or else!

Now, what makes you think we should follow the advice of a few reactionary souls who may never even have met more than a dozen immigrants in their lives, and do not seem to understand the concept of multiculturalism?

Alors, tout ça pour dire: This town should not be able to lay down some ground rules for immigrants, because all those rules do is show how ignorant and xenophobic the townspeople are.

Ignorance? What's ignorant about "We don't do this fucked up medieval shit here?"

The ignorance stems from the fact that the inhabitants of Herouxville have very little, if any, contact with immigrants. Thus they are unknowledgeable, or ignorant, of why immigrants come to Canada, and what they expect when they arrive.

Technically, the YMCA would not have to do that are their expense if they wanted as, even if it offends them, as long as they are not flashing them, though if that happened I would buy the school, they are not doing anything illegal and infact the school should have to accodmate to their own needs and to general public outside of the school grounds, while still respecting their relgious freedom.

The YMCA and the Hassidic school have nothing to do with this debate. The Hassidics in that neighbourhood have been living there, and have had their school there, for several generations. There are more issues here as well, since the Quebec Civil Code has laws dictating the proximity of windows to the property line, and the two buildings share a property line. It is very possible that applying a film to the window was an easy way to get the borough to approve an otherwise illegal design.

Technically, the YMCA would not have to do that are their expense if they wanted as, even if it offends them, as long as they are not flashing them, though if that happened I would buy the school, they are not doing anything illegal and infact the school should have to accodmate to their own needs and to general public outside of the school grounds, while still respecting their relgious freedom.lots of words.. no beef.

It has nothing to do with Immigration.

the Jews are on the spotlight since the YMCA incident...
now Policewomen and CLSC nurses have complained about special rules for Jews ..

Do not worry.. its not going to last long.. its a fade.actually it is going to last a couple weeks.. now that this silliness made it all the way to CNN (tv do not ask me for links)

the Quebec Civil Code has laws dictating the proximity of windows to the property line, and the two buildings share a property line. It is very possible that applying a film to the window was an easy way to get the borough to approve an otherwise illegal design.Bullshit..

The Jews demanded to tint the neighbor's (YMCA) windows..
because they were offended by women doing aerobics.

nothing less.. nothing more.

Bullshit..

The Jews demanded to tint the neighbor's (YMCA) windows..
because they were offended by women doing aerobics.

nothing less.. nothing more.

I think I know a bit more about Quebec property law than you do, but don't take my word for it. Here's the actual law (http://www2.publicationsduquebec.gouv.qc.ca/dynamicSearch/telecharge.php?type=2&file=/CCQ/CCQ_A.html):


993. No person may have upon the neighbouring land direct views less than one hundred and fifty centimetres from the dividing line.

This rule does not apply in the case of views on the public thoroughfare or on a public park or in the case of panelled doors or doors with translucid glass

995. A person may make fixed translucid lights in a wall that is not a common wall, even if it is less than ine hundred and fifty centimteres from the dividing line.

Look it up if you don't believe me.

But you know what, this thread is about immigration. The Hassidic population in Montreal is as native as the local greek community in the same neighbourhood, so this is a thread hijack. I have addressed it, and if you wish to keep pressing the point, I suggest you start a thread.

I think I know a bit more about Quebec property law than you do, but don't take my word for it. Here's the actual law (http://www2.publicationsduquebec.gouv.qc.ca/dynamicSearch/telecharge.php?type=2&file=/CCQ/CCQ_A.html).I dont think so.

while the Quebec Criminal code is based on the British code..
The Quebec Civil code is directly based on the Napoleonic code.. and one of the fondation of the Napoleonic code is "Le droit acquis"

I dont think so.

while the Quebec Criminal code is based on the British code..
The Quebec Civil code is directly based on the Napoleonic code.. and one of the fondation of the Napoleonic code is "Le droit acquis"

You are hijacking the thread. Stop.

But you know what, this thread is about immigration. The Hassidic population in Montreal is as native as the local greek community in the same neighbourhood, so this is a thread hijack. I have addressed it, and if you wish to keep pressing the point, I suggest you start a thread.this thread is about Herouxville Mayor silliness..
The root of all this is the contre-les-accomdements-raisonables campaign started by the Journal-de-montreal.. which was set-up by the YMCA-vs-Jewish incident.

this thread is about Herouxville Mayor silliness..
The root of all this is the contre-les-accomodements-raisonables campaign started by the Journal-de-montreal.. wich was set-up by the YMCA-vs-Jewihs incident.Gift-of-God, I challenge you to prove me wrong.

The YMCA and the Hassidic school have nothing to do with this debate. a school?.. interesting.
Le-Journal-de-Montreal calls it a synagogue.

hmm.. maybe they have some kind of school somewhere inside the synagogue.

OceanDrive, take your anti-Semtic rant elsewhere. It's one of your least appealing qualities.

...anti-Semtic...I knew someone was going to pull that shiite.
BTW.. I am a fan of John Stewart.

Prooving once and for all that any reputation Quebec has for rampant xenophobia is totally unjustified.

Hmm... it says that women should not be stoned, but doesn't say anything about men being stoned. Only men can have weed now?

Hmm... it says that women should not be stoned, but doesn't say anything about men being stoned. Only men can have weed now?

Excellent.

I knew someone was going to pull that shiite.
BTW.. I am a fan of John Stewart.

You've done nothing but create the image of an anti-Semite. I like you a lot OceanDrive, but I'm being honest here.

Bullshit..

The Jews demanded to tint the neighbor's (YMCA) windows..
because they were offended by women doing aerobics.

nothing less.. nothing more.

Actually, asked politely to tint the neighbour's windows and paying for it. And because hassidic jewish women shouldn't view people in gym clothes.

The people who went ballistics were the YMCA users who, it turns out, really liked to see a stone building and a back alley while loosing weight.

a school?.. interesting.
Le-Journal-de-Montreal calls it a synagogue.

hmm.. maybe they have some kind of school somewhere inside the synagogue.

yes they do. It was a shool / synagogue that specialized is religious studies.

Bullshit..

The Jews demanded to tint the neighbor's (YMCA) windows..
because they were offended by women doing aerobics.

nothing less.. nothing more.

No they weren't offended by women doing aerobics. They have nothing against women doing aerobics. The problem was it was distracting the young boys who arn't supposed to look at that durring religious studies. They are even paying to have the windows tinted. So relax.

I dont think so.

while the Quebec Criminal code is based on the British code..
The Quebec Civil code is directly based on the Napoleonic code.. and one of the fondation of the Napoleonic code is "Le droit acquis"

He just quoted a law for you.

They are even paying to have the windows tinted. I know that.. they all know that.. the YMCA women petitioning for removal of the frosted windows.

No they weren't offended by women doing aerobics. They have nothing against women doing aerobics. The problem was it was distracting the young boys who arn't supposed to look at that durring religious studies. that is what the protesting women say.. Its about the aerobics female suits.. its about spandex.. "Since we represent temptation, were being asked to hide."

The town has a total population of 1300, less than ten of which are immigrants. All the immigrants speak french. One of them is a little boy who has been adopted by a local family. None have immolated their wives, or publicly stoned anyone. However, you seem to believe the town is right in assuming that these folks would do just that if they were not warned.

Since you are not Canadian, you may not know that Canadian multiculturalism is not like US multiculturalism. No one is "expected to assimilate", as you put it. We have a mosaic culture, not a melting pot. We are expected to follow the laws, not the cultural traditions. Becoming Canadian does not mean: Drink Tim Hortons at the local hockey rink, or else!

Now, what makes you think we should follow the advice of a few reactionary souls who may never even have met more than a dozen immigrants in their lives, and do not seem to understand the concept of multiculturalism?

Alors, tout ça pour dire: This town should not be able to lay down some ground rules for immigrants, because all those rules do is show how ignorant and xenophobic the townspeople are.

I think you are mistaking xenophobia with cultural confidence. Now let me break down your paragraphs one by one.

#1-Ever heard of honor killings? Or female circumcission. I think it's reasonable to assume that these things are not practiced by the indigenous people of the town, and that they find it distasteful...to put it kindly. It's completely reasonable that they would want to outlaw these practices so that any migrants who may be partial to them think twice before moving to that town. Obviously most immigrants from any culture don't do the aforementioned acts, but most people aren't murderers, and that doesn't mean that murder should be legal. Comprendre?

#2-I lived 5 years in Canada when I went to grammar school. I know more about Canada than you think. And yes, you are right, Canadians tend to be more lax when it comes to the whole assimiliation business, but don't be under the illusion that in America, migrants are expected to attend the football game, followed by some extra large fries at McDonalds to top it off. There is no compulsion in assimilation, but it seen as highly preferrable to segregation.

#3-What makes you think these people are reactionary? Just because they are asserting their identity?

And multiculturalism itself isn't such a great idea to begin with...

The town has a total population of 1300, less than ten of which are immigrants. All the immigrants speak french. One of them is a little boy who has been adopted by a local family. None have immolated their wives, or publicly stoned anyone. However, you seem to believe the town is right in assuming that these folks would do just that if they were not warned.

Since you are not Canadian, you may not know that Canadian multiculturalism is not like US multiculturalism. No one is "expected to assimilate", as you put it. We have a mosaic culture, not a melting pot. We are expected to follow the laws, not the cultural traditions. Becoming Canadian does not mean: Drink Tim Hortons at the local hockey rink, or else!

Now, what makes you think we should follow the advice of a few reactionary souls who may never even have met more than a dozen immigrants in their lives, and do not seem to understand the concept of multiculturalism?

Alors, tout ça pour dire: This town should not be able to lay down some ground rules for immigrants, because all those rules do is show how ignorant and xenophobic the townspeople are.

Since we are multicultural, we should also let our towns setting their standarts. Multiculturalism doesnt mean just respecting new comers. And some of the rules make sense:


circumcise girls........Boys and girls swim together in public pools........Veils are not welcome. "The only time you may mask or cover your face is during Halloween.".........Our Women We consider that men and women are of the same value.


Are you actually that ignorant to say that these things dont happen in immigrant communities?

"Face coverings are reserved for Halloween?"
I wonder what that town is going to do about these ppl then:
http://cache.eb.com/eb/image?id=21428
hopefully ban these damned un-Canadians for their town limits.


Incidently, this town has a grand total of 1 (that's right: ONE) immigrant family.
sucks to be them right now.

Incidently, this town has a grand total of 1 (that's right: ONE) immigrant family.
sucks to be them right now.you know what else..

Le-Journal-de-Montreal and the rest of the Media Circus.. keeps interviewing them and asking them
"Do you mind the new Laws? Do you ever feel Canadians are racist ?"..
And they are very quick to answer
"No.. No.. No.. I dont mind... No No No.. they are not racist to me.. I never been a victim.. never ever... I am still a virgin.. "

I think you are mistaking xenophobia with cultural confidence. Now let me break down your paragraphs one by one.

#1-Ever heard of honor killings? Or female circumcission. I think it's reasonable to assume that these things are not practiced by the indigenous people of the town, and that they find it distasteful...to put it kindly. It's completely reasonable that they would want to outlaw these practices so that any migrants who may be partial to them think twice before moving to that town. Obviously most immigrants from any culture don't do the aforementioned acts, but most people aren't murderers, and that doesn't mean that murder should be legal. Comprendre?

#2-I lived 5 years in Canada when I went to grammar school. I know more about Canada than you think. And yes, you are right, Canadians tend to be more lax when it comes to the whole assimiliation business, but don't be under the illusion that in America, migrants are expected to attend the football game, followed by some extra large fries at McDonalds to top it off. There is no compulsion in assimilation, but it seen as highly preferrable to segregation.

#3-What makes you think these people are reactionary? Just because they are asserting their identity?

And multiculturalism itself isn't such a great idea to begin with...

Genital mutilation and honour killings are already illegal everywhere in Canada. There is no group of immigrants trying to change that. So why does the town need to outlaw them again while pointing a finger at immigrants. It serves no legal purpose, so it must serve another, and I have yet to find out what the purpose is.

I am glad that you understand, or were exposed to, Canadian multiculturalism. One of the many things I find distasteful about this set of standards is that it is an attack on that very multiculturalism. Canada is almost unique in its history in that it has always had significant parts of its population coming from widely different cultural backgrounds. Canada has also had, for the most part, great success with this. Now this town is wishing to stop that, to change one of the things that identify us as Canadian.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/reactionary
reactionary
One entry found for reactionary.


Main Entry: re·ac·tion·ary
Pronunciation: rE-'ak-sh&-"ner-E
Function: adjective
: relating to, marked by, or favoring reaction; especially : ultraconservative in politics
- reactionary noun
- re·ac·tion·ary·ism /-"i-z&m/ noun

I define reactionary as a person or group who is conservative enough that they wish to go back to an earlier time when things were better, and then force society to remain there. The Luddites during the industrial revolution are a good example. Perhaps you define the word in another way?

Since we are multicultural, we should also let our towns setting their standarts. Multiculturalism doesnt mean just respecting new comers. And some of the rules make sense:



Are you actually that ignorant to say that these things dont happen in immigrant communities?

Multiculturalism is a complex topic. It involves both community rights and individual rights. It also involves civil and criminal law. And you are correct too that multiculturalism demands that both immigrants and native communities have to accomodate somewhat. So we have to balance all these things. I don't think that this set of standards does so. To me, it creates an atmosphere that is unwelcome to immigrants. It shows a refusal on the communtiy's part to accommodate.

Of course the rules make sense. That's why they are already written into federal and provincial law. Some of these laws are even protected by our Charter of Rights. What does not make sense is to assume that every immigrant needs to be told this when they visit Herouxville.

I have read the articles of honour killings and female genital mutilation occuring in immigrant communities. I highly doubt that these are occuring in Herouxville, population: 1300. Immigrant population: less than 10. I believe they are Haitian.

Incidently, this town has a grand total of 1 (that's right: ONE) immigrant family.
sucks to be them right now.

And they are from Argentina. (Maybe, don't know, doesn't say anywhere, but they could be)

Multiculturalism is a complex topic. It involves both community rights and individual rights. It also involves civil and criminal law. And you are correct too that multiculturalism demands that both immigrants and native communities have to accomodate somewhat. So we have to balance all these things. I don't think that this set of standards does so. To me, it creates an atmosphere that is unwelcome to immigrants. It shows a refusal on the communtiy's part to accommodate.

Of course the rules make sense. That's why they are already written into federal and provincial law. Some of these laws are even protected by our Charter of Rights. What does not make sense is to assume that every immigrant needs to be told this when they visit Herouxville.

I have read the articles of honour killings and female genital mutilation occuring in immigrant communities. I highly doubt that these are occuring in Herouxville, population: 1300. Immigrant population: less than 10. I believe they are Haitian.

Again, if we are a true multicultural society, we have to respect those who dont want to welcome newcomers. Immigrants can just choose Toronto instead of Herouxville.

Again, if we are a true multicultural society, we have to respect those who dont want to welcome newcomers. Immigrants can just choose Toronto instead of Herouxville.

Not true. S. 27 of the Charter: This Charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians. The courts have interpreted this to mean that self-segregation of ethnic groups can be allowed within certain bounds, but it can not be imposed from without, and there can be no Charter protection for those who wish to keep members of another ethnic group out of that geographic area.

So...China Town is fine...you can't force China Town to relocate elsewhere.
Also, China Town can not stop Italians from moving in.

Not true. S. 27 of the Charter: This Charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians. The courts have interpreted this to mean that self-segregation of ethnic groups can be allowed within certain bounds, but it can not be imposed from without, and there can be no Charter protection for those who wish to keep members of another ethnic group out of that geographic area.

So...China Town is fine...you can't force China Town to relocate elsewhere.
Also, China Town can not stop Italians from moving in.

They are not stopping immigrants from moving in tho. According to Gift of God, they are just giving the impression that they dont want them. So, it's legal.

They are not stopping immigrants from moving in tho. According to Gift of God, they are just giving the impression that they dont want them. So, it's legal.

Yes, but YOU were giving the impression that you thought it would be Constitutionally okay for them to prevent immigrants from moving in. Now that it's been cleared up that it is not so, it's all good.

We do not in fact have to respect the wishes of the townspeople in this. They have no protection or Constitutional justification for their attitude.

Yes, but YOU were giving the impression that you thought it would be Constitutionally okay for them to prevent immigrants from moving in. Now that it's been cleared up that it is not so, it's all good.

We do not in fact have to respect the wishes of the townspeople in this. They have no protection or justification for their attitude.

Actually, Quebec decides whom to accept or not itself. I cant see why not all states and towns shouldnt be allowed to do that.

Well, I do respect their choice. Canada is the second biggest country on Earth with a population of 30 million. Anyone can co exist here.

Again, if we are a true multicultural society, we have to respect those who dont want to welcome newcomers. Immigrants can just choose Toronto instead of Herouxville.

Not necessarily. many refugees are simply located wherever there is space. A good example of this was the wave of Chilean immigrants that arrived after the 1973 coup. Canada originally did not want to accept these refugees, but Saskatchewan, that had an NDP government at the time, accepted them. Many Chilean-canadians moved to different parts of Canada later, but initially they all had to live in rural Saskatchewan.

I believe that in a multicultural society, we do not have to accomodate those who don't want to welcome newcomers. Why do you believe we should? They would be allowed to express their opinions, but they should not be allowed to enforce such rules. Imagine a multicultural society where an enclave of religious fundamentalists decided that no unbeliever could reside in their community, or even walk through their community. Please explain to me how such a thing would be legal in Canada. EDIT: Neesika and you have cleared this point up, I see. Please pretend I wrote something incredibly witty instead.

Not necessarily. many refugees are simply located wherever there is space. A good example of this was the wave of Chilean immigrants that arrived after the 1973 coup. Canada originally did not want to accept these refugees, but Saskatchewan, that had an NDP government at the time, accepted them. Many Chilean-canadians moved to different parts of Canada later, but initially they all had to live in rural Saskatchewan.

I believe that in a multicultural society, we do not have to accomodate those who don't want to welcome newcomers. Why do you believe we should? They would be allowed to express their opinions, but they should not be allowed to enforce such rules. Imagine a multicultural society where an enclave of religious fundamentalists decided that no unbeliever could reside in their community, or even walk through their community. Please explain to me how such a thing would be legal in Canada.

Well. What should we allow or not? I personally think that it is silly that some women have to cover their heads because showing a piece of flesh is a "sin" or the notion that men wouldnt be able to (and shouldnt) control themselves. I also think free hair looks much more attractive than wearing veil. So do I have a say in this religious fundamentalism? No. Why should have we any say in religious enclaves as long as they are non-violent?

Actually, Quebec decides whom to accept or not itself. I cant see why not all states and towns shouldnt be allowed to do that. You're talking about immigration standards, not settlement standards. Settlement standards would be prima facie unconstitutional.

Well, I do respect their choice. Canada is the second biggest country on Earth with a population of 30 million. Anyone can co exist here. Space is not an excuse for bigotry and exlusion. Fuck them and their choice, quite frankly.

You're talking about immigration standards, not settlement standards. Settlement standards would be prima facie unconstitutional.


Constitution can be amended.


Space is not an excuse for bigotry and exlusion. Fuck them and their choice, quite frankly.

You cant force acceptance down people's throats. Just let everyone be as long as they are not violent.

Well. What should we allow or not? I personally think that it is silly that some women have to cover their heads because showing a piece of flesh is a "sin" or the notion that men wouldnt be able to (and shouldnt) control themselves. I also think free hair looks much more attractive than wearing veil. So do I have a say in this religious fundamentalism? No. Why should have we any say in religious enclaves as long as they are non-violent?

Because freedom of religion is protected in Canada, and that happens to mean that exclusionary religious enclaves are actually unconstitutional, as they violate the Charter right to NOT be religious (or practice another religion).

Charter rights are always a balancing act, and Charter rights can infringe upon one another, subject to s.1...but the Charter has been interpreted consistantly to prevent this kind of discrimination...not justify it.

Well. What should we allow or not? I personally think that it is silly that some women have to cover their heads because showing a piece of flesh is a "sin" or the notion that men wouldnt be able to (and shouldnt) control themselves. I also think free hair looks much more attractive than wearing veil. So do I have a say in this religious fundamentalism? No. Why should have we any say in religious enclaves as long as they are non-violent?

You are entirely correct that you should not have other people's religions forced upon you. I am not sure what the problem is, nor how it relates to immigration or this small town.

Constitution can be amended. Highly unlikely and it has in fact been suggested that it would be nearly impossible to do under the amending formula included in the Canada Act 1982. Do you remember Meech Lake? Charlottetown? But that's not really the issue. The Charter trumps the Constitution, even as it is a part of it. Charter rights are not subject to ordinary constitutional amendment.



You cant force acceptance down people's throats. Just let everyone be as long as they are not violent.
No, you can't force acceptance, but neither must you accept intolerance. There is a difference my friend.

The Charter trumps the Constitution, even as it is a part of it. Charter rights are not subject to ordinary constitutional amendment.

That's interesting. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm fairly certain Quebec never signed onto that 1982 constitution and the Charter rights. (Although that didn't stop them from using the notwithstanding clause.) How can Quebec be held to a section of a constitution that they didn't agree to? Espescially when the amending formula for that constitution requires unanimous consent from the provinces?

Also, more because I'm curious, why are Charter rights not subject to ordinary constituional amendment? Legally speaking I mean.

After all, Quebec used the notwithstanding clause to trump charter rights, didn't they?


EDIT: Backgrounder

As we examine the situation in 1998, the consequences of Trudeau’s actions in 1981-1982 seem enormous. For years the province availed itself of the notwithstanding clause found in the Charter of Rights to render its operation impossible in the province. Since 1982, six separate provincial governments, some federalist, some separatist, have refused to sign the constitution and have all demanded that changes be brought about. Separatism has continued to grow and now commands the support of the majority of French speaking Quebecers (the last referendum was only lost by the separatists by a margin of 50.5% to 49.5%).

Source: http://www2.marianopolis.edu/quebechistory/readings/trudeau.htm

Yeah. That's Alberta's job. On a serious note, does this have any legal standing? I can't see anything but Federal/Provincial government having the kind of power to enact this kind of thingy into law, but these days...

You're an idiot. On the subject of multiculturalism and others, we are quite liberal.

You're just one of those people who wants Alberta to go away, but you want all our oil to yourselves.:upyours: :mad:

That's interesting. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm fairly certain Quebec never signed onto that 1982 constitution and the Charter rights. (Although that didn't stop them from using the notwithstanding clause.) How can Quebec be held to a section of a constitution that they didn't agree to? Espescially when the amending formula for that constitution requires unanimous consent from the provinces? Quebec is bound by the Constitution regardless. They didn't sign, out of pique, but they are just as bound to it as the rest of us. The notwithstanding clause only applies to certain sections of the Charter, and is PART of the built in Charter restraints. Still, the Federal government would prefer to have Quebec on board, and has tried both at Meech Lake and Charlottetown...failing miserably each time.

Also, more because I'm curious, why are Charter rights not subject to ordinary constituional amendment? Legally speaking I mean.

After all, Quebec used the notwithstanding clause to trump charter rights, didn't they?

Ok first, the notwithstanding clause(s.33) is part of the Charter, and narrowly applicable. So it doesn't trump Charter rights...it IS a Charter right. That was a big selling point of the Charter itself. The clause itself temporarily overrides the rights and freedoms in sections 2 and 7–15 for up to five years, subject to renewal. In the case of Quebec, with language rights, the legislation is always reapproved.

The Charter is not subject to ordinary Constitutional amendment because it limits Parliamentary supremacy, and puts the issue of amendment in the courts. The courts would have the ultimate decision as to whether the amendment to the Charter was permissible. It probably would, barring extraordinary circumstance, but it is a hurdle that would likely not apply to other amendments (assuming they did not violate the Charter).

Genital mutilation and honour killings are already illegal everywhere in Canada. There is no group of immigrants trying to change that. So why does the town need to outlaw them again while pointing a finger at immigrants. It serves no legal purpose, so it must serve another

Exactly. Anything already against the law, there is no reason to re-state. And things like "no veils" are bullshit, racist, and a violation of both religious and personal freedom.

That's interesting. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm fairly certain Quebec never signed onto that 1982 constitution and the Charter rights. (Although that didn't stop them from using the notwithstanding clause.) How can Quebec be held to a section of a constitution that they didn't agree to? Espescially when the amending formula for that constitution requires unanimous consent from the provinces?
Because Quebec liked the charter and enacted a law that is the "Quebec Charter of Rights" which is a carbon copy of the canadian charter. So the constitutionnal debate over Quebec signing is moot.

Also, more because I'm curious, why are Charter rights not subject to ordinary constituional amendment? Legally speaking I mean.

After all, Quebec used the notwithstanding clause to trump charter rights, didn't they?


The notwithstanding clause is an article of the charter and it is why we can use it. Otherwise they're would be no way to bypass the charter.

As for charter vs constitution, I'd have to check but I think it says in the charter that it is more important that the constitution. (hence a need for a notwithstanding clause)

Because Quebec liked the charter and enacted a law that is the "Quebec Charter of Rights" which is a carbon copy of the canadian charter. So the constitutionnal debate over Quebec signing is moot. Actually this isn't totally accurate, because even if Quebec altered its Charter of Rights, it would still be bound by the Canadian Charter of Rights. The provinces didn't have to agree to the Charter, or the new Constitution. They NOW have the right to oppose changes because of the amending formula, but pre 1982, only the Crown could make Constitutional changes...including imposing a new Consitution on Canada.

Quebec is bound by the Constitution regardless. They didn't sign, out of pique, but they are just as bound to it as the rest of us. The notwithstanding clause only applies to certain sections of the Charter, and is PART of the built in Charter restraints.

I think whether or not they are bound to it could be considered debatable. They would certainly be bound to the original BNA, which a democratically elected representative of the provice (or Lower Canada or whatever) would have had to sign for Confederation. At any rate, it's a moot point unless they make a clear resolution for independence anyway.

Ok first, the notwithstanding clause(s.33) is part of the Charter, and narrowly applicable. So it doesn't trump Charter rights...it IS a Charter right. That was a big selling point of the Charter itself. The clause itself temporarily overrides the rights and freedoms in sections 2 and 7–15 for up to five years, subject to renewal. In the case of Quebec, with language rights, the legislation is always reapproved.

The Charter is not subject to ordinary Constitutional amendment because it limits Parliamentary supremacy, and puts the issue of amendment in the courts. The courts would have the ultimate decision as to whether the amendment to the Charter was permissible. It probably would, barring extraordinary circumstance, but it is a hurdle that would likely not apply to other amendments (assuming they did not violate the Charter).

Okay, that makes sense. I just found it odd that a parliamentary body could be held accountable to a constitution/charter that they didn't sign, and without some method to ammend that charter. After all, was 1982 the year of enlightenment, in which all legal matters were suddenly revealed as unalterable?

But, curiosity sated!

not to sound ignorant, but what exactly is the "notwithstanding clause"?

not to sound ignorant, but what exactly is the "notwithstanding clause"?

A clause that say "okay, we know what we're doing isn't right by the charter but we're doing it anyways"

It is limited to five years after which it must be voted upon again.

I think whether or not they are bound to it could be considered debatable. They would certainly be bound to the original BNA, which a democratically elected representative of the provice (or Lower Canada or whatever) would have had to sign for Confederation. At any rate, it's a moot point unless they make a clear resolution for independence anyway. Actually, there is no debate whatsoever. They are bound, period, just as they were bound to the Canada Act of 1867, regardless of being a signatory or not. Just as they were bound by each amendment to that Constitution, regardless of approval or not. If they want independence, that will not mean they were never bound by the Canada Act 1982, simply that they no LONGER will be.


Okay, that makes sense. I just found it odd that a parliamentary body could be held accountable to a constitution/charter that they didn't sign, and without some method to ammend that charter. After all, was 1982 the year of enlightenment, in which all legal matters were suddenly revealed as unalterable?

But, curiosity sated!

Hahahaha, Charter interpretation is still an evolving field, who knows where it will go. Section 1 can never be used to abridge language rights, a nod to Quebec, and the notwithstanding clause still gives a fair bit of political leeway to all the legislative bodies. Refusing to sign the Constitution was a symbolic act, and nothing more.

not to sound ignorant, but what exactly is the "notwithstanding clause"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_Thirty-three_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms

The federal Parliament or a provincial legislature may declare a law or part of a law to apply 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. The rights to be overridden, however, must be either a fundamental right (e.g., section 2 freedom of speech, religion, association, etc), a legal right (e.g., liberty, search and seizure, cruel and unusual punishment, etc), or a section 15 equality right. Other rights such as section 6 mobility rights, democratic rights, and language rights are inalienable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_Thirty-three_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms


A clause that say "okay, we know what we're doing isn't right by the charter but we're doing it anyways"

It is limited to five years after which it must be voted upon again.


Thank you, and thank you :)

Actually, Quebec decides whom to accept or not itself. I cant see why not all states and towns shouldnt be allowed to do that.


No, it doesn't. Quebec can hand-pick candidates for immigration and ask the Federal Government to just do the background check and then give them the visa, but they can't reject anyone who has been accepted by the Federal government.

Actually, there is no debate whatsoever. They are bound, period, just as they were bound to the Canada Act of 1867, regardless of being a signatory or not. Just as they were bound by each amendment to that Constitution, regardless of approval or not. If they want independence, that will not mean they were never bound by the Canada Act 1982, simply that they no LONGER will be.

But what binds them to it, other than their acceptance of it? (And obviously, a majority of them have, so again, it's a moot point. But I like it anyway...). After all, we're a confederacy right? What power does the federal government have but what the signatories give them?

Or are we venturing into monarchial territory here?

But what binds them to it, other than their acceptance of it? (And obviously, a majority of them have, so again, it's a moot point. But I like it anyway...). After all, we're a confederacy right? What power does the federal government have but what the signatories give them?

Or are we venturing into monarchial territory here?
To be honest, it's a legal fiction. Just like the Crown asserting title over all lands in Canada, even under aboriginal title which predates Crown sovereignty. A principle of federalism is that the rights and responsibilities of the provincial and federal governments have to be balanced against one another in a way that ensures the feds don't automatically trump the provinces in all things, and visa versa. What binds Quebec to the Constitution is that majority of provinces accepted it. Oddly enough, the only reason THAT even matters is because the courts said it did in the Patriation Reference....Trudeau originally tried to have the Constitution patriated unilaterally, and was struck down.

But under all this, yes, Quebec could decide it was no longer bound to the Constitution...though there is a Constitutional method of succession set down by the Supreme Court in the Succession Reference which they'd likely follow before striking off on their own to get international recognition:) So, reject the Constitution utterly, or work with it in order to reject it...it doesn't really matter. It just depends on the point of view they end up taking...but realistically, they are bound by the Canada Act 1982, legal fiction or not.

To be honest, it's a legal fiction. Just like the Crown asserting title over all lands in Canada, even under aboriginal title which predates Crown sovereignty. A principle of federalism is that the rights and responsibilities of the provincial and federal governments have to be balanced against one another in a way that ensures the feds don't automatically trump the provinces in all things, and visa versa. What binds Quebec to the Constitution is that majority of provinces accepted it. Oddly enough, the only reason THAT even matters is because the courts said it did in the Patriation Reference....Trudeau originally tried to have the Constitution patriated unilaterally, and was struck down.

But under all this, yes, Quebec could decide it was no longer bound to the Constitution...though there is a Constitutional method of succession set down by the Supreme Court in the Succession Reference which they'd likely follow before striking off on their own to get international recognition:) So, reject the Constitution utterly, or work with it in order to reject it...it doesn't really matter. It just depends on the point of view they end up taking...but realistically, they are bound by the Canada Act 1982, legal fiction or not.

All right, I can see that. By not deciding en masse to leave confederation, they de facto accept the Canadian Constitution, regardless of whether or not they signed on board.

They didn't sign, but they're playing along, and singin' the song. They're still in the game.

Since someone else has attempted to bring this same topic up, I thought I'd revive the much better, and more informed thread.

Since someone else has attempted to bring this same topic up, I thought I'd revive the much better, and more informed thread.
I hate the well informed threads. The posts are much too long in length.

Since someone else has attempted to bring this same topic up, I thought I'd revive the much better, and more informed thread.

I applaud the effort. :)