Bill 62 Is A Subject Of Debate In Quebec

There has been debates about whether the Islamic face veil should be banned in countries. The arguments that governments of countries that have banned the Muslim face veil (France, Syria, Netherlands, Spain, and Belgium) argue that the full-face veil is oppressive, degrading towards women, and goes against values of each country. However, many Muslim women believe otherwise and strongly disagree with the banning of the veil. I strongly believe that the Islamic face veil should not be banned because it is a complete violation of religious and expressive freedom and forces them to conform to an alternative culture.

The entrenchment of rights in the Canadian Constitution comes after long experience with a system of parliamentary supremacy. The American judicial tradition of treating the written constitution as fundamental law cannot have an instant Canadian counterpart. Thus, it does not follow that the Canadian courts will necessarily claim a role comparable to that of courts in the United States, nor is it clear that the representative bodies in Canada would tolerate such a judicial assertion of power. Opposition by government bodies to the Charter have already occurred in Canada, where the Parti Quebecois government of Quebec invoked the “notwithstanding the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms” clause for the purpose of protecting their language laws from attack under the charter. This report will attempt to note some of the common and distinctive features of the text of the two constitutions as well as to how they differ.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms upholds the individual rights of all Canadians. Agree or disagree with the following statement.

The Canadian Charter of Rights has been entrenched in the Constitution Act of 1982 since 1982 and affected the lives of countless Canadians ever since it was passed, with most if not all of the effects being positive. This can be proven by the fact that the act that the act has only faced two amendments in the 35 years it has been in effect. Furthermore, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has five components; Fundamental Freedoms, Democratic Rights, Mobility Rights, Legal Rights, and Equality Rights. All of these were designed to make sure that Canadians face no discrimination, and are not denied any basic rights. This can be seen by seeing how much the quality of life for Canadians has increased over the time the Charter has been embedded in the Constitution, by how much the Charter actually does protect the rights of Canadians.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is an important milestone in Canadian history. An effort through rigorous debate and compromise gave birth to this document that defines our collective values and principles by guaranteeing and protecting the fundamental rights of its citizens. Prior to the Charter, there was no gurantee in Canada that rights and freedoms would not be taken away by legislation. The Charter also allows courts to render the constitutional duty so that any decisions made are consistent with those rights and freedoms. The Charter was established firmly in “The Constitution Act, 1982”, with the declaration of this act Canada escaped from the severe practice of concept of parliamentary supremacy. The Charter has an enormous effect on court’s decision power to award justice to important and debatable issues about policies that affect public. In awarding the verdict courts are not even reluctant to rewrite laws that violate the testament of the Charter. The judges have a duty to regulate the rulings of both provincial and federal governments which, disagree with the root value of Charter.

The necessity to limit the rights and freedoms of Canadians is illustrated and reinforced through the governments use of reasonable limits, ‘notwithstanding clause’ to limit individual rights and freedoms, and the occasional need for the government to have power extended above and beyond the limits prescribed in the Charter.

Pauline Marois graduated with a bachelor’s degree in social services from the University of Laval in 1971 (Parti Québécois, n.d.). She then went on to proceeded, in 1976, to obtain a master’s degree in business administration from the University of Montreal (Parti Québécois, n.d.). She is the leader of the Parti Quebecois since 2007, and is also the Prime minister of Québec since 2012 (Parti Québécois, n.d.). Pauline Marois and the Parti Québécois proposed Bill 60, also known as the Charter of Values, in fall of 2013 (Riga, 2014, para. 7). Therefore the purpose of this paper will be to analyse the goal of this bill, the ways it may be achieved, and the central criticisms of it.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was enacted under the Pierre Trudeau government on April 17, 1982. According to Phillip Bryden, “With the entrenchment of the Charter into the Canadian Constitution, Canadians were not only given an explicit definition of their rights, but the courts were empowered to rule on the constitutionality of government legislation” (101). Prior to 1982, Canada’s central constitutional document was the British North America Act of 1867. According to Kallen, “The BNA Act (the Constitution Act, 1867) makes no explicit reference to human rights” (240). The adoption of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms significantly transformed the operation of Canada’s political system. Presently, Canadians define their

Canada is perceived by other nations as a peace-loving and good-natured nation that values the rights of the individual above all else. This commonly held belief is a perception that has only come around as of late, and upon digging through Canadian history it quickly becomes obvious that this is not the truth. Canadian history is polluted with numerous events upon which the idea that Canada is a role model for Human Rights shows to be false. An extreme example of this disregard for Human Rights takes place at the beginning of the twentieth-century, which is the excessive prejudice and preconceived notions that were held as truths against immigrants attempting to enter Canada. Another prime example of these prejudices and improper

With the government’s public service force not being allowed to wear religious clothing, this right is being compromised. Workers who do wear religious clothing were being stripped of their freedom to practise their religion, and the PQ is thus in violation of another section of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Additionally, section 2 clause (b) presents the freedom of thought, belief, opinion, and expression. This too is being dishonoured, as religious clothing is a form of expression of one’s beliefs, and the government was looking past this. While some may argue that Section 1 of the Charter declares that the Rights and Freedoms are set out with “reasonable limits” there is little reason in the argument presented by the PQ. These reasonable limits are why general public decency and dress codes are permitted, however, there is no reason to limit the wearing of religious

A great Prime Minister should always do what is right for Canada, no matter what obstacle he or she faces. Pierre Elliot Trudeau was undeniably one of Canada's most influential people due to his effort to change our country by creating the Official Language Act, establishing the Charter Rights and Freedom within Canada's constitution and by invoking the War Measures Act during October 1970 Crisis. He achieved many goals he had set for himself which he achieved later on through his years in office.

Bill 62, which was tabled by Justice Minister Stephanie Vallee in 2015, was passed in Quebec with a vote of 66-51. There are an estimated 50 women in the province who wear a niqab or burqa in public, and the vote for the religious neutrality bill has sparked concerns over discrimination against Muslim women, Global News detailed.

As we know from section two of the Canadian Charter of Rights and freedoms everyone has certain fundamental freedoms, and among those rights is the freedom of conscience and religion. Secularism comes as a shock to Canadians because of how many people immigrate to Canada because of its positive attitudes towards multiculturalism. After presenting opposing arguments with concern to the promotion of a secular state through a device such as the Québec Charter, I will that the Charter because it violates basic human rights and forces secularism onto the Quebecois.

Despite what backers of bans claim, restrictions on religious apparel unfairly impacts individuals trying to practice their own religions, and are discriminatory because the effects of these laws obstruct particular religions disproportionately. While governments do have a responsibility to establish and ensure domestic tranquility, prohibiting religious clothing isn’t the proper or effective way to do so. First of all, many currently enacted laws already authorize police and government officials to ask individuals to remove religious coverings in court and during traffic stops as well as in certain legislative buildings (Barker). Therefore, it is unnecessary to ban veils altogether when authorities do not require such an extreme step to identify

Banning the Islamic tradition of wearing the burqa or niqab is repressive and violates the European Convention on Human Rights, which is why it should not be banned in any state in the world. Many government officials have proposed to ban full face coverings in the name of safety. However, it is a human’s right to express themselves through clothing and religion. On its face, the burqa ban is a neutral provision; it refrains from mentioning any specific religion or community, and its main concerns are the promotion of gender equality and women’s rights, and the protection of national security. However, it is common knowledge that the ban is aimed at eliminating the burqas, niqabs, and sitars, worn almost exclusively by Muslim women, from the French public sphere. Statistically, banning the burqa does not make any place safer as very few branches of Islam require a woman to wear the head covering. The banning of the burqa has created many heated protests around France. The burqa ban is a discriminatory and unreasonable limitation on freedom of religion and should be appealed from French law.