I'm sure the Canucks in the LR will be in agreement that Quebec'ans aren't really Canucks...

Wait.. what? This is a law supported by Liberals?

No, no, no, it's "religious neutrality"!

http://www.cbc.ca/...ka-bill-62-1.4360121

No. "Canada" did not. Quebec did.

---

Long Chile was a silly place.

"Canada" hasn't adopted this. Quebec has.

Quebec is weird.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

why are you Americans so obsessed with Canada? Get over it, you lost.

---

===============
Proud member of the MSF (Maple Syrup Mafia)

They really are a different breed.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

It's not so simple. Liberals in Canada are the centrist party. NDP is the left wing party, conservative are the right wing party. However, our conservative party is quite a bit further left then your conservative party.

Also, Quebec is a whole other ball of wax. Completely different cultural mindset, language, customs, etc from the rest of Canada. Most from there will proclaim themselves Quebecers first, Canadians second, if at all.

---

Long Chile was a silly place.

But, do Quebecers kneel for the Canadian National Anthem?

---

--------------------------
The secret of a long life is you try not to shorten it.
-Nobody

Liberals are the conservatives of Quebec. Same in British Columbia. It sorta like democrats in Montana being somewhat conservative.

---

They constantly try to escape from the darkness outside and within
Dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good T.S. Eliot

I don't know and certainly don't care. After a while, you kind of just tune out the nonsense coming from that province.

---

Long Chile was a silly place.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

On this one we are waiting to see how it plays out for you before we do the same. Good luck suckers

---

"I think I've cracked the code. double letters are cheaters except for perfect squares (a, d, i, p and y). So Leddy isn't a cheater... "

The real question here is, what’s the Hell’s Angels take on this?

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

Relatively speaking, the are further right then the NDP and further left then the conservatives.

---

Long Chile was a silly place.

The real question here is, what’s the Hell’s Angels take on this?

Since they control the government in Quebec, they must be on the same page...

That’s kind of what I was getting at...

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

I hear this a lot from Canadians. A couple questions:

1. What do you mean by this and

2. How autonomous are the provinces? Is it akin to a state in the US? What I mean is - does federal law override provincial law?

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Does this law also apply to anyone covering one's face? Like a person wearing a mask, stocking, or even a hoodie?

Yes. This is how they are justifying it as not being related to religious beliefs, saying it applies to anyone who wears any form of face covering. Perhaps not a hoodie, unless it had a face mask insert that actually covered the face. In the article, they talk about it applying to bandanas and possibly even large sunglasses.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Quebec is weird.
I hear this a lot from Canadians. A couple questions:

1. What do you mean by this and

A few examples of how they are different.

• It is a French only province so all signs have to be in French only. They actually have a language department that goes around measuring the height of English words to make sure they are not dominant.
• If a Company has an English name (eg. Walmart), they can keep that name but have to add a description in French.
• Quebec has it's own immigration service, independent from the rest of Canada.
• Quebec follows our Federal Criminal justice system which is based on English Common Law but for civil cases, they follow the Napoleonic Code.

So ... it's kinda like your version of Louisiana ...

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

1. Quebec is just different. I can't fully explain it, you have to have lived here, been there and experienced it. A good chunk of the province wants to separate. Their provincial laws ban English signs. Their civil law system is completely different from the rest of the country. Get the gyst here... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_law

2. I am not a lawyer and don't fully understand how this all works. I probably should have a better grasp of our legal system given that my wife is a lawyer.

On a mostly unrelated note: The Law Society of Upper Canada (Ontario's lawyer "college" for lack of a better term) is considering changing it's name. Currently it's initials are LSUC, which is fairly terrible. One of the options they are considering is Law Professionals of Ontario. Or LPOO. (They will try to call it LPO but everyone else will call it LPOO).

You can't make this stuff up.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

Quebec is also the perpetual "swing state" in Canadian politics. The parties generally split up the vote in the rest of the country but Quebec usually votes as a unit so if you get Quebec you win federally. Most of our prime ministers in the last 30-40 years have come from Quebec. They are the tail that wags the dog and people don't like that.

---

They constantly try to escape from the darkness outside and within
Dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good T.S. Eliot

Well the NDP took Quebec last time...

Also, most Prime Ministers come from Quebec because a. you need to be billingual. b. Frenchies don't generally vote for Anglophones.

That said, Stephen Harper's French is terrible and he's from Ontario. He managed to stay in power for quite some time.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

That's why I used the words generally and usually. LSUC and LPOO to you. :)

---

They constantly try to escape from the darkness outside and within
Dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good T.S. Eliot

You didn't use the word generally. And as goes The Greater Toronto Area, so goes the Federal Election.

People (outside of Ontario) really, really don't like that.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

Its all fun and games until the law snares innocent shark-men.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/...ria-s-burka-ban.html


A man dressed as a shark is arrested under Austria's burka ban laws while working as a mascot outside a shop. The employee was standing outside a computer store called McShark when officers told him to remove the shark head under the Austria head covering law. He was arrested when he refused. The man protested he was 'just doing his job' but Austrian police slapped him with a fine.

Its a good thing Austria does not celebrate Halloween, or else there would be a lot of arrests....

---

Remember - It's important to be comfortable in your own skin... because it turns out society frowns on wearing other people's

I don't know why I bother to vote provincially. Our MPP is always conservative and Toronto (sorry GTA) decides who wins.

---

They constantly try to escape from the darkness outside and within
Dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good T.S. Eliot

Since the Canadians on this forum haven't replied adequately in the legal sense, this ex pat will try.

After the Brits defeated the French, they allowed a few concessions to prevent future civil war, which Canada bears the burden of to this day. The Catholic church was given huge control in Quebec, the French language was allowed to remain (giving rise t to bilingualism and its related issues). But more importantly to you as a lawyer, is they were allowed to retain their legal system based on Roman law, while the rest of the country is based on British common law. Effectively a case that is challenged at a supreme court level must fulfill both legal systems.
This current case will fail in the courts.
Add to your later question, provincial rights, like state rights, are fairly strong. But you still need to follow federal legal standards.

---

Jim
"In dog beers, I've only had one"
http://www.shakercolonial.com/
Creating custom made furnishing to your requirements

But more importantly to you as a lawyer, is they were allowed to retain their legal system based on Roman law, while the rest of the country is based on British common law.


I did respond earlier to JSA and noted that in Quebec, they follow English common law for criminal law but the Napoleonic Code (Roman Law) in civil cases.


I'm a tax accountant and there are also a lot of situations where things apply except in Quebec as they have a lot of their own rules. I don't bother reading the rules that apply there because like most Canadians outside of Quebec, I don't care...

Sorry missed that

---

Jim
"In dog beers, I've only had one"
http://www.shakercolonial.com/
Creating custom made furnishing to your requirements

While your statement is correct, he is generally regarded as being from Alberta as he moved there in his early twenties where he was educated and worked during that time and throughout his further career. And for the record, I loved how he conveyed (butchered) the french language.

---

A false humanity is used to impose its opposite, by people whose cruelty is equalled only by their arrogance

QC Liberal Party...

This law was passed to appease more conservative voters. It won't stand up to a constitutional challenge.

---

___________________________________________
http://en.wikipedia.org/...eoesophageal_fistula
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerebral_palsy
2020 National Masters Champion - M40-44 - 400m IM
Canadian Record Holder 35-39M & 40-44M - 200 m Butterfly (LCM)

This. I hate the pandering party leaders do appease Quebec voters.

If you can't speak French, you'll never be PM.

---

Long Chile was a silly place.

So, if I claim my religious beliefs require me to cover the license plate on my car, I can, and the police can't pull me over etc?

you're fucked

but La Meute is a real sentiment.

http://www.cbc.ca/...t-la-meute-1.3876225

---

___________________________________________
http://en.wikipedia.org/...eoesophageal_fistula
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerebral_palsy
2020 National Masters Champion - M40-44 - 400m IM
Canadian Record Holder 35-39M & 40-44M - 200 m Butterfly (LCM)

Quebec is about 25% of the population. As a rule if you don't win Quebec you'll never form a government. The only reason Harper stayed in for so long was that Quebec voted neither Liberal or Conservative for those years but for their own provincial parties. Had Quebec voted Liberal as they historically did then Harper would have been turfed long before he was.

Does Scheer speak French btw? I don't give the Cons much chance next election if he doesn't.

The fact that the Bloc is even a federal party is a complete joke.

---

Long Chile was a silly place.

So true, god, so damn true. Can you imagine if Alberta's Wild Rose Party was a federal party? It makes about as much sense.

Is it really unreasonable/unconstitutional to have a law that says people must be reasonably recognizable/identifiable in public places?

I'm generally inclined to say that it is, in fact, unreasonable/unconstitutional. I have absolutely no right to know who a person is if I see them on the street; I can't go up and demand to know who they are, see their ID, etc. So what right do I have to be able to see/identify a person's face if I wanted to, and they have it covered?

Invariably people have a fear response to, "well then how will I identify them if they go on a killing spree!? (or somesuch crime)", to which you have to wonder if that person is really going to be deterred by a law that doesn't allow them to cover their face while murdering people? Would they really figure, "yeah, I'm up for robbing a bank, but I guess I can't wear a mask anymore?"

Yes, there are very specific times where we have agreed that being able to identify a person is important. Airport security may need an option to identify a person before allowing them on an airplane; that does not mean I, as another passenger, have the right to ID every person that is on the plane with me. If I don't feel comfortable not having the ability to violate the privacy of other passengers, that is my own problem and I am free to seek alternatives.

I suspect the law will eventually be struck down, perhaps as part of a federal challenge.

Maybe true, but in this case, the law only seems to prohibit having your face covered when using public services. People can cover their faces if they like, until they need to go to city hall for a marriage license, or to court to pay a speeding ticket, etc.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Is it really unreasonable/unconstitutional to have a law that says people must be reasonably recognizable/identifiable in public places?

x2. Once you step out, there is a certain amount of privacy that you give up even if you don't like it or think it infringes on your rights (ie. traffic cameras, security cameras). To have people uncover their faces when riding public transport isn't really that much of an infringement and if it is, it's probably best if you stay in your home.

They aren't requiring people to walk around with their full name and SSN posted on their back. And generally speaking, most people would not be able to determine who someone is by looking at their face (unless they already knew them), but would be able to identify them after the fact if necessary.

If you have a right to be anonymous in public, why can't you cover up your license plate? That is personally identifiable information posted right in public.

"When using public services" includes things like taking the bus. Or even waiting in line for a driving license renewal. (Yes, the law hasn't been explicit on this, and people are "seeking clarification", which tends to imply that the law is at the very least poorly written.) Like I mentioned, there are certain times that certain people (usually, but not always, government officials) will need to confirm your identity. This goes well beyond that, in its present form.

Because people generally don't have the right to run a license plate to look up personal information; a car doesn't have a right to privacy, it can be identified, i.e. "Officer, I saw a car with license plate X go by". I can't, however, go into police records to look up the owner of a car.

Back to the matter of being able to see the face, it's not a question of whether or not you can ID a person from just their face (although that's becoming increasingly easy to do with new tech, but is neither here nor there). The issue is that I do not have a right to see someone's face when they are out in public. There is nothing that demands I be able to do that. If someone refuses to turn around to face me, it shouldn't be illegal for them not to comply; there's no cause for a law that bars a law-abiding person from covering their face. If a person IS breaking a law, they should be prosecuted as such; we don't need a law like this to help in any real way that justifies invading their right to privacy.

Or take a city bus, when it's -30*C, and you're wearing a balaclava or similar face covering because it's so cold out...

---

Long Chile was a silly place.

Who the hell wears a balaclava? Typical BC cold weather pussy...

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

Then, if you're weak enough to need a balaclava, you get to take it off when you get on the bus, where presumably you don't need it anymore anyway.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Come spend a winter, hell, a week in the winter out here working with me.

You'll be pissing and moaning about the cold and rain in no time.

Balaclavas are useless here.

---

Long Chile was a silly place.

Yeah 5 C and raining will really break my spirit. Life is tough on the west coast.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

It's a damp cold!!!

---

Long Chile was a silly place.

You keep telling yourself that, sissy boy.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

You can't see my tears behind my balaclava of shame.

---

Long Chile was a silly place.

Bullshit. The province is mostly Catholic and most Catholic's are liberals.

The province stopped being Catholic (capital C) a long while ago.

Serious question, what’s the coldest it gets there?

Have you ever experienced -30C with a -45C wind chill?

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

Yes, but that doesn't mean the attitudes & beliefs have completely died. The face covering regulation isn't about conservatism, it's about Quebec and it's endemic racism starting with the language laws.

The coldest I have experienced here is -15*C.

No, I haven't experienced those kinds of temps. However, my good friend recently returned from 5 years of working in Saskatoon. It gets a bit chilly there. He does admit that our 15 below feels a hell of a lot colder then 15 below in Saskatoon. Not -45*C cold, but much colder then it looks on paoer. The dampness. It flows through you.

---

Long Chile was a silly place.

Yeah it isn’t exactly a dry cold here either.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

Fair enough.

I should add, it dips below -10 here maybe once a year, and for a couple days. We might get a couple of weeks below freezing over the course of the winter. Usually it's between 0-10*C, and the bad rain and storms are more late winter through early spring. Up until December it can be quite nice.

---

Long Chile was a silly place.

Good move...you do not want a moose posing as a Muslim. Such a hoser move..,

---

_____________________
Fester from Detroit, Mi

Typically Canadian thread. Can't agree on politics so how's the weather where you are?

When I was a kid I used to get the words balaclava and baklava confused. Pretty sure I also threw balalaika in there every once in a while just for added comedy at my expense.

Carry on.

I will tell you I worked outside in forestry for 4 years in Alberta and while -30 sucks, the coldest days to be outside all day are about +1 and either rain or wet snow. Don't get me wrong the west coast are still a bunch of wimps, but if I have to pick either of those two options for working outside I'll go -30 every time.
Ben

Agreed. Though the language laws were originally more about preserving language as a part of culture than race explicitly. Quebec immigration has long had a focus on French speakers such as Haiti and West Africa - though also being Christian origin also undoubtedly helped.

This is about xenophobia, no question.

SUCK IT, BLEP.

---

Long Chile was a silly place.

I don't follow Canadian politics at all, but generally speaking, are you saying it's xenophobic to draft laws that preserve cultural norms, or are you saying there's a specific and irrational fear of Muslims which qualifies it as xenophobia?

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

It's a law designed to appease a certain segment of voters - those who see the immigration of people's from certain places (over others) as a bad thing. The law won't likely stand a constitutional challenge so it mostly comes down to value signaling.

I get that, and it's definitely not unique to Quebec. How much of the "over there" factor has to do with how immigrants from some regions of the world historically assimilate, or fail to, into Quebec (or elsewhere), though?

I had this conversation with a friend recently, and took the "xenophobic" position for the sake of argument. If the net result of immigration from various regions of the world is increasing ethnic diversity that assimilates into the culture and fabric of their new country (shared values, cultural norms, primary language, etc.) then I see it as a benefit, or at least neutral, in terms of immigration policy. Conversely, if the net result is increasing divergence and balkanized populations within the country, regardless of their ethnicity or origin, I don't see how that advances a nation's goal or cultural identity. I think a representative government should act on that interest, within reason and legal framework, if it indeed reflects the will of the people it represents.

I made the point that only in the West do we stress the importance of cultural diversity as a primary goal, though it applies only to Western nations (you'll rarely if ever hear those same people advocating for Westernizing or diversifying other cultures, which is curious), though it's somewhat tangential to the question.

Quebec, from this outsider's view, is fiercely protective of its identity, and so it doesn't surprise me that they would push back hard against populations that pose a threat to their historical cultural identity. That doesn't strike me as irrational fear of outsiders (i.e. xenophobia) but rather a deliberate effort to protect it from cultural balkanization.

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

A bit of back pedaling... I mean clarification, going on.

http://www.cbc.ca/...es-bill-62-1.4368594

It's a law designed to appease a certain segment of voters - those who see the immigration of people's from certain places (over others) as a bad thing. The law won't likely stand a constitutional challenge so it mostly comes down to value signaling.

That is certainly a part of it but Quebec has a long history of being controlled by the Catholic Church and with the movement away from organized religion, the people want a secular government. Wearing a burqa is an outwardly expression of religion which they want to ban.

There is also a growing angst against how the wearing of a burqa appears to show the control of men over women and that upsets a lot of the liberal minded voters in Quebec. Some of the most liberal countries in the world ban the wearing of burqas. For example, Norway bans (or is planning to) ban the wearing of burqas in schools and universities.

It's not just Quebec and it's not just about being anti-Muslim.

Just read an article saying that someone at U de Montreal did a study and it is estimated about 100 women in Quebec wear the niquab. So we now have bus drivers who have to decide if a woman has to alter her garb to get on a bus in a snowstorm in Montreal with her children. Likely we will have to have some sorts of inspectors to resolve cases of dispute etc. It looks like a solution in search of a problem. Quebec is a society that grants a woman the right to abort an unborn with no questions asked but women cannot decide what headgear to wear? On the other side of the debate the purported purpose of such garb is modesty when it fact it has the opposite effect it attracts attention because it is so unusual and is making a political statement. Strange world we live in.

---

They constantly try to escape from the darkness outside and within
Dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good T.S. Eliot