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?