The political two-step over Quebec's law that would deny public services to those wearing face coverings is triggering the expected greasy responses from the NDP, the Tories, and the prime minister.
The new leader of the party recently burned over the hijab issue, the NDP's Jagmeet Singh, offered this obscure statement.
NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh was quick to condemn the bill upon its passing.
"I'm completely opposed to the bill, but I am completely confident in the existing protections that are in place in Quebec that will protect human rights," Singh said, adding he believes the law violates human rights.
Way to duck and cover, Jagmeet. He's completely opposed to the law and just as completely confident there's no real problem. Nice one, Jagmeet.
The Tories also stopped well short of demanding the federal government intervene.
"Ultimately, it's up to Quebecers to pass judgment on this legislation. The Conservative Party believes every Canadian has the right to express themselves and practice their religion, not just in private but in public too," said Jake Enwright, director of communications for Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer.
Which brings us to the prevaricator in chief, our prime minister. Yesterday Mr. Trudeau seemed unwilling to get dragged into the fray saying that it's not up to the federal government to challenge the Quebec law. In the same breath Mr. Trudeau said that he believes fundamentally in human rights and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and will always defend that - somehow, maybe, eventually.
Today Mr. Trudeau seemed to react to the overnight criticism by saying that his government is looking into the implications of Quebec's bill 62.
"I will always stand up for the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It's what Canadians expect of me."
He's right. Canadians do expect him to stand up for the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, especially when he has a crystal-clear, per curiam, unanimous interpretation of Charter rights as the Supreme Court of Canada delivered in the Carter assisted death case. Nine to nothing, "one voice," slam dunk ruling only he didn't like it and so, instead of 'always' standing for the Charter and the rule of law, he came up with his own interpretation that is genuinely afoul of the law, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Now it's obvious that the opposition parties are hoping that the niqab/hajib controversy will gore Trudeau as it did Mulcair in the last election and it's just as obvious that Trudeau is terrified at the prospect of this blowing up in his face as it did Mulcair's.
This is not an age of courage and principle. That is long past. This is an age of expedience in the pursuit of personal interest and little else. And so the jackals gnaw on each others' legs, hoping that one of them will be brought down.
Jagmeet Singh and the others know this law will not survive a constitutional challenge in the courts and it will be challenged.
ReplyDeleteAnd they know legally they can't simply block legislation passed by the National Assembly, they don't have the authority constitutionally.
I just don't get these people who want the federal government to violate the constitution to try and block the legislation of a provincial government.
Bad rights abusing legislation gets challenged by the courts in this country not by another level of government, that is dictated by the constitution itself.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteHow does a federal challenge of a provincial law 'violate the constitution' Gyor? Anyone, any government, can bring a Charter challenge of any legislation. Trudeau is right in saying that the feds have an obligation to defend the Charter. I wish he might remind himself of that when he flouts it.
I referring to the idea of actively passing legislation to block, launching a charter challenge is still working through the courts.
ReplyDeleteStill if the Federal government is the ones to do it, instead of Muslim civilians, it could make the Provincial government dig it's heels in as well as many Quebecers who don't like federal interference.
It better and less likely to get hit with the not withstanding clause if challenged and beaten by a civilian.
I referring to the idea of actively passing legislation to block, launching a charter challenge is still working through the courts.
ReplyDeleteStill if the Federal government is the ones to do it, instead of Muslim civilians, it could make the Provincial government dig it's heels in as well as many Quebecers who don't like federal interference.
It better and less likely to get hit with the not withstanding clause if challenged and beaten by a civilian.
Quebec premier Philippe Couillon said in defence of the ban on face coverings, “A covered face isn’t only about religion. You speak to me, I speak to you, I see your face, you see mine. It’s part of communications. It’s a question in my mind that is not solely religious, it’s human."
ReplyDeleteI guess the premier's unfamiliar with providing public services over the phone.
Cap
I guess Cap is unfamiliar with a confusion caused by the lack of a body language when communicating over the phone.
ReplyDelete"You speak to me, I speak to you, I see your face, you see mine. It’s part of communications... it’s human."
It is a part of OUR culture & civilization. Bravo Couillard !
.. yesterday morn ..
ReplyDeleteI was headed to a work site..
An accomplished freelancephotog and video producer ..
who has travelled the world accordingly
I still maintain an eye for 'moments'
Yes.. those indelible moments ..
But now I am just a house painter ..
kinda like the extinct typresetters, I evolved ..
I saw a young Canadian girl ..
She had a headress not far different from
an Egyptian princess.. or First Nations elder..
As she ran toward her mother or minder
I saw the wind from the north sweep her headress ..
& was struch by how exotic & wonderful was the sight..
the moment.. the child the reality ..
There were no politics, no dogma.. no inference or inuendo ..
It was just the moment..
Just a very young Canadian rejoicing with her mom
enroute to school..
Nobody on tnis planet can remove that imagery from my memory bank ..
Not ever.. ever .. not ever ..
it was a privilege to be witness .. lovely moment
If one sees this as 'threat' .. well fill your boots
as an indy blogger once said .. (Mound)
the Salamanders .. have spoken ..
thanks, Mound ..
Anon 6:39, you're right, I'm not very familiar with a confusion caused by the lack of a body language when communicating over the phone. But then, my eyesight is poor and I gesticulate less than your average Quebecer. ;)
ReplyDeleteCap
ReplyDeleteMy take on this headgear business is to ask is it really harming anyone? Is there a danger to this? If so the party wishing to impose his will on others bears a heavy onus of convincingly demonstrating that danger or harm. I don't think it should be enough to argue that this is a symbol of something I don't like. For example, there's a world of difference, to my mind anyway, between the wearing of a niqab and the practice of female genital mutilation. Both may be anchored in culture, possibly even religion (whatever that is), but one is plainly harmful and deserves to be strictly prohibited. As for the other, show me the harm.
This reminds me of nothing so much as that recent story out of Dickinson, Texas where homeowners were not eligible to receive disaster relief unless they vowed not to boycott Israel. Is that the path we're on?
"show me the harm?"
ReplyDeleteNeither you Mound, or Cap, got it.
Let me repeat it:
"You speak to me, I speak to you, I see your face, you see mine. It’s part of communications... it’s human."
What do you guys do not understand in "it’s human?"
How would you like to cross-witness someone in burqa?
Also, I do not see a direct harm of exposed genitals in public :-)
ReplyDeleteWell that explains it, Anon. Those wearing a niqab are less than human.
I was pretty good at cross-examination. I could do it quite well with the witness in another room. I suspect you're getting at how the judge can assess credibility. I've never had the experience but I thought there was some arrangement whereby the witness could remove her head garment in the presence of the judge but shielded from the public. Of course that is where credibility is contested which is much different than the delivery of mundane government services. Apples and oranges.
'
I don't know where you got on to this "exposed genitals" business. My reference was to female genital mutilation, not cavorting buck naked.
"Those wearing a niqab are less than human"
ReplyDeleteThis is your mis-interpretation.
Only because we did not have face-to-face conversation :-)
Regarding "exposed genitals" and "covered face": my point was - what we, humans, choose to cover and/or not, is purely cultural. And, as a Canadian, I want to stick to covered asses and exposed faces.
Is this crystal clear now?
ReplyDeleteThat sounds vaguely like the arguments we used to hear about Sikhs wearing turbans in the military and RCMP and how it was an affront to our Canadian identity.
I think you're getting close to the realm of sophistry here. We have your point, duly noted.
Thanks.
It is my sincere hope that I will not appear as splitting hairs (covered by turbans or not) - but I found reading fleeting hair expressions (as opposed to the facial expressions) exceedingly difficult.
ReplyDeleteThis was and is THE main point - communicating properly with your human fellows. This is not a sophistry, "it’s human" essence.
Anon, let's say I want to use the STM to travel around Montreal. I buy a ticket or an OPUS card at a vending machine. I insert my ticket in the slot on the turnstile when I enter the metro or stick it in the slot when I enter the bus. I then get to ride the STM. At no time do I need to identify myself or speak to anyone. I can join the thousands of Montrealers who everyday go where they like in complete anonymity. So where is the pressing need for me or anyone else to show face on public transit?
ReplyDeleteCap