Dr. Pimple Popper squeezed “eggplant” straight from the man’s cheek

CBC

Canada faces the consequences of controversial constitutional provisions in determining Quebec’s religious symbols

In Quebec nationalist mythology, “Night of the Long Knives” refers to an overnight negotiation session at the Chateau Lorier Hotel in Ottawa, where constitutional talks took place in the fall of 1981. That night, state representatives reached an agreement to help. Extensive reform of Pierre Trudeau. Quebec’s Prime Minister, René Lévesque, then refused to attend, felt betrayed, and eventually refused to sign the Constitution, for reasons still under discussion. However, it was at that meeting that the state supported the reform, provided it included a “despite clause.” Fearing the loss of autonomy of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the state extracted a compromise from Trudeau and allowed it to invalidate part of its five-year renewable charter. Jean Chrétien, then Minister of Justice of Trudeau, downplayed its importance at the time. It would only be used to “correct the absurd situation,” he told the House of Commons. Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau stretches to shake hands with Quebec Prime Minister René Lévesque at the start of the first ministerial meeting in Ottawa on November 2, 1981. In this series of talks, the state “despite the provisions” (Bill Grimshaw / Canadian Press) Certainly, at some point in the 1990s, the provisions were rarely used, so some jurisprudence One wondered if he was virtually dead. Since then, however, it has been called from time to time. Fast forward to June 2019. Quebec’s Prime Minister of the Nationalist Party, François Gargaux, has passed a major legislation of his government that bans religious symbols in the majority of civil servants. Especially Muslim women feel targeted. Civil rights groups have accused the government of discriminating against minorities. However, in passing the Laicity Act, Legault nevertheless invoked the clause, hoping to protect it from allegations of infringing the rights currently protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedom. And if the law cherished by Quebec’s Nationalist Party is still almost intact today, it’s mainly because of the provisions — the negotiations were agreed behind Levesque. On Tuesday, when legally infringing or being saved by provisions, a judge in the Quebec High Court filed the first set of constitutional law against the Laicity Act, widely known as the Bill or Law 21. We have ruled the opposition. In a 240-page ruling, Judge Marc-André Blanchard upheld most of the provisions prohibiting teachers, police officers, prosecutors and other civil servants from wearing religious symbols in the workplace. But in some respects, Blanchard also states that the law violates the fundamental rights of the state’s religious minorities. “”[Bill 21] It has serious and negative consequences for all who display the symbol of religion in public, “he wrote at one point. Muslim women in particular felt negative, “he added, violating both religious freedom and freedom of expression. However, despite this provision, plaintiffs are prevented from resorting to religious freedom, freedom of expression, or the right of the Charter to protect sexual equality. Blanchard explains that it doesn’t matter which rights are invalidated by the terms. The important thing is to follow the proper steps when calling it, as Quebec did. There was a feeling among law proponents that it wasn’t there. The clause would have declared the ban on religious symbols unconstitutional. “Nevertheless, thanks to the provisions, it was the legislator’s choice that won. Guillaume Rousseau, a law professor who advised the government on the bill and represented a secular group in court, said,” Regardless, it’s a victory. ” It was Blanchard’s decision to exempt British schools from the ban on religious symbols because of their right to minority language education. These rights in Section 23 of the Charter cannot nonetheless be revoked by clause. Nevertheless, he has long emphasized his reservation of how the Quebec government used it in this case. In the past, the clause was usually nevertheless invoked if the legislature did not agree. Although the court’s decision and a limited number of charter rights were revoked, Bill 21 proactively invoked the clause. That is, the court is blocked from the first decision. When a basic infringement occurs. The law also includes a total suspension of all rights in Sections 2 and 7 to 15 of the Charter, as well as rights unrelated to secularism. Blanchard calls this “trouble” and points out that the law suspends attorneys’ rights and attorney / client privileges. He said the government had shown “indifference to the rights and freedoms of the affected people,” seeking to ensure that the law was applied “at all sacrifices.” Some readers of the decision were left to feel that Blanchard, intentionally or unintentionally, nevertheless exposed the widespread consequences of the clause. In passing the Laval University law, Prime Minister François Legoe nevertheless invoked the clause, hoping to protect it from allegations of infringing the rights currently protected by the Constitution. He points out in his decision. ” The decision highlights the vulnerability of Canadian minority rights when “the legislature does not have the instinct to check its power,” said Robert Lecky, a constitutional expert and dean of the McGill University Faculty of Law. Said that. He said that limiting the use of the clause would never necessarily require a constitutional amendment. For example, courts can more aggressively issue injunctions against laws that nevertheless use the clause extensively. However, changing the scope of the provisions nevertheless would jeopardize the negotiations at the heart of the 1981 constitutional compromise of Laval University, which testified to the Quebec government in a trial of Bill 21. Law professor Patrick Taillon said. At its core, the negotiation was to give elected members, not judges, the final say on how society should be governed. “It may be an era when public confidence in politicians is being lost, but what is the alternative? Judges are always right in every situation,” Taillon said. “We have to think about it twice.”