News:

And we're back!

Main Menu

[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

Started by Josephus, March 22, 2011, 09:27:34 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Grey Fox

Quote from: Oexmelin on December 01, 2017, 09:30:09 AM
Speak for yourself. It's not a regional thing, it's a generational thing.

It doesn't bother much the older people I know here. Does it bother the young in region?
Colonel Caliga is Awesome.

Malthus

Quote from: Oexmelin on December 01, 2017, 10:18:27 AM
?

Of course, the situation is one which applies only in Montreal. What GF is saying is that it bothers people from outside Montreal, whereas Montrealers don't care.

Passing a (non coercive) resolution at the provincial level that affects a situation only in a single pivotal city makes it look exactly like a provincial-regional-vs-city matter; or rather, playing the (very normal everywhere) regions-vs-big-city politics card. 

If people in that city thought it was an issue, presumably it would be brought up at the city level. 

It apparently isn't the case that actual people from the regions are being offended by a greeting used in Montreal (any more than actual people in Montreal apparently care). Rather, it appears to be a proxy for concerns raised about an alleged statistical decline in the use of French in business.

http://montrealgazette.com/news/quebec/much-ado-about-bonjour-hi-quebec-politicians-squabble-over-popular-greeting

QuoteTriggered by new statistics showing a slight drop in the use of French as the predominant language in the workplace in Quebec, politicians were suddenly falling over backward to trash the common expression — a symbol of the province's linguistic peace for years.

Up first was Parti Québécois Leader Jean-François Lisée who, statistics in hand, used his time in daily question period in the legislature to describe the greeting as the "symbol of widespread bilingualism in Montreal today."

Collard countered that the younger generation doesn't care as much, so I can see why you say it is a generational thing - but the better view seems to be that it is a regional thing.

It isn't a mystery that this is an issue of greater concern outside of Montreal, which views stuff happening inside of Montreal as symbolic of wider concerns. It is playing to the provincial gallery.




The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane—Marcus Aurelius

Grey Fox

Colonel Caliga is Awesome.

Oexmelin

Quote from: Malthus on December 01, 2017, 10:50:58 AMPassing a (non coercive) resolution at the provincial level that affects a situation only in a single pivotal city makes it look exactly like a provincial-regional-vs-city matter; or rather, playing the (very normal everywhere) regions-vs-big-city politics card. 

Mostly because everybody knows language policy is played out at the Provincial level, and everybody knows it will *only* be a concern in Montreal (and close-by Laval). And *of course* it's a proxy for larger issues. No one thinks the problem is the actual word "hi" unless they are willfully obtuse. 

I diagnose it being a generational thing because the people in the service industry are typically younger, because it is those younger people who greet people that way, and because it fits with my experience in Montreal and in the regions. But I am sure you know best how things play out in Quebec politics.
Que le grand cric me croque !

crazy canuck

I watched the live feed of the submissions to the SCC in the TWU case over the last two days.  This involves the refusal of the BC and Ontario law societies to accredit Trinity Western University's law school because the University requires its students to agree to a code of conduct which prohibits intimate relations outside marriage between a man and a woman.  A code which the law societies found breached the Charter's equality provision.

The case is significant because a similar issue was addressed by the SCC in 2001 in TWU's favour when TWU's teaching program was denied accreditation on a similar basis.   It appears the Court may be willing to revisit that decision or at least distinguish it.

The outcome of this case will be very significant in defining the rights of religious groups to organize their own communities in accordance with their genuinely held religious beliefs.


Malthus

Quote from: Oexmelin on December 01, 2017, 12:37:02 PM
But I am sure you know best how things play out in Quebec politics.

I know best? Not at all.

I'm merely saying that as between two people who both happen to be from Quebec, one person's theory accords better with facts as disclosed in newspapers etc. than the others'.

Why shouldn't I believe GF? He actually lives there. The newspapers seem to back him up.

I'm not claiming any of this as my personal knowledge of the situation.   










The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane—Marcus Aurelius

Oexmelin

But that's not what you did. You were explaining basic facts about the issue to me. Which would have been obvious if you had followed the stories of the past few weeks about language in Montreal, as they unfolded in the French-language press.

Que le grand cric me croque !

Barrister

Quote from: crazy canuck on December 01, 2017, 01:35:32 PM
I watched the live feed of the submissions to the SCC in the TWU case over the last two days.  This involves the refusal of the BC and Ontario law societies to accredit Trinity Western University's law school because the University requires its students to agree to a code of conduct which prohibits intimate relations outside marriage between a man and a woman.  A code which the law societies found breached the Charter's equality provision.

The case is significant because a similar issue was addressed by the SCC in 2001 in TWU's favour when TWU's teaching program was denied accreditation on a similar basis.   It appears the Court may be willing to revisit that decision or at least distinguish it.

The outcome of this case will be very significant in defining the rights of religious groups to organize their own communities in accordance with their genuinely held religious beliefs.

They didn't find the code of conduct violated the Charter - because TWU is a private institution and the Charter does not apply to it.

The story of the BC Law society is far wilder than your summary (I'm positive you know it CC, but for the benefit of others).  LSBC initially approved the law school  This outraged a number of lawyers, who through some means got all of the lawyers in BC to vote in a referendum against accrediting TWU, after which the LSBC benchers voted to confirm.  Problem is - since when do minority rights get decided by a majority vote?

I wouldn't want my kids to go to TWU, but I'm very troubled at which way this could go.
Posts here are my own private opinions.  I do not speak for my employer.

Malthus

Quote from: Oexmelin on December 01, 2017, 02:21:51 PM
But that's not what you did. You were explaining basic facts about the issue to me. Which would have been obvious if you had followed the stories of the past few weeks about language in Montreal, as they unfolded in the French-language press.

I haven't claimed to have been following this for weeks. On the contrary - I first heard about it here. 

Then I debated it - which is kinda what this place is for. Using facts I looked up, exactly because I wasn't familiar with them. 

The issue was simple - is this a regions vs. Montreal thing, as GF says, or an age-related thing, as you say?

The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane—Marcus Aurelius

crazy canuck

Quote from: Barrister on December 01, 2017, 02:52:06 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 01, 2017, 01:35:32 PM
I watched the live feed of the submissions to the SCC in the TWU case over the last two days.  This involves the refusal of the BC and Ontario law societies to accredit Trinity Western University's law school because the University requires its students to agree to a code of conduct which prohibits intimate relations outside marriage between a man and a woman.  A code which the law societies found breached the Charter's equality provision.

The case is significant because a similar issue was addressed by the SCC in 2001 in TWU's favour when TWU's teaching program was denied accreditation on a similar basis.   It appears the Court may be willing to revisit that decision or at least distinguish it.

The outcome of this case will be very significant in defining the rights of religious groups to organize their own communities in accordance with their genuinely held religious beliefs.

They didn't find the code of conduct violated the Charter - because TWU is a private institution and the Charter does not apply to it.

That is only the beginning of the analysis.


The argument of the law societies on judicial review was that they are bound by the Charter and so they get to consider, as a matter of balancing charter rights, the discriminatory nature of the of the code of conduct.  That position was also the core of the Law society of Ontario in their oral submissions before the Court.  Counsel for the law society of BC dealt with the failure of the body to exercise its statutory decision making power (by improperly delegating the decision to a referendum vote) by saying that the Court needs to step in to do the balancing exercise the law society failed to do.


Malthus

Quote from: crazy canuck on December 01, 2017, 03:24:20 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 01, 2017, 02:52:06 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 01, 2017, 01:35:32 PM
I watched the live feed of the submissions to the SCC in the TWU case over the last two days.  This involves the refusal of the BC and Ontario law societies to accredit Trinity Western University's law school because the University requires its students to agree to a code of conduct which prohibits intimate relations outside marriage between a man and a woman.  A code which the law societies found breached the Charter's equality provision.

The case is significant because a similar issue was addressed by the SCC in 2001 in TWU's favour when TWU's teaching program was denied accreditation on a similar basis.   It appears the Court may be willing to revisit that decision or at least distinguish it.

The outcome of this case will be very significant in defining the rights of religious groups to organize their own communities in accordance with their genuinely held religious beliefs.

They didn't find the code of conduct violated the Charter - because TWU is a private institution and the Charter does not apply to it.

That is only the beginning of the analysis.


The argument of the law societies on judicial review was that they are bound by the Charter and so they get to consider, as a matter of balancing charter rights, the discriminatory nature of the of the code of conduct.  That position was also the core of the Law society of Ontario in their oral submissions before the Court.  Counsel for the law society of BC dealt with the failure of the body to exercise its statutory decision making power (by improperly delegating the decision to a referendum vote) by saying that the Court needs to step in to do the balancing exercise the law society failed to do.

It will be fascinating to see how the Court deals with this. Whichever way it goes, it is likely to be a landmark case.
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane—Marcus Aurelius

Barrister

Quote from: crazy canuck on December 01, 2017, 03:24:20 PM
That is only the beginning of the analysis.

Of course, and I didn't say otherwise.  But that was one of the starting points.  Everyone agreed the Code is discriminatory, and everyone agreed it was not contrary to the Charter for TWU to make the Code.

Oh, also everyone agreed there was no reason to think that TWU graduates would be unqualified to practice law, or that they would be discriminatory.
Posts here are my own private opinions.  I do not speak for my employer.

Malthus

Quote from: Barrister on December 01, 2017, 03:33:21 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 01, 2017, 03:24:20 PM
That is only the beginning of the analysis.

Of course, and I didn't say otherwise.  But that was one of the starting points.  Everyone agreed the Code is discriminatory, and everyone agreed it was not contrary to the Charter for TWU to make the Code.

Oh, also everyone agreed there was no reason to think that TWU graduates would be unqualified to practice law, or that they would be discriminatory.

It's interesting - a sort of Roncarelli v Duplessis situation, arguably. Presumably the College will argue that the decision was made on grounds irrelevant to licensing law schools, and so was arbitrary.

I haven't read any of the materials, though I guess now I had better!  :lol:
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane—Marcus Aurelius

crazy canuck

Quote from: Barrister on December 01, 2017, 03:33:21 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 01, 2017, 03:24:20 PM
That is only the beginning of the analysis.

everyone agreed it was not contrary to the Charter for TWU to make the Code.


But you are missing the point.  You said the law societies did not find that the code breached the Charter.  That is the very bit you highlighted from my first post.  In fact the law society of Ontario expressly found it did and the law society of BC impliedly found the breach by accepting the referendum result.

crazy canuck

Quote from: Malthus on December 01, 2017, 03:39:07 PM
It's interesting - a sort of Roncarelli v Duplessis situation, arguably. Presumably the College will argue that the decision was made on grounds irrelevant to licensing law schools, and so was arbitrary.

I haven't read any of the materials, though I guess now I had better!  :lol:

Yes, TWU argues the law societies were incorrect to consider whether the code of conduct breached the Charter because that was not within their legislative authority.  TWU argues the only authority of the law society is to consider whether the academic program is appropriate - and there is no issue that it is.  The only issue is whether the law societies could go further and balance Charter rights when considering the discriminatory impact of the code.