Intégrisme: la «montée» imaginaire | Jean-François Cliche | Élections québécoises

Intégrisme: la «montée» imaginaire | Jean-François Cliche | Élections québécoises

(Québec) Lundi, en nos pages, la
candidate péquiste dans Bellechasse Linda Goupil disait voir les signes
d'une montée de l'intégrisme religieux au Québec, citant le cas d'une
équipe de l'Université Laval dont un membre dérangeait les réunions pour
aller prier, et celui d'une femme en bikini dans une pataugeoire de
Sillery qui avait senti le besoin de se couvrir après l'arrivée de
femmes voilées.

Mme Goupil n'était pas la première candidate du Parti québécois à
tenir ce genre de discours. La semaine dernière, sa chef Pauline Marois
parlait d'un «risque d'infiltration» par des intégristes musulmans. «On
l'a vu, a-t-elle déclaré. Il y a quelques représentants d'une vision
intégriste de leur religion qui sont venus donner des conférences ou
rencontrer des gens au Québec. Il faut s'en inquiéter.»





Dans tous les cas, ce sont des musulmans qui sont montrés du doigt.
Alors voyons voir si les faits soutiennent l'idée d'une montée de
l'intégrisme islamique.

Councillors, even a mayor, excluded from small town caucus meetings

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Councillors+even+mayor+excluded+from+small+town+caucus+meetings/9628237/story.html

Too dense. Too loose-lipped. Too contrarian.
Those are some of the excuses town councils have used to justify expelling a local councillor or mayor from the council’s private caucus meetings.
In January, a majority of council members in Senneville and in Town of Mount Royal each barred a local elected official from attending any more of their monthly closed-door gatherings, where they admit they debate and negotiate council business.

Paul Wells: The legal realities missing from the sovereignty debate in Quebec

The legal realities missing from the sovereignty debate in Quebec


So: U.S. recognition would be “an essential condition” of achieving secession over Ottawa’s objection. And there was no way to obtain it. Secession would happen by negotiation or it would not happen at all. And it’s hardly clear that it could happen by negotiation. Quebec’s PQ government may believe it can ignore Canada’s Constitution, but (a) it’s wrong and (b) the rest of Canada couldn’t. Secession would require constitutional amendments and therefore the consent of every provincial legislature. Alberta and British Columbia require their own referendums before ratifying any constitutional amendment. So a Quebec secession referendum would automatically trigger at least two others, on a deal whose terms are also spelled out in the Clarity Act: “division of assets and liabilities, any changes to the borders of the province, the rights, interests and territorial claims of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada, and the protection of minority rights.”

10 of the best Tony Benn quotes - as picked by our readers | Politics | theguardian.com

10 of the best Tony Benn quotes - as picked by our readers | Politics | theguardian.com

Tony Benn was known as an eloquent and inspirational speaker. Here are
ten of his most memorable quotes, as picked by Guardian readers

William Johnson: Hard truths for separatists

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/03/12/william-johnson-hard-truths-for-separatists/

The basic assumption is that the merest majority Oui vote, in a referendum structured entirely by the Quebec government, grants a mandate for Quebec to secede, unconditionally. That assumption is confirmed by a law on the books in Quebec, passed in 2000 under premier Lucien Bouchard, and titled Bill 99, An Act respecting the exercise of the fundamental rights and prerogatives of the Québec people and the Québec State.
This law, now challenged before the courts, was defended by the supposedly federalist government of Jean Charest. It’s generally accepted by Quebec’s public opinion as normal and legitimate, despite the fact that it contradicts head-on the Supreme Court of Canada’s 1998 decision in the reference on Quebec’s secession.

Bataille linguistique sur Facebook: l'OQLF retire sa plainte | Guillaume St-Pierre | Actualités

Bataille linguistique sur Facebook: l'OQLF retire sa plainte | Guillaume St-Pierre | Actualités

L'Office québécois de la langue française (OQLF) a retiré sa plainte visant une commerçante de Chelsea.

La propriétaire d'une boutique de vêtements, Eva Cooper, pourra continuer de privilégier l'anglais dans ses publications sur la page Facebook de son commerce, mais devra à tout le moins ajouter un mot en français.
«Je suis satisfaite. Je pense que leur position s'est adoucie», a commenté Mme Cooper.

Le Parti vert du Québec sera éco-socialiste | Métro

Le Parti vert du Québec sera éco-socialiste | Métro

MONTRÉAL – Le Parti vert du Québec entend diversifier ses politiques en vue des prochaines élections, afin d’augmenter ses appuis.
Le nouveau chef Alex Tyrrell, en poste depuis 5 mois, explique que le Parti vert sera une formation éco-socialiste.
Ainsi, l’environnement demeurera sa priorité, mais le parti défendra aussi un système de santé public, et proposera entre autres un programme universel de soins dentaires pour tous les Québécois. Il est également en faveur de la gratuité du transport en commun.

Don Macpherson: Diane De Courcy’s Bonjour-Hi remark isn’t so funny

Don Macpherson: Diane De Courcy’s Bonjour-Hi remark isn’t so funny

We laugh at the apparent pettiness of Diane De Courcy’s attempt to
discourage Montreal businesses from greeting customers with a “Hi” as
well as a “Bonjour.”

Nevertheless, the Parti Québécois language minister’s remarks this week
about “Bonjour-Hi,” an offer to serve the customer in either French or
English, have serious implications for English-speaking Quebecers.

For
it’s an attempt by the PQ government, by pressure if not legislation,
to discourage not only private businesses from offering service in
English, but even individuals from speaking English in public.

Op-Ed: The other notwithstanding clause (Section 28)

Op-Ed: The other notwithstanding clause

It seems obvious that there will be constitutional challenges to
Quebec’s proposed Charter of Values, which prohibits “conspicuous”
religious symbols for provincial civil servants and contains other
requirements purportedly relating to the removal of religion from the
provision of government services (and even some non-governmental
services, like daycares.)

Usually, the arguments revolve around
what seems to be a clear violation of freedom of religion under the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, provoking in turn further
constitutional sabre rattling in other quarters that raises the spectre
of Quebec simply invoking Section 33, the “notwithstanding clause.”
Quebec has done so before. Supporters of the Charter of Values maintain
that the government could use Section 33 to validate the legislation to
preserve Quebec’s “secular” society.

What has not been
acknowledged, by the Quebec government, its supporters, nor any of the
other commentators on the issue is that there is a very obvious block on
using this “notwithstanding clause” when it comes to legislation
affecting the rights of women. There is, in fact, another
“notwithstanding clause.” Section 28 of the Canadian Charter of Rights
and Freedoms guarantees all rights and freedoms equally to male and
female persons, “notwithstanding anything in this Charter.” In 1981,
when the Charter was being negotiated, the feminist drafters of Section
28 successfully beat back an attempt to make it subject to the Section
33 override clause, in a very public battle. There is no question about
whether a province could use the Section 33 “notwithstanding clause” to
override a court decision invalidating a law on the basis of sex
discrimination.

Editorial: Good riddance, Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act

Editorial: Good riddance, Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act

A new ruling from the Federal Court of Appeal is a new twist in the
headache-inducing story of the hate-speech provisions of the Canadian
Human Rights Act. Politically, it makes the issue muddier, as it will
allow supporters of those provisions to argue that they have the courts
in their corner. But the courts tell governments what they can and can’t
do, not what they should and shouldn’t.

The court found that Section 13, even with its penalty provision,
does not violate the Constitution. It is a limit on free speech, but in
the court’s view, an allowable limit.

The ruling is interesting, from a political standpoint, because
Parliament passed a private member’s bill last year repealing Section
13. The ruling suggests that if any government wanted to reinstate
Section 13 or something like it, it might be able to do so without
violating the Constitution.