This weekend Quebec City will be marking 250 years since the Battle of the Plains of Abraham. The battle turned the French colony over to the British. The British decided not to interfere with the existing system of law, language or culture. That decision has defined Canadian culture until this day and still remains a point of conflict in French/English relations.
One of the events planned for tomorrow was to reenact the battle. In elementary school late 1700s early 1800s was my favourite time period to learn about. I had a teacher who did reenactments. He played a part in reacting a battle in a made for TV movie and took a week off of school to reenact the Battle of Waterloo. He was my teacher when we took a class trip to Quebec City, including visiting the Plains of Abraham. Battle reenactments are a great way to make learning about this time period more fun and interesting.
The plan was cancelled because some Quebecers found it offensive. The official reason was that there was the possibilty of protests becoming violent. Instead the anniversary is going to be marked at the same venue, by reading the FLQ manifesto. The FLQ wanted Quebec independance. They planted bombs, kidnapped and murdered Government officials. Their actions resulted in the 1970 October Crisis. The War Measures Act was implemented suspending civil liberties and giving police powers for mass arrests.
This is becoming a common theme around the world. If a group is capable of violence than governments will bend over backwards to try to accomodate their point of view. Groups that will not be violent do not require the same kind of appeasement. In some cases the victims are criticized or even charged for inciting the violence.
Government officials may feel proud that they have protected the safety of their citizens by avoiding violence. The truth is they have just set the stage for the next battle which will mean a choice between violence or further concessions. It is important to be mindful of viewing the world from different perspectives. If threat of violence determines public policy instead of priniciples and public discourse, all of society loses.
Showing posts with label Quebec. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Quebec. Show all posts
Friday, September 11, 2009
Monday, October 29, 2007
Should dead people be allowed to vote?
Earlier this year a story broke where a woman from Seattle managed to get her dog on the voters list. The dog received ballots in 3 seperate elections before the problem was corrected. She was protesting changes made to electoral law making it vulnerable to electoral fraud.
In the recent federal by elections in Quebec, the issue of electoral fraud took centre stage. Feeding off of growing hatred toward Muslims the issue of women who cover their faces became a controversial issue. There were new requirements in place requiring photo ID instead of just a voter card to vote. The Chief Electoral Officer interpreted the law correctly that if Photo ID was not available other forms of non-photo ID could be used. Therefore it was unnecessary to require these women to uncover their faces. 80,000 people voted in the last federal election by mail where there was no direct contact with the voter and the returning officer. There was still fear that Muslim women could commit electoral fraud. The government insisted that Elections Canada should abide by the spirit of the law and make these women identify themselves in a respectful and appropriate manner. Muslim groups were upset because they never objected to providing proper identification in order to vote.
In the recent Ontario election there were names on the voters list that I knew had died or no longer met the residency requirements. Under the old system a voter card would have been all they needed to vote or have someone illegally vote in their place. The new system of identification adds a much needed level of security. If photo ID is not available the secondary form of identification (ie. Debit Card &Utility Bill) could still be in possession of a spouse and used to gain a ballot illegally.
On Friday the government introduced Bill C-6 that would make visual identification mandatory when casting a ballot. This allows returning officers to be able to identify someone suspected of committing electoral fraud such as posing as someone else or attempting to vote twice.
Opponents of this bill are argue that it is unfair introducing legislation on the backs of 50 Muslim women that did not pose a problem to the electoral system and that those who submit mail in ballots have no contact with the returning officer. It is unfortunate that this legislation comes in response to the veil in Quebec. It really does improve the integrity of the electoral process. The bill also amends section 237 of the Canada Election Act which covers write in ballots. Visual identification will be required before a write in ballot can be obtained.
This legislation makes the electoral process just a little bit better by securing the integrity of the write in ballots. Hopefully this can be the major focus of this legislation instead of being grounds to attack the Muslim community on a very minor issue.
In the recent federal by elections in Quebec, the issue of electoral fraud took centre stage. Feeding off of growing hatred toward Muslims the issue of women who cover their faces became a controversial issue. There were new requirements in place requiring photo ID instead of just a voter card to vote. The Chief Electoral Officer interpreted the law correctly that if Photo ID was not available other forms of non-photo ID could be used. Therefore it was unnecessary to require these women to uncover their faces. 80,000 people voted in the last federal election by mail where there was no direct contact with the voter and the returning officer. There was still fear that Muslim women could commit electoral fraud. The government insisted that Elections Canada should abide by the spirit of the law and make these women identify themselves in a respectful and appropriate manner. Muslim groups were upset because they never objected to providing proper identification in order to vote.
In the recent Ontario election there were names on the voters list that I knew had died or no longer met the residency requirements. Under the old system a voter card would have been all they needed to vote or have someone illegally vote in their place. The new system of identification adds a much needed level of security. If photo ID is not available the secondary form of identification (ie. Debit Card &Utility Bill) could still be in possession of a spouse and used to gain a ballot illegally.
On Friday the government introduced Bill C-6 that would make visual identification mandatory when casting a ballot. This allows returning officers to be able to identify someone suspected of committing electoral fraud such as posing as someone else or attempting to vote twice.
Opponents of this bill are argue that it is unfair introducing legislation on the backs of 50 Muslim women that did not pose a problem to the electoral system and that those who submit mail in ballots have no contact with the returning officer. It is unfortunate that this legislation comes in response to the veil in Quebec. It really does improve the integrity of the electoral process. The bill also amends section 237 of the Canada Election Act which covers write in ballots. Visual identification will be required before a write in ballot can be obtained.
This legislation makes the electoral process just a little bit better by securing the integrity of the write in ballots. Hopefully this can be the major focus of this legislation instead of being grounds to attack the Muslim community on a very minor issue.
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Quebec Superior Court challenges criminal background checks for teachers
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070816/teacher_killer_070816/20070816?hub=Canada
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=697743e4-fdbf-484a-900b-98fae8522aee&k=53748
Schools across the continent have adopted policies to have criminal background checks for their teachers. This policy is designed to protect students and keep schools safe.
A man applies for a teaching position in Montreal. The application form asks if he has a criminal background. He fails to mention the fact that he has just spent 7 years in jail for killing his wife. The school is happy with his job performance until they discover his criminal record. He is immediately fired. The union files a grievance. The Quebec Superior Court upholds a ruling by the Human Rights Council that the skill must give the teacher his job back. Their reasoning is that the criminal conviction was in no way a factor in his ability to perform his job. They sight the details of his conviction that he is not a risk to re-offend and posses no risk to the students. Quebec law makes it illegal to refuse to hire someone because they have a criminal record, if it is not a factor in their ability to perform the job.
There are two very dangerous precedences that could come out of this ruling. The court is establishing that it is OK to lie on a job application if it does not affect their ability to perform the job. These factors may not be significant in determining if a person is qualified. They could be significant when a manager is making a final decision between 2 or more applicants. If a person gets hired based on the law they have no fear of being fired when the lie is finally uncovered. This hurts honest job seekers. Nothing good can come out of this reasoning.
Schools have a responsibility to protect the safety of their students. The burden is now being placed on the principals to not only establish if an applicant has a criminal record but if the crime will effect the potential teachers job performance. They must take a detailed look at the individual details of the crime to determine if they pose a threat to students. Being a murderer is not enough to disqualify them from the application process. A wrong decision will either result in unnecessary danger to students or a law suit against the principal.
Hopefully this ruling will be appealed and struck down by the Supreme Court.
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/natio
Schools across the continent have adopted policies to have criminal background checks for their teachers. This policy is designed to protect students and keep schools safe.
A man applies for a teaching position in Montreal. The application form asks if he has a criminal background. He fails to mention the fact that he has just spent 7 years in jail for killing his wife. The school is happy with his job performance until they discover his criminal record. He is immediately fired. The union files a grievance. The Quebec Superior Court upholds a ruling by the Human Rights Council that the skill must give the teacher his job back. Their reasoning is that the criminal conviction was in no way a factor in his ability to perform his job. They sight the details of his conviction that he is not a risk to re-offend and posses no risk to the students. Quebec law makes it illegal to refuse to hire someone because they have a criminal record, if it is not a factor in their ability to perform the job.
There are two very dangerous precedences that could come out of this ruling. The court is establishing that it is OK to lie on a job application if it does not affect their ability to perform the job. These factors may not be significant in determining if a person is qualified. They could be significant when a manager is making a final decision between 2 or more applicants. If a person gets hired based on the law they have no fear of being fired when the lie is finally uncovered. This hurts honest job seekers. Nothing good can come out of this reasoning.
Schools have a responsibility to protect the safety of their students. The burden is now being placed on the principals to not only establish if an applicant has a criminal record but if the crime will effect the potential teachers job performance. They must take a detailed look at the individual details of the crime to determine if they pose a threat to students. Being a murderer is not enough to disqualify them from the application process. A wrong decision will either result in unnecessary danger to students or a law suit against the principal.
Hopefully this ruling will be appealed and struck down by the Supreme Court.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)