|
Gender is part of the Equality program. You can find more information about it on its main program page. |
Gender
By Cara Zwibel on May 14, 2010
CCLA has submitted a brief to the Quebec Legislative Assembly expressing serious concerns about the constitutionality of Bill 94, proposed legislation that would require all those requesting a wide range of public services in Quebec to show their faces. As outlined in previous CCLA statements, the organization believes that the Bill is unnecessary, dangerously ambiguous, and would unjustifiably violate freedom of expression, freedom of religion, and the right to equality. CCLA’s brief expands on these points, and also outlines the dangerous precedent set by the bill, which is based on the assumption that the State may attach conditions to its duty to serve citizens, and establishes the principle that citizens have a duty to identify themselves to obtain the services of the State. Typically, it is the totalitarian state that randomly requires citizens to identify themselves, demands justification for their every-day activities, and places unnecessary, discriminatory conditions on the receipt of government services. Democratic countries, including Canada, should reject such measures.
By Cara Zwibel on March 31, 2010
Bill 94, tabled last week in Québec City, is entitled An Act to establish guidelines governing accommodation requests within the Administration and certain institutions. Its central provision, section 6, reads as follows: The practice whereby a personnel member of the Administration or an institution and a person to whom services are being provided by the Administration or the institution show their face during the delivery of services is a general practice. If an accommodation involves an adaptation of that practice and reasons of security, communication or identification warrant it, the accommodation must be denied. The Bill is applicable to all government sectors and to many public institutions, among them, daycare centres, public school boards and health facilities. In essence, the government is presuming that interacting with a woman wearing the niqab who works for the government or is seeking a governmental service is an undue burden. In our view, this general prohibition is vague, will lead to abuse and further marginalization, constitutes a denial of freedom of expression and religion, and is unnecessary. Read more…
September 1, 1995
In 1995, in anticipation of the repeal of Employment Equity Act, CCLA requested a meeting with the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation and outlining its concerns about throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
September 1, 1993
June 23, 1993
January 1, 1993
January 1, 1989
R. v. Seaboyer , [1991] 2 S.C.R. 577, in which one of the issues was whether the rape shield provisions of the Criminal Code violated the Charter ’s guarantee of a fair trial (the CCLA intervened in the Ontario Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada of Canada); |
   |
|
Copyright © 2013 Canadian Civil Liberties Association - All Rights Reserved |
|