Sur l’État, la religion et les cours

« Une société vraiment libre peut accepter une grande diversité de croyances, de goûts, de visées, de coutumes et de normes de conduite. »[1] le juge Dickson.

Qu’arrive-t-il lorsque l’État décide de promouvoir cette diversité à l’école malgré l’opposition de certains parents? La Cour suprême a partiellement répondu à cette question dans son arrêt SL c Commission scolaire des Chênes.[2] Pour ceux et celles qui ne sont pas familiers avec cette affaire, il s’agit d’une famille catholique du Québec qui a tenté de soustraire ses enfants du cours d’éthique et cultures religieuses rendu obligatoire en 2008 par le Ministère de l’éducation.[3] Ce cours a pour but de laïciser le système d’éducation en remplaçant les anciens cours sur la religion catholique, sur la religion protestante et sur la morale par un seul cours portant sur les religions du monde et sur l’éthique. Le cours a donc pour but de mettre fin à un enseignement religieux chrétien ne correspondant plus à notre société pluriconfessionnelle et laïque.

Continue reading

The International Rule of Law Part Deux: Good Faith, Kyoto and Canada

It has been a while since I wanted to write this post. As work and graduate applications kept my mind away from this blog, the situation that inspired this post evolved, evolved further, ended and restarted. In the end, I’m glad I waited as the developments made this topic much more interesting. That topic is the involvement of Canada in the Durban Conference negotiations and its Canadian climax: the repudiation of the Kyoto Protocol.[1]

After what can be considered many failed attempts to agree on the next step to implement the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change[2] (UNFCCC) (basically the replacement of Kyoto after its end), the State Parties to the UNFCCC met in Durban, South Africa, at the 17th conference of the parties (COP17), hoping that some agreement could be reached over the pressing issue of climate change. The Copenhagen Conference resulted in what many considered a sad failure. However, it seemed that the international community had matured sufficiently to reach something concrete in Durban. Sadly, that statement does not apply to Canada, who seems to have regressed in it international maturity level since 2006.

Continue reading

The International Rule of Law

On the 15th of November, I had the chance of assisting to a viewing of the Canadian documentary “Prosecutor”[1] with the said Prosecutor (Luis Moreno-Ocampo, Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (the ICC)) at the University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law. The documentary was interesting to watch; it outlined the determination and perseverance of Mr. Moreno-Ocampo and the inherent difficulties of being the chief prosecutor of an international court. I recommend it if you are interested in the ICC and international criminal justice.

What was even more interesting was the discussion that followed. One of the students in the audience asked what would be the Prosecutor’s next career move (Mr. Moreno-Ocampo’s mandate is ending soon). He mentioned that he was very interested in educating the international relations crowd about the rule of law and international ethic. I found his answer particularly interesting because the notion of international ethic is something that has wondered inside my central nervous system for a while.

Continue reading

La hausse des droits de scolarité au Québec

Premier billet en français qui ne sera (malheureusement) qu’une référence à un autre blog. Mais quelle référence mes amis! Si vous êtes québécois vous êtes très certainement au courant(à moins de vivre sous une roche) de la hausse des frais de scolarité. Le fait que je sois contre cette hausse ne surprendra personne. Au lieu de répéter ce qui fut bien dit, je vous invite à lire l’excellent billet de ma très chère amie Sonia qui reflète parfaitement ma pensée: pourquoi je suis conte la hausse. Je ne rajouterai que ceci: l’éducation est un “bien” public. C’est un fait que les travailleurs possédant des études universitaire on un salaire beaucoup plus élevé que le reste de la population. Par conséquent ces personnes paient beaucoup plus de taxe et donc finance en grande partie le système d’éducation incluant les prêts et bourses gouvernementaux. En s’endettant pour payer leurs études, les étudiants financent doublement le système (sans compter tous les autres bénéfices qu’apporte une population éduquée). Puisque l’éducation est ou devrait être considérer comme un bien collectif, il est normal que l’état s’occupe de son financement puisque de tout manière se financement proviendra éventuellement en grande partie des mêmes personnes qui ont bénéficié du système. Les étudiant sortiront de leurs études avec une meilleure situation financière et pourront donc contribuer davantage au bien collectif par leur travail, par les actions et par leurs taxes et impôts. Je terminerai ce billet en vous proposant d’arrêter de comparer le Québec au reste du Canada sur cette question car ce reste n’est pas, selon moi, un exemple à suivre au niveau des frais de scolarité. Nous devrions être l’exemple à suivre et cet exemple devrait être des frais aussi bas que possible.

Some Insights on Insite

On 30 September 2011 the Supreme Court of Canada released the Insite decision.[1] This case began when the Government of Canada made it clear that it wouldn’t renew Insite’s – a supervised drug injection clinic in the Down Town Eastside of Vancouver – exemption from the application of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (the CDSA). Insite and its many supporters decided to challenge the constitutionality of the CDSA applicability to Insite and of the refusal of the Minister of Health to grant the exemption. A few weeks ago, the judicial battle ended with a victory for society, and for Insite and its patients.

I am happy for the people who are involved with Insite; it is a great victory for them and probably a great relief as they won’t have this Sword of Damocles hanging over their heads anymore. It was, however, a predictable victory. The Supreme Court of British Columbia[2] and the British Columbia Court of Appeal[3] had already found that the applicability of the CDSA to Insite violated section 7 of the Charter[4] (right to liberty, life and personal security of the person).[5] The facts of this case were overwhelmingly in favour of Insite. The project had the support of the community, the business close to Down Town East Side, the public health authorities, the City ofVancouver and theProvince ofBritish Columbia. The federal government, to no surprise, only had demagogical arguments. It was thus a predictable victory as I couldn’t conceive how the Supreme Court, in anyway shape or form, could agree with the federal government. The CDSA was not found inapplicable but the refusal of the Minister of Health was found to violate section 7 and the Court ordered the government to exempt Insite and to give an exemption to any safe injection site that would meet certain criteria.

Continue reading

When Death is Racist

I have been traveling quite a bit lately, for fun and for work. Although I enjoyed it – being the travel addict that I am – it gave me little time to finish my post on the recent Supreme Court decision of Insite. I expect it will be done by the end of this week. In the meantime, I have an interesting reading suggestion for you. It’s a short article written by Sonya Nigam, executive director of the Human Rights Research and Education Centre at the University of Ottawa published online by Canadian Lawyer. The article follows the execution of Troy Davis, a black man, in Georgia. It’s a pretty gruesome case and shows the barbarity, in my opinion, of the American legal system and its use of the death penalty. What’s really interesting, however, is the level of racism of that system as outlined by the article. Also worth nothing is the little parallel at the end with Bill C-10. Not so light reading, but insightful nevertheless.

Here’s the article, enjoy:

http://www.canadianlawyermag.com/3898/reflections-in-the-wake-of-troy-davis-execution.html