«If I commented, the players would kill me» :: Conferences :: Videos :: zerozero.pt

You are viewing this page because you are using advertising blocking software (“ad blocker”).

zerozero.pt is a portal where information is free and freely accessible. This is a premise that has been ensured since the beginning of the project in 2003. In order to ensure that this continues to happen, zerozero.pt needs the revenue generated by advertising to be able to cover hosting costs and all management expenses that a company holds.

#commented #players #kill #Conferences #Videos #zerozero.pt

#Law #State #Secularism #upheld #Court #Appeal

The State Secularism Act must be maintained and must even apply to English-speaking school boards, Quebec’s highest court has just ruled in a 300-page decision.

• Read also: Challenge to the Law on State Secularism: one of the judges opposed the derogation clause

• Read also: Religious symbols: Québec solidaire imposes a condition to support the protection of the Secularism Act

• Read also: Law 21 and exemption: Marc Tanguay is disconnected

“The trial judge made no error,” judges Manon Savard, Yves-Marie Morissette and Marie-France Bich repeatedly reaffirmed, concerning numerous points that were contested in the Quebec Court of Appeal.

This decision did not fail to delight the Quebec Secular Movement [MLQ].

“It’s a victory across the board for pro-secularism,” said Me Guillaume Rousseau, who represented the MLQ. It is a legal judgment which left ideologies aside. »

The English Montreal School Board, the big loser in this affair, did not hide its disappointment.

“We should have the right to employ female teachers without these arbitrary rules,” commented its president Joe Ortega, saying that his thoughts were with the female teachers.

Also called “Law 21”, it was adopted by the National Assembly in June 2019 and prohibits, among other things, the wearing of religious symbols by judges, police officers, prosecutors, correctional officers and teachers, as part of their duties.

However, people who wore a religious symbol before the law came into force benefit from an acquired rights clause.

Contestation massive

As soon as it was adopted, the law caused an outcry, followed by legal challenges galore. A long trial followed in Quebec Superior Court, with 17 groups and plaintiffs leading the charge against the CAQ law.

Judge Marc-André Blanchard, however, largely upheld the law, ruling that even if it “has significant inhibiting effects and heavily encroaches on the rights to freedom of conscience and religion”, the derogation clause invoked by the government made her untouchable.

• Listen to Yasmine Abdelfadel’s reaction via OLD :

“The legislator’s use of derogation clauses appears excessive, because they are too broad, although legally unassailable in the current state of the law,” he ruled in a 240-page decision.

On the other hand, the magistrate had given an exemption to English-speaking school boards and elected representatives of the National Assembly. It is on the point of the English school boards that the Court of Appeal overturned the decision rendered at first instance. On the other hand, people elected as deputies in Quebec will be able to sit with religious symbols.

“The protection conferred by [la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés] includes the right to sit as a deputy […] once elected and has no internal limits,” we can read in the decision.

For English-speaking school boards, however, the situation was different.

All on call

After the judgment rendered in Superior Court, it took no time for virtually all parties involved to bring the case before the Quebec Court of Appeal, which began hearing the case in November 2022.

The panel of judges thus read 1,500 pages of evidence and 1,065 pages of arguments. All grouped into 10 themes, including the use of the derogation clause, fundamental rights, or even those of linguistic minorities.

“Seventeen parties will participate in the debate, each arguing that the trial judge made errors,” summarized Chief Justice Manon Savard.

A little over a year later, the decision was finally made. The future of Bill 21, however, is still not fixed, since it is practically guaranteed that the whole thing will be brought before the Supreme Court of Canada.

More details to come…

The Israeli Supreme Court announced today the annulment of a key law of the controversial judicial reform that the Government of Benjamin Netanyahu approved in July, and that took away the power of the court itself to review and revoke government decisions based on whether they were reasonable or not. .

The court, by a slim majority of eight of fifteen judges, reported the repeal of the legislation by holding that it “causes serious and unprecedented damage to the fundamental characteristics of Israel as a democratic state,” it said in a ruling made public this Monday. .

The court ruling is a blow to the reform plan of Netanyahu’s right-wing coalition, which according to detractors would undermine the division of powers and the independence of Justice in Israel, and which until the start of the war in Gaza led masses of Israelis to the street in a protest movement of historic dimension in the country.

The court also determined “that it has the power to make judicial review” of Basic Laws – with constitutional status in Israel – and “to intervene in those rare and exceptional cases in which the Knesset (Israeli Parliament) exceeds its constitutive authority.”

The war in Gaza

The sentence, which was made public while the country is immersed in the war in Gaza, is considered “historic” and “controversial” by the Israeli press, since it puts back on the table the issue of judicial reform, which caused much polarization between supporters and opponents and aggravated the already existing division in the country, which had now been pushed aside in the wake of the war effort against Hamas.

The Supreme Court’s decision is in response to eight appeals that had been presented by entities such as the Movement for Quality Government in Israel. This led to a hearing in September with the 15 court judges present to analyze the appeals against the law, which annulled the so-called “doctrine of reasonableness.”

Both the approval of the legislation itself in July and the day of the hearing in September generated large mobilizations in Israel in favor of the court’s intervention to repeal the measure.

The law gave more power to the Government

Those opposed to judicial reform complained that the law gave more power to the Executive to the detriment of Justice.

Members of the Government – the most right-wing in the history of Israel, also made up of far-right forces – warned at the time that a decision against the rule by the Supreme Court would put democracy in check, and threatened not to abide by the ruling.

The law in question was passed as an amendment to one of Israel’s Basic Laws, fundamental rules that govern the State, which since it was founded in 1948 has no constitution.

It is also the first time in the history of Israel that the Supreme Court has interceded before an amendment to a basic law. With EFE

Related