Jump to content

Talk:Act respecting the laicity of the State

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

Will be adding further details detail found im the introduction of the bill

RaphaelPlamondon (talk) 05:12, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I add the tag unbalanced under the reactions section. Except political party the section only displays organizations who oppose and there arguments. For a balanced point of view and meet encyclopedic standards. Both arguments must be display as well as poll from the moment. This article is quite incomplete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FA48:6D9F:E3E0:4CBA:F0A9:9C28:BCB7 (talk) 02:30, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will be adding more reactions to create a more balanced perspective — Preceding unsigned comment added by Littlebear2019 (talk • contribs) 18:26, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2019 and 13 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): RaphaelPlamondon.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 September 2019 and 2 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Littlebear2019.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

[edit]
MERGED
The articles have been merged after 2 months of silence. Username6892 21:43, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


I propose to merge Quebec ban on religious symbols with Quebec ban on face covering bacause while they are different pieces of legislation, both deal with the same subject. The material from the Quebec ban on face covering article would likely form part of the background section of this article (It is prior legislation on the topic) and neither article seems long enough to make splitting justified. I am aware of the Quebec Charter of Values article, but it is long enough to justify splitting, though it should still be mentioned in the Background section of this article. Username6892 03:20, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Regarding the recent move

[edit]

I noticed the article was recently moved. I don't find the new title to be an improvement based on WP:COMMONNAME. The bill is more commonly referred to as "Bill 21" and "Quebec's ban on religious symbols" are more commonly used in the sources used for this article. Due to that, I think the original title should be restored. Username6892 11:47, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Maile66: pinging a admin Notbrev (talk) 13:02, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't name this article "Bill 21" or a variation of that theme, because Bill numbers are re-used over and over again. The name of the Act, while not commonly used, is its official title and should be the name of this article, notwithstanding the language difference in this particular case. An alternative solution would be to created a redirect entitled "Quebec's ban on religious symbols" (or something like that) that points to this article. PKT(alk) 16:43, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Laicity is such an obscure word that The Free Dictionary found it only in Collins. Secularism is a far better translation.
  • There's not one person in a thousand who thinks of Bill 101 by any other name, regardless of what the government chose to title it. The same with this one. Bill 21 is the least controversial name you're like to find in English and the most likely to last. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 17:40, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nonetheless, the Wikipedia article is not "Bill 101", but Charter of the French Language, the official title of the law. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 22:55, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was also surprised to see that this is the official name of the law in English, it sounds like a bad translation to me (as a fluently bilingual person), laicity is not the right word. However I agree with the above post suggesting not to use the number of the bill as they can be reused and after becoming law it is no longer about the bill anyways. Cannot really see a great solution to this so maybe keeping the official English name makes sense. Dan Carkner (talk) 17:45, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Bill 21" is definitely the common name— just peek at the external links and citations, several of which have "Bill 21" right in the title. If it's too vague to be the article title (and it probably is), it should at least be bolded in the lede. Charter of the French Language bolds "Bill 101", for comparison. — Kawnhr (talk) 18:17, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the guidance in COMMONNAME that "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources" applies here. The subject of the article is the legislation, not the bill that led to it, and the English title of the legislation is the best title for the article. My second choice would be a descriptive title, such as was formerly used, though how to characterize the law raises neutrality concerns. I do agree that Bill 21 should be bolded in the lead.--Trystan (talk) 00:08, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We are supposed to use the common name as the article title, not "how it's commonly described". Calling this article Quebec's secularism law would be like moving Charlie Watts to Drummer for the Rolling Stones. "Bill 21" is ambiguous because Quebec has had dozens of bills numbered "Bill 21", all on various unrelated topics. There's typically a new one in each legislative session. Plus, it's an enactment now, not a bill. There is some guidance at WP:NCGAL#Legislation. Mathew5000 (talk) 00:13, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is specific guidance on this particular issue at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Canada-related articles:
"When writing an article about a piece of legislation, whether it has passed into law or not, title the article with the short name of the legislation, and not with a title in the form "Bill #". Per WP:NC-GAL, the short form name (XYZ Act) is preferred whenever possible, with the long form name (An Act to XYZ) in place as a redirect to it. (The long form name is permissible as the primary title if a short form name cannot be properly sourced, although this should virtually never be anything more than a temporary measure.) Bill numbers, however, are routinely repeated in different contexts—different legislative bodies, different sessions of the same legislative body, etc.—and thus a bill number is almost never an unambiguous or unique name. When a piece of legislation is commonly referred to by its bill number, a redirect or disambiguation page should be created, like at Bill C-51."
It is no longer a bill, it is an act, so referring to it as a bill is incorrect. I would therefore oppose moving the article, and continue to use the official English name of the Act as the name of the article.Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 20:00, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Translation of the French lead

[edit]

Hello, I have translated the French-language version of the lead text because it was requested by the template at the top of the page. I believe the French-language lead also does make a better one then what was there before as it is very neutral and only talks about the law and challenges and changes made to it. The previous version did not have as much information and also veered into ideological territory by taking opinionated stances on how this law is supposed to affect certain kinds of religious groups and what the public reaction to the law is (for example, it makes it seem as though the law is very controversial, when polls show the law is supported by a large majority of Quebec's population and other province's populations, so that does not make sense). Furthermore, how people feel toward a law and the hypothetical effects it could have are not as important as describing what the law actually is, does and how it came into being. Those last three points are what should be presented in the lead text, not the first two (which should have dedicated sections in the article).7288P (talk) 00:50, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate your additions to this article, but just translating the French lead isn't enough as it completely ignores the political discussions that are taking place in English Canada. This is the English language Wikipedia, and the law is controversial in English Canada, so of course it would be encyclopedic to mention it. I'd ask that we respect the WP:BRD cycle - that after making a bold edit, which has been reverted, we keep the original text and discuss in talk rather than trying to ram through the change. Could you perhaps suggest a way of including the political discussions in the lead? Thanks. —WildComet talk 05:43, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion is this:
An Act respecting the laicity of the State () tabled and commonly known as Bill 21, is a law passed by the National Assembly of Quebec in 2019 which asserts the policy of state secularism ( laïcité) in the Canadian province of Quebec.
The law prohibits civil service employees in positions of coercive authority from wearing religious symbols, with a grandfather clause for employees remaining in the same position, and also introduces a requirement to having one's face uncovered when providing or receiving certain government services.
Supporters argue that the law supports the state's separation of church and state principle, that the state and its agents must be seen as independent of religious institutions. Opponents have argued that the law will feed intolerance toward Muslims, Sikhs and other groups who wear religious clothing (such as headscarves and turbans) in accordance with their practice, whereas other critics argue that it does not go far enough and should be extended to daycares. Several legal cases have been filed against the law since its passage.
Notably, in a judgment rendered on April 20, 2021, the Superior Court of Quebec upheld much of the law, but struck down it's application in English-language school boards or to the National Assembly. Following this, the Government of Quebec appealed the judgment to the Quebec Court of Appeals. On November 9, 2021, the appeals court ruled that English-language school boards must apply the provisions, in particular the recruitment of teachers wishing to wear religious symbols until further notice.
I thank you for talking with me, some people on Wikipedia have reverted some of my edits without responding to what I had written on the talk page or just because they felt like it :( ... I reverted before because I saw another user support my changes but that you reverted anyways
Anyways, here is my argument. Most people in Quebec and other provinces support this act, so it is hard to describe it as controversial... Some English-language journalists have expressed that they don't like the law. I think its ok to talk about it in the article, but those journalists are from outside Quebec and this is a Quebec law, so I don't see them as being relevant enough to put in the intro. I don't think people would talk about how angry some Michigan journalists are that Minnesota passed a certain law in said law's introductory paragraph, right?
I appreciate what you have suggested as an intro, I think some of it works, but to me the way some phrases are written show bias or are not very clear. I will show you some examples. 1."Notably, in a judgment rendered on April 20, 2021, the Superior Court of Quebec upheld much of the law, but struck down it's application in English-language school boards or to the National Assembly." The wording struck down makes it seem as though Quebec is dictatorial and violently and perhaps wrongly modified the law, instead of the reality where that the act was assessed through a legal and just process. Quebec follows due process, its not North Korea. It also doesn't clearly explain what happened; both English-language school boards and the Government of Quebec brought this to the higher court. 2."Opponents have argued that the law will feed intolerance toward Muslims, Sikhs and other groups who wear religious clothing (such as headscarves and turbans) in accordance with their practice, whereas other critics argue that it does not go far enough and should be extended to daycares. Several legal cases have been filed against the law since its passage." Here a lot of attention is given to people who are against and people who think it does not go far enough, but those opinions appear to be minorities in the population of Quebec, why then is there no mention of people who support the law? It makes the law seem more controversial than it is by giving undue weight to challengers.
I think it is totally fine to talk about the challengers, and I can put that as a final pargraph, but I think it should be expressed briefly and that most people support the law first of all. If you think it is still relevant to talk about how some journalists in English Canada are angry, by virtue of this being the English wikipedia, I can try to include this in the lead and you tell me if you like it? 7288P (talk) 17:00, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Struck down is the common idiom in English for a court finding a law unconstitutional. I don’t see it in any way as a comment on Quebec’s government. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 17:47, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The lede currently contains this: "The law prohibits civil service employees in positions of coercive authority from wearing religious symbols...." But in fact, the law does not use the phrase "positions of coercive authority" and also, it applies to some people who are not civil servants (e.g. Schedule II, paragraphs 7 and 8). It's debatable whether teachers and lawyers acting on civil matters have "coercive" authority. Better wording might be, "The law prohibits certain provincial civil servants and people acting on behalf of the province from wearing religious symbols...." Mathew5000 (talk) 06:46, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Teachers are not provincial civil servants, though, so that wording doesn’t include them. Teachers are employed by school boards, which are not part of the provincial government. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:55, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, good point Serjeant Buzfuz. The term "public servants" would be more accurate than "provincial civil servants". I will have a go at revising the lede for accuracy, clarity, and conciseness. Mathew5000 (talk) 06:53, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relation to Universal Declaration of Human Rights

[edit]

On article 18, it is stated one has the freedom to manifest his religion or belief in public or private. How does it compare with this law? Notbrev (talk) 14:51, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It do not oppose article 18. It more a matter of interpretation on how far freedom of belief or religion goes. Those who oppose will telle that any restrictions to freedom of religion is unacceptable.
The issue with that position is that the criminal code already forbids many historical practice like the human sacrifice or stonning the unbelievers.
Those who agree argue that a limitation in the expression is reasonable since it limited in the space and times. Around 8 hours while at work.
So in conclusion it more a question of a cultural clash between two interpretations of article 18.
Anyway since we want do reach an encyclopedic view. The important thing to do is to describe properly each position and the argumentation. While not taking a position. 24.202.113.225 (talk) 01:16, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requirements to meet encyclopaedic standards

[edit]

I noticed several bias in the choice of word. The article must be as neutral as possible. The use of the expression "bill 21" is only valid until the bill is adopted and becomes a law. Once adopted the references to the word "bill" is an act of political protests which do not meet encyclopedic standards. Since the law is adopted by the National Assembly, it must be referred as "law 21".

Also notice that the talk zone is not the place do debate the merits of the law. Please Remain factual and don't use the talk zone to express your personal opinion.

Alain 23:23 04 Sept 2022 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.81.55.61 (talk) 03:24, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a citation that the statute is now referenced as Law 21. The use of Bill 21 is because it was the 21st bill introduced in that session of the National Assembly, and it was referred that way, as Bill 21, even in the final version of law once enacted by the Assembly; see: http://www2.publicationsduquebec.gouv.qc.ca/dynamicSearch/telecharge.php?type=5&file=2019C12A.PDF.
It is now included in the annual consolidation of the Quebec statutes issued by the Éditeur officiel du Québec for 2019. The annual consolidation lists it as "2019, c. 12", with the cross-reference to the bill number, Bill 21. The annual consolidation does not refer to it as "Law 21":
Loi sur la laïcité de l’État
PL : 21     Sanction: 16-06-2019
An Act respecting the laicity of the State
Bill : 21     Assented to : 16-06-2019
It is now also included in the full consolidation of Quebec statutes, produced by Légis Québec, as chapter L-0.3: https://www.legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/en/chapters?corpus=statutes&selection=L Clicking on that link takes us to the official version of the Act in Consolidated Statutes and Regulations of Quebec. Searching for "21" does not bring up any references to "Bill 21" or "Law 21".
You're right that "Bill" means a draft law ("projet de loi"). However, there is no usage in Canadian English that changes that to "Law", using the bill number, once the bill is passed. It is given a chapter number in the annual statute volume, and also a chapter number in the full Consolidation of Statutes. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 13:25, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the WP article, Euthanasia in Canada, for examples of this usage, where even after being passed, a law continues to be referred to by the bill number. This is standard usage, not a political comment. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:50, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And some other articles where a bill continues to be referred to as "Bill #", even after passage by Parliament:

Quebec Charter of Values

[edit]

I think the content on the Quebec Charter of Values should be summarized briefly in this article. That topic has its own article and is useful to be mentioned only briefly, perhaps in a section on "Background" or maybe "Similar legislation". VR talk 10:02, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Technology

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 September 2023 and 8 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mlaeynaz (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Mlaeynaz (talk) 18:50, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Act_respecting_the_laicity_of_the_State&oldid=1238660839"