Jump to content

Talk:Bill 78

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

Under construction

[edit]

Am still working on this article. Please help improve it or recommend sources! -Darouet (talk) 01:40, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why have 6 sources from the "World Socialist Website"? Does not seem neutral. Why revert a change that referenced the actual Bill -- that should be your primary source as it is the original document? -184.144.168.254 (talk) 14:40, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi 184.144.168.254 - thanks for your input and for linking the English text of the bill. The World Socialist Website does have a declared perspective supporting the protests. I used them because they've written a lot on the subject and enumerated some of the bill's provisions. What's important is that we know and write here what the bill actually does. We'll need to find more third-party sources besides the WSWS, and with a variety of perspectives.
Sorry for deleting your reference by the way - I objected to the phrase "made it an offence" instead of "made it illegal" because the issue is clearly now one of law, whereas "offense" may be misinterpreted. Nevertheless I should have kept your reference. I've edited it so that it now links the PDF of the text directly. Also, I've changed "offence" to "legal offence."
I'll link the government webpage with the bill's history at the bottom of the article. -Darouet (talk) 01:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the English language, "made it an offence" clearly refers to a legal offence, there is no ambiguity. - 99.232.56.113 (talk) 14:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I originally had written that the bill "makes illegal any demonstration..." which would, I believe, have been the simplest and clearest way of stating that organizing a picket, demonstration, protest etc. of over 50 people is now against the law, unless the event's location and route are registered with and approved by the police.
I don't want to write "made it an offence" here because this is a popular encyclopedia and not a legal document: we don't need to pass on jargon but state things in clear and ordinary terms. I'm not sure what benefit that particular phrase would have if the legal meaning is clear. I'll change it back to the original. -Darouet (talk) 15:33, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The distinction is that it is illegal to be the organizer under Bill 78, not the protest itself is illegal. It is Montreal Bylaw P-6 that makes the protest illegal (not Bill 78). Help with formatting with reference to Bylaw P-6? -38.112.12.110 (talk) 16:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.112.12.110 (talk) [reply]

Intro

[edit]

The intro says that Bill 78 "prohibits freedom of assembly, protest, or picketing," but I think that it would be more objective to say that it "restricts" these activities, as it does further down. Ydgrunite (talk) 02:35, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Early police and protester clashes

[edit]

Is this section titled appropriately? Only three of eleven sentences mention clashes between police and protesters. It seems to be more like "Early events in the strike." Ydgrunite (talk) 01:30, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The tuition increase was announced in the March 2011 budget and not in February 2012. See Anatomy of a conflict. Ydgrunite (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Courchesne could not, as Education Minister, have given an "order that higher education institutions to "to everything in their power" to resume classes" on 11 April since she only got that position on May 14. Line Beauchamp was still the minister in April. There is also a grammatical mistake in the sentence, but I can't correct it since there is no reference to the source. Ydgrunite (talk) 01:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Processes leading to Bill 78's adoption

[edit]

The article says that Bill 78 would "end" the winter semester. I think that "suspend" is more accurate as it is used further down in the Provisions section. Ydgrunite (talk) 02:30, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Provisions

[edit]

Section 14 of Bill 78 says that "any form of gathering" is prohibited within 50 meters of an institution only if it could result in denying access to a building of that institution. Ydgrunite (talk) 01:59, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that I know what "duration of the venue" means in "unless the dates, times, starting point, and routes of those locations and also the duration of the venue and the means of transportation..." May I recommend a change to "unless the dates, times, venue, starting point and routes, duration and the means of transportation..." Ydgrunite (talk) 02:06, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Subsequent events

[edit]

Montreal's recent bylaw, by definition, cannot "criminalize" the use of masks in protests. Criminal acts must be listed in the Criminal Code of Canada. A bylaw infraction will get you a fine, but no criminal record. Now Harper's plans for 10 year imprisonment on the other hand... Ydgrunite (talk) 02:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article says that more than 500,000 people demonstrated on March 22. The source in the link says that it was a crowd of more than 100,000. I don't know if the referenced source was changed after the article was written. Ydgrunite (talk) 02:26, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see that one person changed the original 500,000 to 100,000 and then someone else changed it back an hour later. The cited reference clearly says 100,000. However, crowd estimates are always contentious. I saw on the news the next day that the police estimated the crowd at 100K and the CLASSE spokesperson estimated it at 250K. To remain neutral, it might be best to state it this way with the range and a source that backs them up. Ydgrunite (talk) 04:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology

[edit]

Sometimes Bill 78 is called a "bill" and sometimes a "law" in the article. Even though we commonly continue refer to it as "Bill 78" after it received royal assent, we should now only refer to it as a law in the lowercase. It is no longer a bill. Ydgrunite (talk) 02:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is one reference to "CLASSE" and two to "C.L.A.S.S.E." The organization uses no periods on their own website, so I recommend using that. Also the first reference should include the full name in parantheses (Coalition large de l'association pour une solidarite syndicale etudiante). Ydgrunite (talk) 02:19, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ydgrunite - please feel free to make this good and common sense fixes. Thanks for help, -Darouet (talk) 04:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tuition Figures

[edit]

The article's citation to the "World Socialist Website" claims tuition will rise 75%: http://wsws.org/articles/2012/feb2012/queb-f29.shtml, and an unverified citation claims that amounts to 83% when adjusted for inflation. That's nonsense. Adjusting for inflation will lower the percentage increase, not raise it. Plus, the sentence before suggests a much smaller rise-- from $2,415 to $3,793, according to CTV. $3,793-$2,415=$1,348. $1,348/$2,415 x 100 = 56%, not 75%. Plus, assuming the inflation for 2012-17 matches 2007-12, the percentage is smaller: $2,415 is $2,644 in 2017 dollars, meaning a 43% increase, after adjusting for inflation.

In any case, that citation is wrong, and I'm removing it. 68.148.100.225 (talk) 05:18, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the article, what is written in Wikipedia is distorting the facts, as it states annual tuition will be $3,793. In a separate sentence it says average tuition is $2,415. The two figures are not talking about the same thing. CTV does not do any of the math you show above, no where does CTV talk about inflation rates. You can not do original research like that, and include it in Wikipedia. The numbers you use do not add up 325$ annual increase x 5 years = 1625$, current average 2,415$ + 1,625$ = 4,040$ not 3,793$. (which would be 68%, but average tuition is not base tuition, what the increase is applied to.) Wikipedia facts have to be verifiable from secondary and tertiary sources. Many sources have stated that tuition will increase 75%, or 83% for the 7 year plan. The exact % and amounts are less relevant to this article. What is relevant is that the tuition rate increase proposed is what started the protests, and the protests led to this law being enacted.--UnQuébécois (talk) 01:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really sure whether 75% or 83% is more realistic; I've seen both numbers from a number of sources and cited the WSWS source because I had it open and it was convenient. A number of users have since come in and modified the text to reflect what they view as appropriate. Either way, we aren't permitted original research here and need to cite sources as the basis of our text. -Darouet (talk) 14:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Both figures are correct, the original increase of 325$ over 5 years is 75%, the government then countered the students with a smaller 254$ ( I believe ) increase spread over 7 years, which would be a 1,778$ total increase over current tuition rates, or 83%. I am going by what has been reported in all news outlets, publications etc. Nothing of my own calculations based on any numbers that I put together.--UnQuébécois (talk) 16:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

$2,415 to $3,793 is not a 75% increase, and it's absurd to say so. Calculating a percentage increase isn't "original research", it's arithmetic. If you are adamant about including the 75% figure on the basis of the Reuters article, that's fine, but you have to $2,415 and $3,793 numbers. To leave both in is nuts. UnQuebecois, if you have citations to the numbers you've quoted then put them in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.100.225 (talk) 23:05, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the CTV numbers, since other users seem intent on keeping the 75% figure. We can't keep both; they don't match.68.148.100.225 (talk) 01:08, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, 2,415$ to 3,793$ is not 75%, if you read the CTV article it is clear that they are figures for two different things. 3,793$ is annual tuition for full time students and is the "end result" after the proposed increase. 2,415$ is the current average tuition, which includes full time, part time, post graduate, undergraduate, etc. They are not comparable, and calculating any percentage difference between the two is original research. Factoring in a supposed inflation rate with all of that incorrect math is also original research. The only figures I mentioned were on this talk page, and are the 325$ over 5 year increase, and 254$ over 7 year increase. how many citations for those two figures would you like? The tuition figures from CTV were included by an IP editor here, and the way they are presented here do not properly represent the facts. --UnQuébécois (talk) 06:02, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not obsess about the CTV numbers. The current tuition, as listed in the 2011-2012 Quebec budget document cited as a reference, is $2168. So the proposed $3793 tuition is a 75% increase from that (exactly 5 x $325 = $1625). --204.48.72.137 (talk) 15:14, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
68.148.100.225, here is one source for the figures. It is well written and clear:Global article. I have adjusted the text accordingly.

Prohibit versus restrict

[edit]

The term "prohibit" has been replaced by "restrict" in a number of instances, for instance in the introduction, where the article now states that protests, pickets, etc. are restricted unless they receive prior police approval.

This isn't technically correct. The law does not restrict, but actually prohibits pickets and protests on or near university grounds.

The law furthermore does not restrict, but rather prohibits protests and demonstrations that have not been approved by the police.

I'll change these back unless there are objections. -Darouet (talk) 14:31, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although I agree with what you are stating, I do not see the use of either restrict or prohibit in the actual text of the law. Please could you provide where you are seeing this. It would be correct to state (in your example), that protesters are restricted to less than 50 participants unless they receive prior police approval. --UnQuébécois (talk) 17:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with UnQuébécois. If a specific provision of the act is discussed, then it can be said that it prohibits demonstrations of more than 50 people without prior notice, or that a form of gathering is prohibited within 50 metres of an educational institution if it blocks access to a building. But it cannot be said that the act prohibits all forms of assembly or speech. Broad as the act is, it's not that broad. --Ydgrunite (talk) 18:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page move

[edit]

Should this page not be moved to under a new title, since the subject is no longer a bill before the parliament and is now a law of Quebec? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is still colloquially called by the bill number, just like Bill 101, Bill 104, Bill 178. It is a Canadian English (Influenced by Quebec English) anomaly (mis-translation). In french a bill is a "projet de loi" - and a law is a "loi". In colloquial french they drop the "projet de" when talking about the bill, most politicians and journalists are French speaking, so when they respond to questions in English they tend to use "Bill" as the translation for both. --Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 19:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see a problem with the name as is, as that seems to still be what it is called, common name, however there is a certain segment of contributors that feel only official names, or 'official translations' are acceptable for titles where the subject pertain to Quebec.--MrBoire (talk) 21:15, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page move revisited

[edit]

Arctic gnome has just moved this page, "Bill 78," to "An Act to enable students to receive instruction from the postsecondary institutions they attend." I oppose this for three pretty simple reasons:

  • The law is known as "Bill 78."
  • The new name is outrageously long.
  • The official name given by the Bill's political sponsors is highly political, meant to describe the legislation in a positive manner, and essentially a part of the debate over the law's role.

I'll move this back shortly, but am happy to discuss first. -Darouet (talk) 16:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think it should be changed back, for the following reasons:
1. "Bill 78" is an uninformative title. There is nothing in it which indicates the subject matter of the article. I don't think the wikipedia should be written in a way that titles are only understandable to people who already know about the topic of the article.
2. "Bill 78" is also an ambiguous title. Each provincial and territorial Legislature in Canada uses the same numbering system, with the numbers re-starting in each year. It is possible to have several bills referred to as "Bill 78" across Canada each year, and a new "Bill 78" in Quebec each year.
3. It is no longer a bill. It is now an Act of the Parliament of Quebec. The permanent title should be used, not the transient title.
4. Whether the name is too long or not is a matter of opinion; it is the official name of the Act. The practice in Quebec is apparently not to give an Act a short title, unlike the practice in some of the other provinces. Whatever one may personally think of the practice in Quebec of only having long titles, I think we should respect the official practice of the Parliament of Quebec.
5. Doesn't objecting to using the official title because of one's personal point of view of the neutrality of the official title violate the NPOV principle? Whether one likes it or not, that is the official title.
6. We had a similar discussion a few years ago about the proper title for the article on the Official Language Act of Quebec; the consensus then was to use "Official Language Act (Quebec)" rather than "Bill 22". See the Talk page. Consistency in approach to the names of articles about Canadian legislation is valuable, I think.
7. If anything, I would suggest re-naming the article "An Act to enable students to receive instruction from the postsecondary institutions they attend (Quebec)". I think it is a good practice for the titles of all articles about individual laws to include the jurisdiction in parentheses, to help give context to the article right in the name of the article. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 09:46, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mr Serjeant Buzfuz, thanks for your comments. You make some important points: assuming that there might be another famous "Bill 78" in the future, either in Quebec or elsewhere, this would be confused with that one. I would also support something like what you suggest: Bill 78 (Quebec, 2012). That would nail the common name, the date, and place exactly, and exclude the doublespeak of the official title.

I'm a little surprised that you don't recognize the title to be politically contentious. I assume that if you're commenting on the talk page, you already know that a quarter of a million Canadians protested against tuition hikes in the Spring of 2012, and that 150,000 people were still protesting when the bill was proposed. This Rueters article written a few days after the law was unveiled calls it a "law to quell strikes" and "anti-strike legislation." The Globe and Mail wrote that the government "cracked down on student protests with an emergency law," and elsewhere called it "anti-protest" legislation." An article by CTV news called it "Bill 78, a new law designed to put an end to the three-month long student protests." The head of the Quebec Bar Association called it a violation of "constitutional rights, including freedom of speech and the right to demonstrate peacefully." These are all from center or right media organizations cited in our article: the left is far, far more critical.

Given this, the title An Act to enable students to receive instruction from the postsecondary institutions they attend describes the law in a manner contrary to journalistic and popular understanding. Essentially, the title is written as a defense of its own content, so controversial and unpopular that it was criticized by the United Nations commissioner for Human Rights.

Wikipedia lists two, separate reasons why an official name may be inappropriate. Consider the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which triggered the extraordinary escalation of U.S. intervention in Vietnam. Its official title, "Joint Resolution To promote the maintenance of international peace and security in southeast Asia," is not only unknown, but also a description exactly contrary to the bill's content (Stanley Karnow calls it a "virtual blank check to conduct war").

The long and patently propagandistic title may also explain why the bill is universally known as Bill 78: this title pops up in 670 news articles through a search (alongside the word "Quebec") in LexisNexis Academic, whereas the title you propose, and that given by the bill's authors, pops up 7 times.

Lastly, I appreciate the example you gave regarding Quebec's official language act. That particular title is short and neutrally descriptive. It is, just as importantly, used by 2,225 news articles (again found via LexisNexis), whereas its other name, Bill 22, is used only a quarter as often.

This is a relatively straightforward case of WP:COMMONNAME and WP:POVTITLE. Incorporating Mr Serjeant Buzfuz suggestions, and the opinions of 我不在乎 and MrBoire above opposing the new name, I think we should name the article Bill 78 (Quebec, 2012). -Darouet (talk) 21:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bill 78 (Quebec, 2012). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:22, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bill 78 (Quebec, 2012). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:02, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 16 December 2016

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure) Fuortu (talk) 12:08, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bill 78 (Quebec, 2012) → Bill 78 – Unnecessary disambiguation, as evidenced by the prefix index. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 03:53, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bill 78. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bill_78&oldid=1206300028"