> The Coaliton Avenir Québec government wants to pass a bill today that will bar public-school teachers, government lawyers, judges and police officers from wearing religious symbols while at work.
> The bill also invokes the notwithstanding clause in an effort to spare it from court challenges about its constitutionality.
> The bill also invokes the notwithstanding clause in an effort to spare it from court challenges about its constitutionality.
To explain what this means, the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms (equivalent to the various rights spelled out in the American constitution) includes a clause, called the not withstanding clause, that basically says "you can make a law that violates these rights as long as you say so in the law, and you renew that law every 5 years".
> The Parliament of Canada, a provincial legislature or a territorial legislature may declare that one of its laws or part of a law applies temporarily ("notwithstanding") countermanding sections of the Charter, thereby nullifying any judicial review by overriding the Charter protections for a limited period of time. This is done by including a section in the law clearly specifying which rights have been overridden. A simple majority vote in any of Canada's 14 jurisdictions may suspend the core rights of the Charter.
Basically, imagine if states could pass temporary laws that were not allowed to be challenged as unconstitutional. For some reason, Canada allows that.
> Basically, imagine if states could pass temporary laws that were not allowed to be challenged as unconstitutional. For some reason, Canada allows that.
One argument in favour is that it preserves the ability to pass emergency acts without contorting the definition of 'rights'.
As a negative example, look at current US rhetoric regarding a "national emergency" over immigration. That is being used to justify acts that might under other circumstances be unconstitutional, but the only way the courts can allow it is to also allow broad, ad-hoc "national security" exceptions to constitutional rights.
If the US had something similar to the notwithstanding clause, the line of authority would be much clearer. An act that would otherwise be unconstitutional can still pass and become effective if the elected government certifies the need, on a temporary basis.
While this clause (and similar language in s.1 of the Charter, which states that rights are guaranteed to "such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.") ostensibly weakens the strength of rights in Canada, I believe that this presence invites courts to paradoxically take a stronger view of rights on a day-to-day basis. In particular, they're much more likely to truly inquire whether government actions are reasonable.
Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, known as the
notwithstanding clause, is part of the Constitution of Canada. Also
known as the override clause, Section 33 allows federal, provincial
or territorial governments to temporarily override, or bypass,
certain Charter rights. Section 33 overrides can last only five years,
when they are subject to renewal. Although the clause is available to
governments, its use is politically difficult and therefore rare. It
is known colloquially as the “nuclear option,” because its use is
considered extremely severe. Since the Constitution was patriated in
1982, the clause has been used only a handful of times by various
provinces. The federal government has never
invoked the notwithstanding clause.
This law almost certainly violates the charter IMO (except for the notwithstanding clause) because of freedom of religion and expression. What it gains them is the ability to pass this law without it being overturned. I'd say it's completely in character for Quebec to pass a law like this with no ulterior motives except what's on the box - preventing civil servants from wearing religious symbols.
Even if you think it almost certainly doesn't violate the charter, it gains them the ability to pass this law without wasting tons of money on lawsuits, and having people who object to it also waste tons of money on lawsuits.
> I'd say it's completely in character for Quebec to pass a law like this with no ulterior motives except what's on the box - preventing civil servants from wearing religious symbols.
Additionally, Québec is the province in Canada with the strongest sense of a unique cultural identity. It is the Francophone-majority province in an English-majority Canada, and it has a long history of using public policy to advocate in favour of its particular group identity.
In turn, they wish to prevent civil servants from wearing religious symbols in order to enforce a form of laïcité in the public face of the province, as a role model of what Québec "should" be like. Advocates are obviously concerned that this religious-symbol ban will drift downwards to affect people who seek to use government services as well.
An opt out clause that provinces have that allows them to prioritize cultural aspects higher than the constitution.
We have a situation where a very controlling and supervisory religion does not want to allow any reformation or 'backsliding' in their adherence. That means in speech and dress they must conform to their religion - even though many of the younger ones dearly want to reform and/or 'backslide'.
The priovince says while you work for us and are paid for us, you must dress like us. Do what you like at home/in private. A lot of Canadians do not want to deal with masked people in provincial offices or in the photo on their drivers licence or whatever, when those same Canadian are denied the ability to wear a mask. I have to admit that having a drivers licence of a masked women does not meet identification reality for that or for health or drug benefits. In fact, there have been many cases of people borrowing health(Free medical care cards in Canada) cards to use for non residents.
Added to that is the large group of young muslims who want reformation and to shake islam off their boots.
All those made in China apps have a hard time penetrating non Chineese markets. But they could if they want to, like TikTok which is popular in India too.
Yes, but it won't be spewing out any noxious gases while stranded in traffic (neither would a hybrid or a shut off idle car, but none of those are in that picture).
The language, to me, seemed very precise and inoffensive. "Free rider" isn't a word that he just made up.
"In the social sciences, the free-rider problem is a type of market failure that occurs when those who benefit from resources, public goods, or services of a communal nature do not pay for them.[1] Free riders are a problem because while not paying for the good, they may continue to access it. Thus, the good may be under-produced, overused or degraded"[0]
Actually, "free riders" is an excellent thinking model, and the likely most useful way to analyze it.
He needs to create a sustainable app/service, and does not have a lot of external VC resources to burn while doing so. Thus, it must be sustainable in real time.
Server loads are apparently one of his biggest expenses, so he must optimize to minimize those resources.
OTOH, allowing people to take substantial 'free rides' to test the product in their situation is an excellent way to get new paying users, and often an essential gateway to conversion. I'll hardly sign up for anything without a real test drive.
So, letting potential customers get some 'free riding' is good, but too much will sink the ship.
It looks like he has a limited time 60-day demo and also a no server unlimited time demo. Both seem like good ways to limit the resources given away for free, while providing enough 'free rides' to entice them to pay for the journey.
I'm already heading over check it out after just browsing the main page & comments.
Now, if you are trying to say that mentioning the "free rider" term in public is somehow insulting to the potential users. I don't think so. He's not calling them "freeloaders" which has a more derogatory connotation. the "free rider" term carries a connotation a little bit like I've won a free ride, but it isn't a permanet free pass. I wouldn't find "hey, you get a free ride for two months" at all insulting.
HaHa! The "eats resources" would not be the most friendly approach . . . although framed in the right context, the A/B test might come out different than we expect!
Overall I agree, if all you are saying is that the "free rider who eats resources" phrasing isn't the most customer friendly possible usage, all other things being equal
All I was saying is if he calls trial users "free riders eating resources" on a tech site which we all understand the verbiage and where this comes from.
How will he treat paying customers ? I smell double standards. That's all I am saying.
2. It's a valid and well understood term on the board you're on
3. It's a legitimate problem for those with finite resources
That leads to the conclusion that you probably don't pay for things often which is why you got your feelings hurt. There is literally no way that term should be offensive to you unless you abusively take advantage of services and then some then when it comes time to pay.
None of your comments have been relevant to the app. Your comments been complaints about specific verbiage used to describe a particular problem, common to startups, that the dev wished to avoid. We'd love to hear your points on what the app could use, however you've done nothing but insinuate that the developer doesn't appreciate his users because a particular word choice caught you wrong. I can see no other reason someone would take offense to a word choice unless they were personally offended. Please feel free to enlighten us by refuting any point of my comment. Your reply realistically doesn't do anything to respond to my summary.
Yeah totally, from the moment when they realize I am from India, they say they watch bollywood in Netflix to which I say "I do not speak much Hindi and I seldom watch bollywood movies"
Québec is an exception to this. Québec do not follow the Express Entry system. Québec has its own immigration system called Québec Skilled Worker Programme which is currently dysfunctional, plagued with delays. Québec gives more importance to knowing French rather than any other skills in selecting immigrants. As a result, Quebec has a pool of unemployable but French speaking immigrants.
Canada is an English speaking country except Québec. Why would a highly skilled immigrant learn yet another language to immigrate to Netherlands, if given a choice between an English speaking country and non English one ?
Everybody speaks English in the Netherlands. People live there for years without learning the local language. Working language in many companies that hire migrants is English.
Can those employees progress in their career without speaking the native language ?
Will the kids get an education in English ?
Can the immigrant take part in social activities ?
Can they talk to their doctors or to the grocery store in English without misunderstanding.
How is the attitude towards English ? Will a nationalist government change those English friendliness ?
There are things like these a skilled economic immigrant should consider before immigrating to a non English speaking country.
Take the example of Québec, although it's a province in the English speaking Canada, immigrants who speak only English are not welcomed and frowned upon. They find it hard to get by. They end up moving to other provinces. If the immigrant is not white, the difficulties are 2x in Québec. To be fair, Québec's hate for English is well founded if you examine their colonial history and hence the strict language laws.
Because very often English is the language of business, and the highly-skilled migrant visa makes no demands of you to learn Dutch. Practically speaking, Netherlands is (enough of) an English speaking place.
> The bill also invokes the notwithstanding clause in an effort to spare it from court challenges about its constitutionality.