July 19, 2012–Today, Quebec’s Human Rights Commission issued a 56-page report condemning provisions of Law 78. Below is the press release of the Commission announcing its ruling, as translated by ‘Translating the Printemps Erable (Quebec Spring)’.
The Commission does not have the legal authority to reverse Law 78. A challenge to Law 78 in Quebec courts by some 100 student associations, trade unions, civil rights organizations and individuals is proceeding. Below is a July 19 news report of the appeal by this group of a judge’s ruling last month that rejected a request for a suspension of the application of Law 78 pending a decision of the full challenge. T
The latter is expected to take one year or longer.
******************
PRESS RELEASE, July 19, 2012. Concerning the special law to assure students’ return to class
Certain dispositions of (Law 78) infringe upon the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, according to the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse (The Human and Youth Rights Commission of Quebec)
Original press release in French, here
Montreal, July 19, 2012 – The Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse (The Human and Youth Rights Commission of Quebec) is of the opinion that the special law seeking to ensure the students’ return to classes infringes upon fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.
The detailed analysis of the Law allowing students to receive education dispensed by the post-secondary institutions they attend, made public today, confirms the serious concerns that the Commission had expressed last May 18 when the National Assembly adopted Bill 78. The Commission committed to analyze the Bill, in accordance with its responsibility to take issue with dispositions of Quebec laws that are contrary to the Charter.
The 56-page analysis recalls that the Quebec Charter is a fundamental law of a quasi-constitutional status and that has precedence over all other Quebec laws. Article 52 of the Charter cautions that no legislative disposition, even subsequent to the Charter, can derogate from articles 1 through 38, unless the it enunciates explicitly that the disposition is to be applied notwithstanding the Charter.
The Commission concludes that articles 12 through 31 of the Law infringe directly or indirectly upon fundamental freedoms, including freedom of conscience, of opinion, of expression, of peaceful assembly, and of association, guaranteed by the Charter. These articles of the Law do not satisfy the test of justification of compliance with the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence in the application of article 9.1 of the Charter.
These articles of the Law should consequently be lawfully inapplicable, given that the legislator has not specifically derogated from the Charter, in accordance with article 52 of the Charter.
More specifically, the Commission considers that the following articles are contrary to the Charter:
– Article 13, because it infringes upon the freedom of expression, of peaceful assembly and of association. Formulated in broad and imprecise terms, it forbids gestures and activities that are protected by the guarantees relative to fundamental freedoms.
– Article 14, because it infringes upon the freedom of peaceful assembly and, consequently, to the freedom of expression and of association by forbidding all assemblies inside a building where educational services are dispensed, on its lot, or within a 50 meter radius of its outer limits.
– Articles 12 to 14, because they infringe upon the freedom of conscience of targets individuals by forcing them to act in disregard to their feeling of solidarity and to their convictions.
– Article 15, because it infringes upon freedom of association by imposing a principle of distinct responsibility upon targeted associations, which includes an obligation of means or consideration towards a control that they do not have, either in fact or in law, upon their members.
– Articles 16 and 17, because they infringe upon the freedom of expression and of peaceful assembly by implementing a regulation of prior declaration for all demonstrations of 50 or more people.
– Articles 18 through 31, because they infringe upon the freedom of expression, of peaceful assembly and of association owing notably to the severity of the sanctions and of the doubt that they raise pertaining to what is allowed or not.
-30-
Judge to rule on anti-protest law request
Delay would leave students without their strongest tactic – spontaneous protests
By René Bruemmer, The Gazette, July 19, 2012
Arguing “timing is everything,” lawyers for Quebec student federations, labour organizations and private individuals presented arguments for the Court of Appeals to hear their case against the Charest government’s anti-protest legislation Wednesday.
Attempts by the collective representing more than 100 groups and individuals to strike down several elements of Bill 78 were refused by Superior Court Justice François Rolland in late June. He ruled the bill must be judged in its entirety and dismissed the group’s motion to rescind only certain articles of the bill that put restrictions on protests and allow crippling fines on student associations that hamper students from attending classes.
Lawyers Wednesday argued the court case examining the constitutionality of Bill 78 won’t begin until January at the earliest. The delay would leave student demonstrators and common citizens without their strongest negotiating tactic – spontaneous protests – just as classes are set to begin in mid-august, and as tuition fee hikes at the heart of the months-long protest movement start to kick in.
“For our clients, and for the large parts of the population who are contesting the special law, the ability to protest can never be put off until later,” said lawyer Félix-Antoine Michaud of the non-profit legal aid organization Juripop, which is representing the Fédération étudiante collégiale du Québec (FECQ), the Fédération étudiante universitaire du Québec (FEUQ) and the Table de concertation étudiante du Québec (Taceq).
“We will be coming into the first year of the hike decreed by the government of Quebec, and it is in the first month of that rise that demonstrations will be most needed.”
Student associations were particularly critical of Articles 16 and 17 of Bill 78, which call on organizers of demonstrations of 50 people or more to give police the itinerary of their march at least eight hours in advance. Those regulations would not allow for spontaneous marches, for instance in response to a hastily called political meeting or speech by Premier Jean Charest.
The law would be very useful for suppressing dissent during a provincial election campaign that is expected to be called this summer, student leaders noted. Quebec’s criminal code and highway safety code already give police ample powers to provide security for the populace, their lawyer argued, without having to resort to a special law.
Lawyers for the government had earlier argued it had no choice but to enact the special law because protests were becoming violent and court injunctions allowing students to return to class weren’t being respected by protesters.
Lawyers for the Quebec government argued Judge Rolland’s ruling did not change matters – protesters still have the right to protest, and those who flaunted the law by not presenting an itinerary were not arrested as long as they were peaceful.
That statement failed to assure student leaders.
“If the government or the police or (Education Minister) Michèlle Courchesne wakes up one morning and decides to attack the student associations, this law will allow it,” said Yanick Grégoire, vice-president of the executive for FEUQ. “The prejudice exists in this law, so it is important for us to use all the tools we have to try and suspend it.”
Grégoire said student federations will be meeting on the weekend of Aug. 11, one week before last season’s truncated winter session is set to resume, and will decide then on their next course of action.
Judge François Doyon said he would render a decision shortly as to whether the court would accept the collective’s request for an appeal. If it does, the earliest it could be heard would be in September.
Bill 78 violates charter: rights commission
Public security minister argues law is necessary
By René Bruemmer, The Gazette, July 20, 2012
Quebec’s embattled anti-protest law created to quell unruly demonstrations and allow students to return to classes was dealt another blow Thursday. The province’s human rights commission announced that, following a twomonth analysis, it deemed Bill 78 undermines fundamental freedoms guaranteed under Quebec’s Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.
Student federations, legal groups and the opposition Parti Québécois were quick to hail the announcement as a validation of their position the law violates the constitutional right of all Quebecers to free speech. “Now that the commission has vigorously condemned Bill 78, the only thing the Liberal government can do is to abolish this odious law,” said PQ education critic Sylvain Gaudreault in a statement.
Noting that the charter takes precedence over other legislation and no law can supersede it, the commission states in its 56-page analysis most of Bill 78’s articles must be declared inapplicable. “The commission concludes that the articles 12 to 31 of the law directly or indirectly undermine fundamental freedoms, including freedom of conscience, of opinion, of expression, of peaceful reunion and association guaranteed under the charter,” the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse wrote.
The Liberal government instituted Bill 78 on May 18, arguing that it was necessary to quell months of unruly protests that were becoming more violent, and to allow students access to classes without being hampered by protesters blocking their way, as had been happening despite court injunctions guaranteeing access.
In response to the commission’s finding, Public Security Minister Rober Dutil said in a statement that the law “was adopted with the primary goal of assuring and allowing our young people to have access to their schools in a secure fashion. We were witness to scenes of violence that are unacceptable for a society like ours.”
Critics responded that laws already exist that punish violence and destruction of property. Bill 78, which requires demonstrators to submit an itinerary for marches with more than 50 people eight hours in advance, and threatens student federations with fines in excess of $100,000 for blocking classes, are draconian measures that affect the rights of all Quebecers who wish to make their views known.
Lawyers for student federations and labour organizations are planning to contest the law in its entirety in Supreme Court this fall or winter. In the meantime, they are trying to have elements of the law suspended. Their initial request was refused in Superior Court. On Wednesday, lawyers made a request to have that decision overturned. Quebec’s Court of Appeal will rule in the coming days whether it will hear their case.
