Constitutional (mis)Adventures: Revisiting Quebec’s Proposed Charter of Values
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In November 2013, the Parti Québécois introduced the Charter affirming the values of State secularism and religious neutrality and of equality between women and men, and providing a framework for accommodation requests (also known as Bill 60). This proposed piece of legislation would substantially alter how public services are offered and received in Québec. This article argues that this legislative project was much more than a simple law, and rather, as discussed, about reconfiguring the constitutional relationship that Quebecers entertain with the rest of Canada. As such, it engages with the constitutional “misadventures”, as experienced in Quebec in 2013-2014. Drawing on briefs submitted to the Commission des institutions before the National Assembly and the official report of debates, as well as relevant academic commentary and case law, this article offers a critical portrait of Bill 60 in order to understand its scope and its potential implications on a constitutional level, including a background to Bill 60, in terms of past confrontations with religious reasonable accommodation in Quebec. Ultimately, this article proposes a more careful elaboration of religious reasonable accommodation, how it would alter the meaning of accommodation under the Quebec Charter and the resulting tension with the Canadian Charter.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".