Situating the Reasonable Accommodation Debates in Quebec's Contention for Sovereignty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
O n 18 October 2017, amidst controversies, Parti libéral du Québec (PLQ) passed Bill 62 in Quebec's National Assembly with a vote of 66 to 51.Titled, "An Act to foster adherence to State religious neutrality and, in particular, to provide a framework for requests for accommodations on religious grounds in certain bodies," the new law sought to emphasise state neutrality towards religions, and to offer streamlined legal guidelines for reasonable accommodation requests in the province.What made the headlines, however, was its Section 10, 1 which stipulated that public employees, and persons receiving services from them, must have their faces uncovered.Although different interpretations have been suggested regarding its implementation, and reasonable accommodation requests could be made with regard to this clause, Section 10 effectively prohibited 1.The stipulation on face covering was in Section 9 in earlier drafts of the bill.Court suspended Section 10 of the bill in December 2017, and once again in June 2018 soon after the government published guidelines for the bill's application.2 On the other side of the spectrum, Parti Québécois (PQ) and Coalition Avenir Québec (CAQ) voted against the bill on the grounds that it did not go far enough.In its place, the two parties agreed on promulgating a revamped Charte de laïcité whereby face covering would be completely prohibited in public, and all religious symbols would be banned for public employees in positions of authority (e.g., police officers, judges, prison guards, teachers and daycare educators).3 Following the bitter controversy triggered by Bill 62, the campaign for the provincial election of October 2018 featured heated discussions on immigration, Quebecois values, and the place of religion in the provincial public sphere.4 François Legault, leader of the victorious CAQ, promised before the elections that his government would uphold Bill 62's restriction on face veils, and pass a state secularism bill in its first year to ban religious symbols for public employees in positions of authority.5 According to survey data, 87% of Quebecois supported Bill 62, a figure that reached 91% among francophone citizens.6 A rich scholarly literature emerged in the last decade to make sense of the polemics on religion in the province.These focused, among other 2. Guiseppe Valiante, "Quebec judge once again suspends application of province's religious neutrality law," Global News,
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.032 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".