No description available.

Au cours des dernières années, plusieurs professionnels de la santé ont dénoncé publiquement des situations problématiques affectant le système de santé et des services sociaux du Québec, notamment par le biais des réseaux sociaux et des médias traditionnels. Alors qu’ils contribuent à renforcer la transparence des organismes du réseau de la santé et à protéger les droits des usagers, ces lanceurs d’alerte se heurtent à une culture du silence et s’exposent, encore aujourd’hui, à des mesures de représailles. Ce mémoire cherche à clarifier le cadre juridique entourant les dénonciations publiques effectuées par les professionnels de la santé. La première partie examine la portée de la liberté d’expression dont jouissent ces professionnels. Cette liberté fondamentale, comme le droit du public d’être informé, n’est pas absolue. Son exercice doit être concilié avec d’autres droits et obligations, dont le droit à la réputation de l’employeur, le devoir de loyauté et les obligations déontologiques du professionnel, ainsi que les droits des patients. La deuxième partie s’intéresse à la protection juridique des dénonciateurs. Au fil des ans, le législateur a adopté plusieurs dispositions afin de faciliter la divulgation de certains actes répréhensibles. Celles-ci protègent principalement les personnes qui font des signalements à l’interne ou auprès d’une autorité compétente. Dans une perspective critique, ce mémoire souligne les insuffisances du droit québécois en matière de dénonciation publique et propose des avenues interprétatives et législatives visant à renforcer la protection des lanceurs d’alerte dans le secteur de la santé. / In recent years, several healthcare professionals have publicly denounced problematic situations affecting Quebec's health and social services system, notably via traditional and social media. Although they contribute to strengthening transparency in healthcare institutions and protecting the rights of users, these whistleblowers face a culture of silence and are still exposed to retaliation. This Master's thesis seeks to clarify the legal framework governing public disclosure made by healthcare professionals. The first part discusses the scope of the professionals' freedom of expression. This fundamental freedom, such as the public's right to be informed, is not absolute. Its exercise must be reconciled with other rights and obligations, including the employer's right to reputation, the duty of loyalty, ethical obligations, and the patients' rights. The second part focuses on legal protection for whistleblowers. The legislator has adopted over the years many provisions to facilitate the disclosure of wrongdoings. These provisions mainly protect whistleblowers who report internally or to a competent authority. Adopting a critical perspective, this thesis highlights the weaknesses of Quebec's legal framework on public disclosure and proposes interpretative and legislative pathways to reinforce the protection of whistleblowers in the healthcare sector.

Le salarié était destiné à devenir un citoyen dans l’entreprise. Titulaire de droits fondamentaux opposables aux pouvoirs étatiques dans la cité, il semblait normal qu’il puisse aussi les exercer devant la puissance patronale. Ces garanties sont en effet intrinsèques à tout être humain, universelles et inaliénables. Sous l’effet hiérarchique des instruments prééminents qui les consacrent, les droits et libertés se sont introduits au sein de la relation d’emploi. La nullité des normes du droit du travail qui sont incompatibles sera déclarée. La hiérarchisation des sources en droit du travail le réclame. Ces droits et libertés sont formulés en termes généraux et abstraits, ce qui augure mal de leur usage immédiat dans le monde du travail. L’activité interprétative du juge apparaît indispensable. Dans sa quête du sens des libertés dans le travail, la méthode contextuelle qu’il privilégie débouche sur une aporie. Elle l’incite à prendre en considération l’ensemble du contexte normatif de la relation d’emploi. Les sources propres au droit du travail dictent ainsi le contenu des droits de la personne et posent des conditions à leur exercice en milieu de travail. Elles justifient également de nombreuses restrictions, voire suppressions, apportées par l’employeur. Les mutations subies par la liberté d’expression et le droit à la vie privée des salariés confirment l’effet réducteur de la relation d’emploi sur les protections offertes par la Charte québécoise. Cette façon de juger renverse la pyramide des normes juridiques. Le noyau intangible de ces garanties est affaibli, car les libertés du travailleur ne possèdent plus la même signification que celles des autres citoyens. Des violations se multiplient sous le regard complice du juge, du fait que les intérêts purement privés de l’entreprise, axés sur la productivité et le profit, reçoivent une légitimité avérée. Le rapport de force et les pouvoirs de la figure patronale se fortifient par l’entremise du contentieux des droits fondamentaux en emploi. Le contrôle exercé par l’autorité patronale s’étend parfois jusque dans la vie personnelle du travailleur et compromet la jouissance des libertés hors du travail. Salarié dans l’entreprise, l’individu le demeure désormais dans la cité. S’impose alors la recherche d’un cadre d’analyse plus respectueux de la cohérence du système juridique et favorisant l’épanouissement des droits et libertés du travailleur. Les statuts de salarié et de personne humaine pourront enfin être réconciliés. / Citizenship in the workplace was destined to become a reality. As a holder of fundamental rights against state powers in society, it seemed normal that the employee could also oppose them to employers’ powers, as these guarantees are inherent to all human beings, universal and inalienable. Statutes granting a preponderance to human rights and freedoms have definitively contributed to their introduction into the employment relationship. Therefore, provisions of labour legislation or workplace rules that are inconsistent with human rights will be declared null and void. The hierarchy of sources of labour law requires it. Rights and freedoms are stated in abstract and general terms, which makes it difficult to apply them instantly in the labour sphere. Judicial interpretation appears necessary to clarify what individual freedoms mean in the workplace. However, a contextual interpretation leads to aporia. This approach encourages the decision-maker to consider the whole normative context of the employment relationship. Specific sources of labour law dictate the content of human rights and set conditions to their exercise by the salaried person. They also justify many restrictions, or even deletions, imposed by the employer. The significant changes in the scope of workers’ freedom of speech and right to privacy confirm that the employment relationship has a reductive effect on the protections offered by the Quebec Charter. This kind of reasoning inverts the hierarchical structure of the legal system. The core of human rights and freedoms is weakened. It no longer has the same meaning for workers as for other citizens. Moreover, the unchallenged legitimacy of business interests, motivated by the increase of productivity and profit, multiplies violations of the workers’ fundamental rights. The employer’s prerogatives and management rights are strengthened through the human rights case law in the field of employment. In some instances, the employer’s control can extend into the employee’s personal life and thus compromise the enjoyment of freedom beyond work. The employee status now follows the individual into his civil life. The search for an analytical framework that is more respectful of the coherence of the legal system and which fully ensures the protection and the development of human rights and freedoms at work is essential. The status of worker and of human being will finally be reconciled.

The traditional narrative of political party development in the United States of America during the latter half of the 1790s ascribes the decline in popularity of the Federalist Party in the Election of 1800 to that party's passage of controversial legislation, specifically the Sedition Act of 1798, prior to the election. Between the passage of the Sedition Act and the Election of 1800, however, the midterm elections of 1798-1799 transpired and resulted in a significant increase in Federalist popularity in four states – North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Virginia. This study seeks to ascertain why these four states increased their support for the Federalist Party in 1798-1799, despite the passage of the Sedition Act by the Federalist Party. By examining newspapers and election results, this study analyzes the reaction of these four states to the passage of the Sedition Act and finds that generally, these states did not react strongly against the Sedition Act in the immediate aftermath of its passage. Instead, all four states urged national unity and emphasized the need to support the national government because the United States faced the threat of war with France. This study employs a state-by-state formula to determine each state's individual reaction to the Sedition Act and the Quasi-War, finding that ultimately, the Sedition Act did not have as significant of an impact in these states as the popular narrative holds.

Punk rock provided not only a watershed of creativity, innovation and a do-it-yourself spirit to a culture saturated in the mainstream, it physically brought like-minded people together in a community, or rather extended family, which in today’s hyper-d.i.y. culture, is progressively declining. As early as the 1940s, theorists such as Adorno and Horkheimer warned us about alienation in a society increasingly dependent on technology. By looking to punk, and other resilient and robust counter-cultures, perhaps we can find solutions to the pitfalls of the ‘culture industry’ (Adorno, Horkheimer, 1944). My thesis, consisting of a feature-length documentary film and textual analysis, is a culmination of: ethnographic research into the punk scene in my own community; theoretical research into the sociology, ethnography and subculture theory; and my own subjectivity. My personal findings are presented to offer insight into punk philosophy and to spur discourse, rather than deliver an objective account or didactic reproach. / Graduate

From  the  process  of  globalization  of  law,  the  comparative constitutional law has gained a leading role for a better understanding and solving old and new constitutional national and international challenges. Therefore, some assumptions and considerations to take into account are presented for the development of the national constitutional order within the framework of the comparative constitutional law, such as universality and relativism of human rights; the concept of power and constitutional democracy; standards of free elections and judicial independence; freedom of expression, media pluralism and access to public information; the economic,social and cultural rights; the new fundamental rights. / A partir del proceso de globalización del derecho, el derecho constitucional comparado ha ido adquiriendo un rol protagónico para una mejor comprensión y solución de los viejos y nuevos desafíos constitucionales, tanto nacionales como internacionales. Por ello, se presentan algunos presupuestos y consideraciones temáticas a tomar en cuenta para el desarrollo del ordenamiento constitucional nacional en el marco del derecho constitucional comparado, tales como la universalidad y el relativismo de los derechos humanos; el concepto de poder y democracia constitucional; los estándares de elecciones libres e independencia judicial; la libertad de expresión, la pluralidad informativa y el acceso a la información pública; los  derechos  económicos,  sociales  y  culturales,  y;  los nuevos derechos fundamentales.

L’objet de la recherche consiste à mettre en évidence que la prise en compte des violences émeutières requiert une évolution de l’environnement juridique et des méthodes de maintien de la paix publique hérités de notre histoire. Notre dispositif de gestion de l’ordre public est particulièrement adapté au modèle français de manifestation. C’est considérable et exemplaire à beaucoup d’égards mais cela ne peut clore le débat sur les formes de la réaction sociale nécessaires pour répondre aux différentes formes du répertoire de la protestation en particulier à la dynamique complexe des désordres émeutiers.Alors que la manifestation, son encadrement par les forces de sécurité intérieure et son environnement juridique ressortissent à la culture de l’organisation et de l’ordre, les violences émeutières relèvent, quant à elles, de comportements colériques naturels. Elles constituent un objet et un enjeu différents que traduisent notamment la récurrence des crises en milieu urbain et la difficulté d’y faire face de façon satisfaisante.Sur le plan opérationnel comme sur le plan juridique, l’éventail de la réponse aux désordres est particulièrement large, mais il traduit également un double embarras :• Les violences émeutières sont le plus souvent des violences d’expression. Qu’ils en soient conscients ou non, face à ces comportements, le juge et le politique se sont montrés fréquemment indulgents dans un contexte juridique où la liberté d’expression est un droit fondamental et la manifestation une conquête sans équivalent dans notre pays. Les réponses sociale et judiciaire se caractérisent donc par une mansuétude parfois légitime, parfois inadaptée mais souvent mal comprise.• Les modes d’action policiers et les outils du Droit façonnés par l’environnement juridique et la culture de la manifestation, peuvent se révéler inadaptés pour répondre aux émeutes urbaines et conduire à des évolutions aussi variées qu’inappropriées comme la banalisation du recours à des régimes juridiques d’exception et la sédimentation d’une culture d’affrontement entre police et population.Le concept retentissement / identification et l’analyse des colères rebelles et insoumises ouvrent la voie à une adaptation du droit et de la réponse sociale conciliant le respect des droits fondamentaux et le maintien de la paix publique dans l’espace urbain. Tel est l’enjeu de la dialectique « Libertés - Droit - désordres ». / The object of the research is to highlight that rioting violence cannot be dealt with without an evolution of the legal framework and public-order policing inherited from our History. Our way to manage public-order policing is particularly suitable to our French traditional demonstration pattern. It is significant and exemplary in many respects but that alone cannot close the debate about the forms of social reaction that would be necessary to answer the various forms of the repertoire of protest especially the complex dynamics of rioting disorders.Even though the demonstration, its framing by the police and its legal framework are both an order issue and a cultural issue, rioting acts of violence are a natural irascible behaviour of the human nature. Riots are an object and an issue which translate into in recurring urban crises and the difficulty to satisfactorily deal with them.From an operational point of view and from a judicial one, there is a wide range of answers to the disorders but this results in a double embarrassment:• Riots are very often a means of expression. Consciously or not, the judge and the policy-maker have frequently been indulgent with these behaviours in a legal context in which freedom of expression is a fundamental human right and demonstrating a conquest without equivalent in our country. Social and judicial answers are characterized by indulgence, sometimes legitimate, sometimes inadequate and often ill-understood.• Policing and the tools of the law that were shaped by the legal framework and the culture of demonstration can prove to be inadequate to cope with urban riots and they can result in various as well as inappropriate answers like the trivialization of emergency legal schemes and the sedimentation of a culture of clash between people and the police.The repercussion and identification concept and the analysis of the rebel and unsubdued bouts of anger pave the way to an adaptation of the law and the social response aiming at balancing both the expression of the basic rights and the preservation of public peace in urban areas. This is what is at stake with the dialectics « Liberties – Law – Disorder ».

Freedom of expression is a fundamental human right which is important not only for the intellectual integrity of an individual but also for the healthy development of the whole society. The work represents both general arguments for freedom of expression and codification of freedom in two different legal cultures. In the United States the freedom of expression is protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution, which complements the rich jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of the United States. In Mexico, the right is regulated in Article 6 of the Constitution. The work shows how both countries reached the current legislation on the basis of examination of legal developments and cultural values. The values of the societies are presented on the basis of Hofstede's cultural dimensions. The core of the thesis is to compare the legal limits, which is made primarily on the basis of judicial practice of the Supreme Courts of both countries. Emphasis is placed on four main areas which are related to freedom of speech: (i) fighting words including hate speech, (ii) symbolic speech, (iii) obscenity, and (iv) defamation. In addition to the legal limits the work interprets also the most significant actual limits in both countries. Finally, the author examines the relationship between freedom of expression and...

Lobbying should be strictly regulated – that is the major finding of this thesis. The thesis presents many reasons to enact stricter regulations. The principle one being that, as lightly regulated as it is, lobbying is corroding democracy in both Canada and the United States. The thesis opens with a deep investigation of how lobbying works in both countries. There are examples taken from the literature, as well as original qualitative interviews of Canadian lobbyists, former politicians, and officials. Together, these make it clear that there is an intimate relationship between lobbying and campaign financing. The link between the two is sufficiently tight that lobbying and campaign financing should be considered mirrors of each other for the purposes of regulatory design and constitutional jurisprudence. They both have large impacts on government decision-making. Left lightly regulated, lobbying and campaign financing erode the processes of democracy, damage policy-making, and feed an inequality spiral into plutocracy. These have become major challenges of our time. The thesis examines the lobbying regulations currently in place. It finds the regulatory systems of both countries wanting. Since stricter regulation is required to protect democracy and equality, the thesis considers what constitutional constraints, if any, would stand in the way. This, primarily, is a study of how proposed stronger lobbying regulations would interact with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 2 (free expression and association rights) and s. 3 (democratic rights). The principal findings are that legislation which restricted lobbying as proposed would probably be upheld by the Canadian court, but struck down by the American court, due to differences in their constitutional jurisprudence. The thesis contends that robust lobbying regulations would align with Canadian Charter values, provide benefits to democracy, improve government decision-making, increase equality, and create more room for citizen voices. The thesis concludes with a set of proposed principles for lobbying reform and an evaluation of two specific reforms: limits on business lobbying and funding for citizen groups. Although the thesis focuses on Canadian and American lobbying regulations, its lessons are broadly applicable to any jurisdiction that is considering regulating lobbying.

This thesis is an examination of whether the “egalitarian model” for political finance that has been established by the Supreme Court of Canada, other Canadian courts and legal scholars and commentators is actually egalitarian and has been applied consistently (in Chapter 2), and whether Canada’s political finance system measures up to the Court’s model (in Chapters 3 and 4), and how it could be changed to comply with a more egalitarian model that would also be ethical in terms of preventing even the appearance of a conflict of interest (in Chapters 6 and 7). Chapter 1 sets out a general theoretical framework for evaluating the Supreme Court’s egalitarian model, and I develop and set out a more egalitarian model in Chapter 5. In the Chapter 8 conclusion, I summarize the findings and propose structural and positive Charter rights court cases as a way forward, given that the platforms federal politicians and political parties from the past few elections, and the reports of parliamentary committees, have not called for the most of the changes I propose are needed to make the system more egalitarian. The thesis addresses political finance broadly defined as money, property, use of property, gifts, services, favours and other benefits and advantages provided to nomination contestants, election candidates and political party leadership contestants, electoral district associations, political parties, politicians and their staff during election campaign periods and also during the time period between elections, including support provided by “third-party” interest groups, lobbyists and other individuals, and by media outlets. In Chapter 3, I examine the rules that apply to each of these political actors in the areas of registration, donations and loans, spending, public subsidies and disclosure (including auditing), including a separate section on the role of media and social media. Given that political systems include providers (whether as contractors or donors) of money, property and the use of property (including gifts and other benefits and advantages), and services (including favours) to politicians, and given that providers could be lobbyists, I also examine in Chapter 4 the rules concerning gifts, favours and other benefits and relations between voters, lobbyists and politicians, and concerning the conflicts of interest that can be caused by these activities. Other than disclosure and auditing, I do not cover enforcement measures or systems in any of the areas. However, I do note at various points in the thesis that, as several studies and history have shown clearly, effective enforcement measures, policies and practices are key to ensure compliance with such rules. The main contentions that I make are: that the key principles of the Supreme Court of Canada’s egalitarian model have not been consistently upheld by the Court and other Canadian courts, that Canada’ federal political finance system does not fulfill the Court’s egalitarian model, and that several changes are needed to make the model and the system more egalitarian, only a few of which have been addressed by Canadian courts and scholars to date. These contentions counter the claim made in the Court’s rulings, and by many scholars and commentators, that Canada’s political finance system has developed and is based on an egalitarian model. In Chapters 5 through 7, I develop a more egalitarian model and set out specific proposed changes to make Canada’s systems more egalitarian, both in theory and in practice, within the framework of a democratic good government political system (meaning a system with separation of powers, elections, human rights protections, rule of law etc.) and a mixed market economy with both public sector institutions and private sector businesses, unions and other organizations (cooperatives, non-profit, religious organizations etc.). Both the model and many of the specific proposed measures should also be applicable in other jurisdictions with different political systems and economic systems. The framework of 19 standards for a more egalitarian model that I develop in Chapter 5 is based mainly on John Rawls’ theory of justice, but modified and expanded to incorporate critiques of Rawls’ theory, other legal principles and democratic good government theories, international standards, government ethics case law, behavioural psychology studies, and evidence of the public’s expectations. The 201 proposals I make in Chapters 6 and 7 for specific changes to the rules of Canada’s current federal political finance system (again, broadly defined), are based on the model, measures from various jurisdictions in Canada and elsewhere, and international standards. I am not claiming that these changes would definitely result in “better” or more “public interest” policy-making decisions, however that would be determined. I am only contending that the framework I develop is more egalitarian than the Supreme Court’s model, and that the rule changes I suggest would make the political finance, gifts, favours, conflict of interest and lobbying systems align with the more egalitarian model I propose. I primarily use the doctrinal research methodology by examining scholarly research and, given I also examine aspects of the laws of Canadian provinces and municipalities, and other countries, I also deploy some aspects of the comparative methodology (most fully when comparing Canada’s federal rules to Quebec’s rules, and somewhat when comparing Canada’s rules to the U.S. and U.K. rules). The research results from these sources inform the conclusions I set out in my thesis. The thesis advances knowledge in the following areas: 1. It is the first complete evaluation of the federal Canadian political finance, gifts-favours-benefits, conflict of interest and lobbying rules and systems in their current state as of May 2023, based on the findings of extensive new research into key parts of these systems; 2. It sets out the first comprehensive analysis of how the Supreme Court of Canada’s egalitarian model has been applied by the Court and other courts inconsistently, in ways that do not comply with the model; 3. It sets out the first analysis of how Canada’s political finance statutory rules, again defined broadly to include rules that apply to donations, loans, gifts, services, favours and other benefits, lobbying and conflicts of interest, do not comply with the Supreme Court’s egalitarian model, based in part on new statistical research set out in 28 charts, and; 4. It sets out a new theoretical framework based on 19 standards, and a comprehensive set of 201 innovative proposals for changes to make Canada’s political finance rules (again defined broadly) more egalitarian, and more ethical in terms of preventing conflicts of interest. Five comprehensive studies of key parts of the political finance, ethics and lobbying systems are also proposed to gather key information needed to inform the design of some of the 201 proposed changes. Eight structural and positive Charter rights cases are also proposed to challenge current rules that do not comply with the egalitarian model.