Quebec's Religious Neutrality Law

[calgaryblood]

Originally Posted by Ducay

Things change when what you choose to wear masks your identity and face. Wear what you want on the rest of your body, just keep your face visible.

I could argue my religion makes me wear a giant Big Bird head. I'd say its pretty reasonable to ask you take it off to receive gov't services and the like. I'd still be able to keep the rest of my bird bird suit on.

You are being silly as usual. You CAN wear a giant big Bird head.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Ducay

Things change when what you choose to wear masks your identity and face.

No, they don't. There are no asterisks or exceptions in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, besides Section 1. If it doesn't pass the Oakes test, it's going to be thrown out.

[spuzzum]

This will kill Halloween. I'm sad

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by GGG

Taking religion out of it we would see no harm in a person wearing sunglasses to receive government services. This law bans wearing sunglasses on a bus. Doesn't seem like a reasonable request to me.

I do agree with you that it isn't a choice being made freely most of the time however if that is the situation do you think they will be allowed to go places where they are forced to remove it? If you could show ant evidence that the law would be effective at reducing its use then it could be supported on a human rights basis. I just don't see anyway that will happen though and instead you will isolate these women further and make their ability to get help more difficult.

I simply don't know whether or not it would be effective. I don't. But it is tiresome to hear people continually insist that it's a choice when we know in so many instances that it is literally the oppression of women, couched in "sincerely-held religious belief". And right now it appears the options are either "do something that may or may not be effective" or "do nothing and effectively defend the practice". And I will simply never defend or excuse the practice, so that's where I'm at.

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Take religion out of it and it's still probably unconstitutional. What you wear is a form of expression. It'll be interesting to see what the courts do with this.

We also have reasonable limits on freedom of expression, but I agree with you, this isn't cut and dried, and it'll be interesting to see if this passes scrutiny the first time it gets challenged in court.

[Amethyst]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

I simply don't know whether or not it would be effective. I don't. But it is tiresome to hear people continually insist that it's a choice when we know in so many instances that it is literally the oppression of women, couched in "sincerely-held religious belief". And right now it appears the options are either "do something that may or may not be effective" or "do nothing and effectively defend the practice". And I will simply never defend or excuse the practice, so that's where I'm at.

I agree that they are most likely being forced to where the veil. However, I don't agree with the government now telling them what they can or can't wear. Two wrongs don't make a right.

I don't think this law will help women who are forced to wear a veil at all. It will more likely hurt them. If someone is making his wife/daughter/sister/etc wear a veil in public, he's not going to say, "Oh, it's against the law now, better stop." He will tell those women that they must stay in the house now.

I read a book once about a woman who lived in Iran. The authorities there would arrest women who accidentally let a bit too much skin show. Now Quebec authorities are telling people they will get in trouble if not quite enough skin is showing. While the specifics are different, the idea of the government telling people what they are allowed to wear seems uncomfortably similar to me.

[Backlunds_socks]

Ahh whites trying to dictate non whites again.

I’m not against the new change but it is clearly racists

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Minnie

Just another reason added to the long list of reasons why I will never ever consider Quebec as somewhere I want to live. Visit, sure. Live? Not damned likely.

Meh. This Anglo lived 4 years in Montreal area and truly loved it. Rich own culture with incredible blend of other cultures. The diversity is so enjoyable. So much to see and do. Absolutely fantastic place to live.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

Yeah, it's rare that the result of stricter policies results in more freedom. Usually, human rights come from more freedoms rather than more restrictions.

Agreed.

FWIW. You will also not be allowed to wear a visible cross either. Certainly not the same effect, but it could be argued its the same intent.
Regardless, it's not valuable legislation imo.

[CliffFletcher]

This is bad policy on utilitarian grounds (it will likely isolate conservative Muslim women). However, it's a more nuanced issue than some are crediting.

The history of Quebec and of France (which also bans face coverings) need to be considered. Both are societies that vigorously uphold public secularism, owing to the role of the Catholic Church in maintaining oppressively conservative regimes in the past. Their societies put a higher value on public life being free of religious expression than they do on the freedom to practice religion in public.

Which is the same reason why Turkey had a ban on headscarves since the 1920s, when Ataturk founded the secular republic. Symbols of religious conservatism were considered backwards and a threat to the secular, forward-looking society that the leaders of Turkey were trying to build. The government of Turkey only removed the ban on headscarves in public institutions in 2011.

As for the bigotry angle, no doubt there's a strong strain of nativism in Quebec politics, and it's certainly not confined to the right. Many on Quebec's left consider the preservation of Quebec culture to be a core duty of the government, which is why the NDP lost its base in Quebec when Mulcair denounced the ban on the niqab.

Originally Posted by Backlunds_socks

Ahh whites trying to dictate non whites again.

Japan accepted 28 refugees last year. 28. In a country with 127 million people.

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by GGG

Why is it so crucially important that your face be visable to receive government services?

Is there any reason I should be denied services while wearing a big bird head?

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

You are being silly as usual. You CAN wear a giant big Bird head.

Seems like an identification and security thing to me - although I sure there are plenty of "secular" type arguments being made in QC to support this.

At the end of the day, it would be one thing if we were arguing about serving people in hijabs (Agree no reason to ban), but we're talking full body/face burqas. The fact anyone supports this type of oppressive clothing in the west is beyond me. But that's for another thread

[Thunderball]

I wouldn't be so sure this is definitely unconstitutional.

The SCC has previously held that encroachments into religious beliefs are permissible if there is a goal of "pressing and substantial importance capable of justifying limits on rights" being pursued by the government.

It's going to come down to how well Quebec legislators and lawyers did their homework (if at all):

https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/sc.../7808/index.do

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

I wouldn't be so sure this is definitely unconstitutional.

The SCC has previously held that encroachments into religious beliefs is permissible if there is a goal of "pressing and substantial importance capable of justifying limits on rights" being pursued by the government.

It's not the SCC holding that, it's provided for in section 1 of the Charter. This is the Oakes test - or rather, part of it. That's exactly what I said up above. Otherwise unconstitutional laws can be saved from being struck down if they're a reasonable limit prescribed by law that can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

That's not an exception to section 2 of the Charter. The law still contravenes that section. Section 1 is essentially a mechanism by which the Court can say, "even though this law violates the Charter, we're not going to strike it down, because it achieves an important governmental purpose for Canadian society, while minimally impairing Canadians' rights, and the good outweighs the bad". So it will be interesting to see where they go with that. My instinct is that it will be a tough uphill slog for the government.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

It's not the SCC holding that, it's provided for in section 1 of the Charter. This is the Oakes test - or rather, part of it. That's exactly what I said up above. Otherwise unconstitutional laws can be saved from being struck down if they're a reasonable limit prescribed by law that can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

That's not an exception to section 2 of the Charter. The law still contravenes that section. Section 1 is essentially a mechanism by which the Court can say, "even though this law violates the Charter, we're not going to strike it down, because it achieves an important governmental purpose for Canadian society, while minimally impairing Canadians' rights, and the good outweighs the bad". So it will be interesting to see where they go with that. My instinct is that it will be a tough uphill slog for the government.

I guess I should have been more accurate. That was the SCC's holding on an analogous issue based on their application of the Oakes test, and by that the law becomes constitutional by virtue of the Section 1 allowance, notwithstanding its violation of Section 2. In other words, encroachment into religious beliefs can become permissible.

I think you're right, it's not an easy battle, but there's a ton of grey area to be explored in applying the test.

[GGG]

Couldn't Quebec just invoke the notwithstanding clause to get out of any section 2 violations.

[Nage Waza]

It should be managed like visors in the NHL. Those wearing them now may continue wearing them, but anyone after this point in time, either born, moved here, converted or visiting may not.

[Flamenspiel]

Yep, the SCC can do whatever they want and Quebec can just employ the NW clause. They have used it before and they will use it again. I think its pretty consistent with the protection of French culture(language rights and all that), and a similar law was passed in France last year. No racism here, move on.

[activeStick]

Those who have been to Asia will have seen thousands of people wearing health masks to prevent the spread of germs while on public transit or in high crowd areas as a courtesy. Can't even imagine those governments banning face coverings.

[taco.vidal]

Originally Posted by activeStick

Those who have been to Asia will have seen thousands of people wearing health masks to prevent the spread of germs while on public transit or in high crowd areas as a courtesy. Can't even imagine those governments banning face coverings.

Yeah were not China here though.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by Backlunds_socks

Ahh whites trying to dictate non whites again.

I’m not against the new change but it is clearly racists

Oh, I was wondering when this throwaway bait was going to make its appearance. Fine, I'll bite.

There are white Muslims. Islam is a religion. It is not a race. It has nothing to do with racists. And if your religion pushes anti-woman behaviors, I'm happy to be counted amongst its critics..

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

Oh, I was wondering when this throwaway bait was going to make its appearance. Fine, I'll bite.

There are white Muslims. Islam is a religion. It is not a race. It has nothing to do with racists. And if your religion pushes anti-woman behaviors, I'm happy to be counted amongst its critics..

It's true that Islam isn't a race. Still, it's hard to dispute that concern over the niqab has nothing to do with racists. Some criticism is over displays of religion, some is about the oppression of women, and some is about nativism and hostility to foreign cultures.

On the other hand, race is also a factor in the defence of the niqab. If it wasn't Islam, but some fundamentalist Christian sect out of the U.S. that mandated women had to cover their faces in public, I wager a great many people championing tolerance of the niqab today wouldn't have any problem with enacting legislation to suppress that custom.