Quebec's Religious Neutrality Law

[Looch City]

This has been in the news now for a couple days:

Quebec’s face coverings ban: What you need to know about the controversial law
https://globalnews.ca/news/3813019/q...-covering-ban/

Residents in Quebec are no longer allowed to cover their face while working in the public sector or receiving government services, like getting on a bus or taking a book out of the library.

The controversial law, known as Bill 62, obliges citizens to uncover their faces while giving and receiving public services in Quebec.

Bill 62 is called the “religious neutrality law” and does not specifically mention niqabs or burqas. Instead, it’s described as imposing a duty of religious neutrality on public servants and people using government services.

How it works?

Quebec Justice Minister Stephanie Vallée, who passed the bill Wednesday, said the new law is based on reasons of identification, communication and security. She said it’s not an attack on Muslim women.

“It’s a bill that is inclusive, that respects individual choices,” she told reporters.

The legislation does not outline any specific garment, and Vallée said the ban on face coverings includes sunglasses as well.

Comments from Singh:

Jagmeet Singh, the leader of the federal NDP also spoke out against the law. “I am completely opposed to it. But I am completely confident in the existing protections that are in place in Quebec that will protect human rights,” he said.

Comments from Trudeau:

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said although he does not agree women should be forced to unveil their face, he said it’s not up to the federal government to challenge the issue.

Comments from Muclair:

Spoiler!

My own opinion, I'm not sure how Canada/Quebec has survived 150 years without this law. What a god damned waste of time.

[belsarius]

At least its the Quebec government and not the Federal government that gets to spend millions fighting this in the courts until the Supreme court eventually overturns it.

[CroFlames]

You gotta take your scarf off when you're boarding a bus in a blistering Montreal winter storm?

I personally think the burqa and niqab and all that are oppressive to women and should eventually be done away with, but it has to come from the culture itself, not the nanny state.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

You gotta take your scarf off when you're boarding a bus in a blistering Montreal winter storm?

I was just going to post that...

Originally Posted by CroFlames

I personally think the burqa and niqab and all that are oppressive to women and should eventually be done away with, but it has to come from the culture itself, not the nanny state.

Agreed

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

You gotta take your scarf off when you're boarding a bus in a blistering Montreal winter storm?

I personally think the burqa and niqab and all that are oppressive to women and should eventually be done away with, but it has to come from the culture itself, not the nanny state.

/thread.

[Nyah]

From the article:

“It’s a political symbol of the enslavement and de-empowerment of women that is supported by the most repressive regimes on the planet.”

Indeed, because nothing liberates women more than another man telling them what they can and cannot wear. I'm with CroFlames in the opinion that it face & head coverings need to be done away with eventually, but certainly not by legislation.

[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.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Minnie

Visit, sure. Live? Not damned likely.

Actually my friends and I just decided to do something else for New Years. Six of us have gone to Montreal every year since 2005. And they spend a crazy amount of money there. It's a tiny thing but hopefully others do the same.

[pseudoreality]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

You gotta take your scarf off when you're boarding a bus in a blistering Montreal winter storm?

I personally think the burqa and niqab and all that are oppressive to women and should eventually be done away with, but it has to come from the culture itself, not the nanny state.

The only thing I would add is banning it on buses and such is not going to liberate oppressed women, but rather give them less freedom.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by pseudoreality

The only thing I would add is banning it on buses and such is not going to liberate oppressed women, but rather give them less freedom.

I think this is key.

If there was evidence that banning face coverings worked to reduce the oppression of women you could support something like this. Instead it's much more likely to isolate these women in their homes and make it much harder for them to get assistance if they need it.

[calumniate]

For a supposed liberal premier this is blasphemy

[TorqueDog]

If religion wasn't poisoning the discussion, it wouldn't even be a blip on our radar. "Oh, I can't hide my identity in government buildings or when receiving government services? Oh darn... well, that seems like a reasonable request I guess."

The whole thing changes when "MUH RELIGION SAYS I CAN" gets thrown into the mix. We reject the harmful ideas in Christianity and rightfully so; we need to reject harmful ideas when we see them in other faiths too, and we seem to have a particularly difficult time doing that these days.

Originally Posted by Nyah

Indeed, because nothing liberates women more than another man telling them what they can and cannot wear. I'm with CroFlames in the opinion that it face & head coverings need to be done away with eventually, but certainly not by legislation.

That's a stretch, considering the Justice Minister who passed the bill is a woman.

Yeah, it would be great if we could eliminate it through culture, but it would appear that our culture is not doing these people any favors; instead, we lie to ourselves that it's somehow a choice. If the punishment for rejecting the privilege of being smothered in this way is being beaten or having acid thrown in one's face, is it really a choice?

[Snuffleupagus]

I think religious beliefs and cultures should be practiced like sex...

Behind closed doors

[calgaryblood]

As a Muslim, I'm divided. I hate the burqa and everything it stands for as do most Muslims. I cringe when I see women wearing one in public or anywhere for that matter but I still think the government has no right to ban it.

[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.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

If religion wasn't poisoning the discussion, it wouldn't even be a blip on our radar. "Oh, I can't hide my identity in government buildings or when receiving government services? Oh darn... well, that seems like a reasonable request I guess."

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.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

If religion wasn't poisoning the discussion, it wouldn't even be a blip on our radar. "Oh, I can't hide my identity in government buildings or when receiving government services? Oh darn... well, that seems like a reasonable request I guess."

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.

[Ducay]

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.

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.

[OMG!WTF!]

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.

That makes no sense. One, a hijab isn't a big bird head and so what if it was? We've been living in a society where it is legal to wear a Big Bird head in public for our entire life. Two, why does anyone need to see your face on a bus? Three, wearing the rest of a burqa but not the face cover, isn't the point of wearing a burqa. Painful.

In reality, do you think this is going to actually accomplish anything? If so what?

Do you think maybe the smart people in Quebec are going to f'ck with this law until the dumb people just give up? Like you're going to round up and arrest people with scarves, sunglasses, surgical masks, etc etc etc? How long until the dumb people just say forget it?

[GGG]

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.

Why is it so crucially important that your face be visable to receive government services? For things like airport security they provide reasonable accommodation of having a private room so in any case where identity verification is required you accommodate and otherwise in the vast majority of cases it doesn't matter.

To restrict expression you need to show cause. There is no cause here that can't be accomodated with a far less invasive manner.

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