Bill 62 (anti-face covering) becomes law

196 posts / 0 new
Last post
pookie
Bill 62 (anti-face covering) becomes law

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/burqa-niqab-national-assembly-que...

This law is so unconstitutional it can't even see straight.

I find this a deeply distressing moment.

pietro_bcc

These laws give racist citizens the license to hate.

Just like the charter of values there will be an increase of people being racist towards Muslims, berating them and pulling off their hijabs and denying these women public services, as well as service in private businesses (even though this law doesn't prevent women with hijabs from receiving public services, but racists won't make that distinction.) They'll even kick women who have a face covering off of public transit because everyone knows marginalization is the correct and successful way of integrating people.

It isn't "Quebec bashing" to call racist laws and their supporters out for what they are. And even though the opposition voted against it, they did so because the Liberals weren't being racist enough (except QS who voted against it because it doesn't remove the crucifix from the NA, from what I've heard.)

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

There's no place for the burqa in our society. If you want to live in a society that accepts that,stay where you are. I don't see what's wrong with people having to identify themselves in public places. I don't know who or what is under that. I see it more of a security issue than an issue of racism.

I agree that this is licensing racists to hate. You can wear face coverings and face and body coverings but not in places where it's necessary to identify yourself.

And it doesn't jive in a secular society. This is not a theocracy. At least for the moment.

Mobo2000

Link to cbc article doesn't work anymore.   

Pookie, could you elaborate on the unconstitutionality of this? 

pookie

Sure.  It is manifestly unconstitutional to condition receipt of sundry and mundane public services on a demand that you cease a sincere religious practice that poses no credible or sincere threat to public safety or order.  

It was bad enough when they were musing on prohibiting all religious symbols for govt employees in 2013, but at least there there was a direct tie to state obligations (albeit, IMO, a weak one).

This is a shocking overreach.  It is more Trump-like than Orange Jello himself.

I don't know why the link stopped working, because the article is still there.  Here it is again.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/burqa-niqab-national-assembly-quebec-liberal-government-stephanie-vallee-1.4357463

pookie

alan smithee wrote:

There's no place for the burqa in our society. If you want to live in a society that accepts that,stay where you are. I don't see what's wrong with people having to identify themselves in public places. I don't know who or what is under that. I see it more of a security issue than an issue of racism.

I agree that this is licensing racists to hate. You can wear face coverings and face and body coverings but not in places where it's necessary to identify yourself.

And it doesn't jive in a secular society. This is not a theocracy. At least for the moment.

1. Really?? You think everyone who is in a public place should be required to identify themselves?

2. "Initially, the bill was only to apply to provincial public-sector services and provincially funded institutions, including universities and schools. In August, Justice Minister Stéphanie Vallée proposed amendments that make the legislation apply to municipalities, metropolitan communities and public transit organizations.

That means, according to the justice minister, anyone who rides a bus or the Metro must be unveiled."

3. Do you think it is necessary to identify yourself when taking public transit?

4. That's great that you think that there is no place for the burka in our society.  What other things do you find sufficiently offensive to warrant banishing anyone doing them from getting state services?

6079_Smith_W

Wasn't there already a ruling on this principle? Based on the Citizenship Act rather than the Charter, but really, if this right is upheld when declaring citizenship they must know where this is heading, and what they are going to have to do to prop it up.

And didn't they win this last election in part because the blowback the PQ got over this racist crap? What possible reason could they have for this? Competing for votes in Hérouxville?

cco

6079_Smith_W wrote:

And didn't they win this last election in part because the blowback the PQ got over this racist crap? What possible reason could they have for this? Competing for votes in Hérouxville?

That's become the pundit conventional wisdom, without much evidence. Polling showed the PQ Charter was more popular than the PQ throughout the entire election. PKP's fist-pumping declaration of sovereigntist enthusiasm was probably more to blame.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

pookie wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

There's no place for the burqa in our society. If you want to live in a society that accepts that,stay where you are. I don't see what's wrong with people having to identify themselves in public places. I don't know who or what is under that. I see it more of a security issue than an issue of racism.

I agree that this is licensing racists to hate. You can wear face coverings and face and body coverings but not in places where it's necessary to identify yourself.

And it doesn't jive in a secular society. This is not a theocracy. At least for the moment.

1. Really?? You think everyone who is in a public place should be required to identify themselves?

2. "Initially, the bill was only to apply to provincial public-sector services and provincially funded institutions, including universities and schools. In August, Justice Minister Stéphanie Vallée proposed amendments that make the legislation apply to municipalities, metropolitan communities and public transit organizations.

That means, according to the justice minister, anyone who rides a bus or the Metro must be unveiled."

3. Do you think it is necessary to identify yourself when taking public transit?

4. That's great that you think that there is no place for the burka in our society.  What other things do you find sufficiently offensive to warrant banishing anyone doing them from getting state services?

As matter of fact yes.  I must identify myself. If I was walking around wearing a ski mask I can gaurantee I'd be obligated to take it off. You're using the bank,you're working for the government,you're walking around the metro. In the case of riding the metro,I'd make a lot of people uncomfortable and possibly afraid wearing a mask.

It's not over reach to insist you identify yourself in those examples. And the burqa is worse. Not only is your face covered but your body is covered by a bulky  robe. Who's under that? What's under that? Nobody knows. And in this age of terrorism,it's not unreasonable to demand people not be hidden in public places.

Safety first. Sorry if you disagree. And I understand why people would be concerned with someone unidentifyable walking into institutions and public transit.

Whether this is unconstitutional or not. A case can definitely be made for public safety being a priority.

As for religious freedom,we live in a supposed secular society,more arguments can be made but speaking in regards of religion,a better case can be made to prohibit the burqa all together.

You want a government job? You must be identifyable. There's no argument or case that can be made against that.

pookie

I don't think there is much doubt that is popular.  Hell, it would be reasonably popular in the ROC too.

6079_Smith_W

Mothers walk into my kids' school every day wearing a niqab. No one asks them to take them off. So no you can't guarantee you'd be obliged to take a face covering off. People know what that is, what it means, and unless they are racists, don't have ideas that they are hiding bombs under them.

For that matter, no one would think twice if you walked onto a bus in winter with a scarf wrapped around your face, or if you had a hospital mask on.

And bulky robe?  Really? Bulkier than your winter parka? Or is there a different rule for us white folk?

 

 

6079_Smith_W

And I agree that that racism isn't exclusive to Quebec (though maybe the secular excuse is) and that there are plenty elsewhere who would agree, I don't think anyone would try that nonsense here. The only leg they have to stand on there IS the secularism thing, and it is a flimsy one at that, especially with that giant cross up on the hill, and on their legislature, and on their flag.

 

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

The law is to prohibit receiving or giving public services with face coverings. I strongly agree with this. Public transit? I agree in theory but there is a coherent argument against that part of the law.

And being covered up during our brutal winters is one thing. Being covered up 365 days a year is a problem. We don't live in Saudi Arabia. There's no need for this in Canada.

bagkitty bagkitty's picture

A few questions: Does this legislation apply during Halloween? Why does it not apply to beards? Is there a test for how much concealing make-up is allowable? If I have an eye patch, or surgical gauze or some such covering part of my face, am I in violation of the new law? During flu season, if I am wearing a surgical mask in attempt to prevent catching (or prevent passing on) the virus, am I in violation? If I dye (or bleach) my hair such that it no longer matches the color that is officially on record, am I violating the letter of the law, or just the intention? [ETA: If a bride is wearing a gauzy veil as part of the traditionalist Western wedding attire, will a public official conducting such a ceremony be required to put a stop to things and refuse service, or is there some exemption based on the degree of transparency of said veil?]

All asked, of course, with precisely the level of respect I have for this legislation.

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
And being covered up during our brutal winters is one thing. Being covered up 365 days a year is a problem.

What, specifically, is that "problem"?  And why is it only a problem in the summer, but not in the winter?

Quote:
or if you had a hospital mask on

I see this ALL THE TIME in Chinatown.

 

pookie

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

False equivalencies.

You want to live a Sharia life,live in a Sharia country.

And what's so appalling about having to identify yourself if you're going to give or receive public services? It would be acceptable to wear a Halloween mask while doing either of those things?

And last I checked,people wearing surgical masks are not refusing to take them off if they plan to give or receive public services.

Lame false equivalencies. I commend you for the effort though.

pietro_bcc

There's a process by which people can apply for an exemption from this law if they made a reasonable request on serious religious grounds that they cannot abide by the law.

But are the people who are asking for an exemption at the tribunal allowed to do so with their face covered or do they have to prove that they must have their face covered while they are receiving public services, with their face uncovered? Also those who are granted an exemption, do they get an exemption from Bill 62 bus pass that they must present to a bus driver? How would the bus driver be able to tell whether the holder of the card is the actual card's owner, rather than just sharing one of their other niqabi friend's card? Does the card holder have to uncover their face for the bus driver to prove that they have the right to receive service while their face is covered?

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
It would be acceptable to wear a Halloween mask while doing either of those things?

Ride your local transit on Hallowe'en and see.  If people scrub off their makeup before getting on the bus, let us know.

FWIW, you cannot purchase liquor at the LCBO if your face is covered.  That's because staff actually need to ensure that you're 19 or older.  And that's how laws are supposed to work -- if the state restricts your rights then it must have a genuine and plausible reason for it.

Quote:
And last I checked,people wearing surgical masks are not refusing to take them off if they plan to give or receive public services.

Are doctors and nurses an exception? 

Quote:
Also those who are granted an exemption, do they get an exemption from Bill 62 bus pass that they must present to a bus driver? How would the bus driver be able to tell whether the holder of the card is the actual card's owner, rather than just sharing one of their other niqabi friend's card? Does the card holder have to uncover their face for the bus driver to prove that they have the right to receive service while their face is covered?

Is that how a bus pass works in Quebec?  I really don't know.  But in Toronto, your Metropass doesn't have a photo on it, and in fact you're free to lend it to a friend, so long as both of you aren't trying to ride at the same time.

If there is a bona fide need to validate a person's identity against a photo then that would qualify as a legitimate need, and it would not be unreasonable for the state to require people to expose their face.  Same thing if you're pulled over while driving, writing an exam, filling a prescription, etc.  But geez, on a lot of transit lines in Toronto the driver doesn't even need to see you get on.  You can board most streetcars by the back doors.  You can enter nearly any subway station via the turnstiles.  When did it become critical to see anyone's face before they can "receive the service" of a bus ride?

 

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

It's not complicated. If you want a Medicare card,a driver's license,a passport or ,yes, a bus pass that requires a photo ID,you are obliged to uncover your damn face. If you work a government job and are giving a public service,you have the right to see the face of the person you're dealing with.

As for alcohol and tobacco,those wearing a niqab or burqa are purchasing neither and someone with their face covered by a Halloween mask or bundled up for winter,has to uncover themselves so the retailer doesn't break the law by selling it to a minor.

What's so hard to accept here?

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
It's not complicated. If you want a Medicare card,a driver's license,a passport or ,yes, a bus pass that requires a photo ID,you are obliged to uncover your damn face. If you work a government job and are giving a public service,you have the right to see the face of the person you're dealing with.

I would agree with those.  It's only the idea that to ride the bus you need to "identify" yourself that seems to "complicate" things. 

Why, if someone wants to put their loonies into the fare box, do they need to "identify" themself?

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

alan smithee wrote:

There's no place for the burqa in our society. If you want to live in a society that accepts that,stay where you are. I don't see what's wrong with people having to identify themselves in public places. I don't know who or what is under that. I see it more of a security issue than an issue of racism.

I agree that this is licensing racists to hate. You can wear face coverings and face and body coverings but not in places where it's necessary to identify yourself.

And it doesn't jive in a secular society. This is not a theocracy. At least for the moment.

It would be enough to handle it the way the woman at the citizenship ceremony suggested: set aside a private space where the woman in the burqa revealed her face to a female official-that would solve any possible security issue and no one harmed.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

alan smithee wrote:

False equivalencies.

You want to live a Sharia life,live in a Sharia country.

And what's so appalling about having to identify yourself if you're going to give or receive public services? It would be acceptable to wear a Halloween mask while doing either of those things?

And last I checked,people wearing surgical masks are not refusing to take them off if they plan to give or receive public services.

Lame false equivalencies. I commend you for the effort though.

It's not about "Sharia"-and invoking that is demagogic.  

So long as a personal religious conviction harms no one else(and it harms no one if a woman wears a burqa by choice, as virtualy any burqa-wearing woman in Canada or Quebec obviously does)it's not the place of the state to force a person to compromise or abandon that religous conviction.

It would be equally wrong for Quebec to bar Jagmeet Singh or any other Sikh from a wearing a turban, since the turban oppresses no one and is, in fact, an egalitarian gesture(the early Sikhs started wearing turbans in defiance of the convention in Indian society that only rajahs were allowed to wear them).

Bill 62 singles out women in burqa for special suspicion, hostiity, and humiliation, when those women have done nothing to deserve such treatment.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
It would be enough to handle it the way the woman at the citizenship ceremony suggested: set aside a private space where the woman in the burqa revealed her face to a female official-that would solve any possible security issue and no one harmed.

Well, not quite, Ken.

We live in a multicultural society.  We don't get to cherrypick which agents of the state we deal with -- we take them as they come, young or old, black or white (or Asian, or Aboriginal or Polish/Irish or whatever), and male or female.  Please let's never go down the road where it's legitimate to demand that your entire surgical team be white males "because my beliefs matter".

jerrym

While NDP leader Jagmeet Singh has said he is absolutely opposed to Quebec's Bill 62, the Prime Minister, despite strong anti-niquab denunciations during the election and proclamations that he was purer than the NDP on the issue, went silent on the issue on Parliament Hill, trying to see which way the wind is blowing in Quebec first so it doesn't hurt his electoral chances there. 

Federal NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh says he's "completely opposed" to Quebec's new and controversial law that would effectively force Muslim women who wear a niqab or burka to uncover their faces to use or provide public services, but he's confident the legislation will be challenged. ...

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who also went on the offensive over the issue of the niqab ban during the last election, was silent when asked about Bill 62 on his way out of the House following question period Wednesday.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/federal-leaders-bill-62-covering-1.4360410

 

josh

alan smithee wrote:

There's no place for the burqa in our society. If you want to live in a society that accepts that,stay where you are. I don't see what's wrong with people having to identify themselves in public places. I don't know who or what is under that. I see it more of a security issue than an issue of racism.

I agree that this is licensing racists to hate. You can wear face coverings and face and body coverings but not in places where it's necessary to identify yourself.

And it doesn't jive in a secular society. This is not a theocracy. At least for the moment.

Wow.

josh

alan smithee wrote:

False equivalencies.

You want to live a Sharia life,live in a Sharia country.

And what's so appalling about having to identify yourself if you're going to give or receive public services? It would be acceptable to wear a Halloween mask while doing either of those things?

And last I checked,people wearing surgical masks are not refusing to take them off if they plan to give or receive public services.

Lame false equivalencies. I commend you for the effort though.

 

They'd love you on Fox News.

I think they should pass a law requiring everyone to walk around naked.  For security purposes.

6079_Smith_W

Alan, riding a bus is more important than swearing citizenship or testifying in court? In the latter it is only an issue when there is a very good reason.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/niqab-ruling-federal-court-government-ch...

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2012/12/20/supreme_court_niqab_rulin...

Sorry, but Muslim Canadians don't belong "in a Sharia country". This is their home. And mutual respect means not treating them with suspicion, or racist hatred.

 

 

Unionist

pookie wrote:

I don't think there is much doubt that is popular.  Hell, it would be reasonably popular in the ROC too.

If memory serves, 74% in ROC supported Bill 94 in 2010 according to polls. That was the first iteration of Bill 62 by the Charest government, before the student strike sent them to their deserved hell.

This isn't about religion. It's about covering faces. And pandering. Anyone who makes a case for accommodation based on religious belief will obviously be able to wear a niqab or burka wherever they want. Sorry, I'm not a lawyer, but this is frickin' obvious. Also, didn't the Quebec Superior Court strike down Montreal's fascist "don't wear a mask while demonstrating" bylaw last year? C'mon, pookie, find us the citations!

Much ado about nothing - except occasions for Islamophobia and Quebec bashing. What a bonanza!

As for Québec Solidaire, they opposed the bill because they said it should only apply to those providing - not receiving - public services.

WWWTT

Thanks Justin Trudeau for running out when the people of Canada really need a strong leader to defend them!

God forbid a persecuted people’s plea for help tarnish the corporate media circus freek side show darlings image!

Jagmeets looking like true real leader every day!!!!

6079_Smith_W

Unionist wrote:

This isn't about religion. It's about covering faces. And pandering. Anyone who makes a case for accommodation based on religious belief will obviously be able to wear a niqab or burka wherever they want. Sorry, I'm not a lawyer, but this is frickin' obvious.

That's actually weirder than alan's spin on it.

So you are fine with this law so long as they do it with a wink and a nudge, and you don't think it is about the niqab at all? That raises the question of what you imagine its purpose is at all. After all, other reasonable excuses would include "it's winter" and "I don't want to transmit disease", so long as one is light-skinned enough.

Assuming there is a religious exemption, and that muslim people will only have to queue up and justify their existence and there is no need for a legal challenge, I guess that leaves the only real reason for this law is as a dogwhistle to those already targetted people that they should feel even more intimidated and singled out. Or so scared that they don't go to places where there are public services, or ride buses at all.

And of course it is also a dogwhistle to racists that they can challenge and interrogate people in the street.

Oh, and the pandering. I agree with you there.

Unionist

Gee, 6079, I haven't been around much, but you haven't changed your approach much either. What is is about the word "PANDERING" that you missed? Trying to paint me as supporting this legislation? Get a life my friend.

Unionist

Oh - and 6079 - what was unclear about my use of the word "ISLAMOPHOBIA"? You just want to have a fight for the sake of it? Ok, I'm game. Just let me know when and where. But I think I'll ignore babble for a while longer. It seems like quite the forum for provocation, idle chatter, and stupidity. What drove me away before.

6079_Smith_W

Well seeing as that is how they are actually trying to pass it off - going to the edge of the law, without codifying it - clearly it is pandering while at the same time not coming right out with it. The government is really doing what you are mocking.

So thanks for the clarification, and yes, I am pleasantly surprised you aren't actually supporting it. But given that you threw all that out, and Islampphobia and Quebec bashing to boot, I make no apologies for being a bit unsure of what you were actually saying.

 

Unionist

Be unsure. Don't apologize. All good.

6079_Smith_W

And there are plenty of those self-proclaimed secularists who swear up and down that they aren't islamophobic, and this has nothing to do with targetting them. So yes, I read that too.

Again, perhaps your satire is just a bit too close to the reality. But I am glad you are just joking. Not asking for a fight. Clarification works just fine.

 

 

6079_Smith_W

So I guess the obvious way to fight this (aside from trying to get them to repeal it) is for lots of people to start wearing them.

 

pookie

Unionist wrote:

pookie wrote:

I don't think there is much doubt that is popular.  Hell, it would be reasonably popular in the ROC too.

If memory serves, 74% in ROC supported Bill 94 in 2010 according to polls. That was the first iteration of Bill 62 by the Charest government, before the student strike sent them to their deserved hell.

This isn't about religion. It's about covering faces. And pandering. Anyone who makes a case for accommodation based on religious belief will obviously be able to wear a niqab or burka wherever they want. 

Support for this statement? How, exactly, does one "make the case" to....a bus driver?  A person taking your payment for a parking ticket?

 

6079_Smith_W

He was joking, pookie.  See our exchange, above.

I don't suppose there is any kind of injunction they could get that would be based on something other than the charter, so as to not leave it open to being trumped by the notwithstanding clause.

I suppose another potential point of conflict is when there is a service which involves both federal services (which presumably will allow  people to wear the niqab) and Quebec services.

 

lagatta4

Québec solidaire also called for the crucifix to be removed from the deliberative chamber, and pointed out that it was only a (bad) copy, not a historical record.

6079_Smith_W

Serious question. Why are they doing this? Is there that big and that vocal a sector of the public that is demanding this? Did it come out of a party convention? Or did they just spring it on everyone?

It's not like there aren't plenty of racists out here, and I expect it is far worse in SK than in Quebec. But honestly the issue of trying to stop people wearing headgear is not on anyone's radar. At all.

progressive17 progressive17's picture

I think the law is misguided and stupid, if you don't mind me saying so. Lawyers are going to tie this up for decades, at great expense to the taxpayer. Perhaps they want to pander to alcholic and drug-addled La Meute types in the sticks. 

6079_Smith_W

Well that, of course. But I have also heard people who honestly think it is oppression and that it is best if the state steps in, and others who take the anti-clerical secular line (even though they have a blind spot about who it is actually having an impact on).

And I am just reading (elsewhere) a FB friend who is European but lives in southeast asia who thinks it is a fine law. I don't think it is just overt racists and anti-immigrants. I think a lot of would be progressives have let their imperialism (and racism) get the better of them. But then that's hardly a new story.

I'm just more curious as to what the political motive is at this time

josh

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Serious question. Why are they doing this? Is there that big and that vocal a sector of the public that is demanding this? Did it come out of a party convention? Or did they just spring it on everyone?

It's not like there aren't plenty of racists out here, and I expect it is far worse in SK than in Quebec. But honestly the issue of trying to stop people wearing headgear is not on anyone's radar. At all.

 

It's a solution in search of a problem.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Ken Burch wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

False equivalencies.

You want to live a Sharia life,live in a Sharia country.

And what's so appalling about having to identify yourself if you're going to give or receive public services? It would be acceptable to wear a Halloween mask while doing either of those things?

And last I checked,people wearing surgical masks are not refusing to take them off if they plan to give or receive public services.

Lame false equivalencies. I commend you for the effort though.

It's not about "Sharia"-and invoking that is demagogic.  

So long as a personal religious conviction harms no one else(and it harms no one if a woman wears a burqa by choice, as virtualy any burqa-wearing woman in Canada or Quebec obviously does)it's not the place of the state to force a person to compromise or abandon that religous conviction.

It would be equally wrong for Quebec to bar Jagmeet Singh or any other Sikh from a wearing a turban, since the turban oppresses no one and is, in fact, an egalitarian gesture(the early Sikhs started wearing turbans in defiance of the convention in Indian society that only rajahs were allowed to wear them).

Bill 62 singles out women in burqa for special suspicion, hostiity, and humiliation, when those women have done nothing to deserve such treatment.

Ken... the turban and hijab are not a problem...at all. And to have a problem with either or both of those is definitely racist.

We're talking about face coverings. There are a lot examples where you are obliged to uncover your face. And when it comes to ID,it's imperative. It's also a reality in this country.

You have women wearing the niqab or burqa who think they shouldn't have to uncover their faces at any point or for any reason. Hence,this is not a Sharia country,your right to wear these garments is protected to a certain degree. As I said,when receiving or giving public services you must uncover your face. If you need ID,especially Medicare,driver's license and passports,you must uncover your face.

Earlier comments I made about needing to know what's under these things in public is pure paranoia. But a lot of people are uncomfortable and afraid of the niqab and especially the burqa. In some ways I understand that fear.

But I'm not backing down from when I said that the niqab and especially the burqa doesn't really have a place over here.

It's just like accomodating people who refuse to have a female doctor or covering up windows where women are exercising or doing yoga because of their dressing. It's them who need to accept the values here,not the other way around.

Am I really being racist here? I say absolutely not. It's reasonable. There are many instances where you MUST uncover your face. You must accept a woman doctor. You must accept women working out in whatever sporting clothing they may where.You must accept that you live in a country where women are not dogs or inferior or offensive just for existing.

As I said,this is Canada. We can accept diversity but we're not a theocracy and we have absolutely no desire to become one.

And yes,that applies to Catholism and Christianity as a whole too. The crucifix doesn't belong in the National Assembly,the cross on top of the mountain doesn't really have a place in public either.

We're secular. And if we have to drag people kicking and screaming into secularism,so be it.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Well that, of course. But I have also heard people who honestly think it is oppression and that it is best if the state steps in, and others who take the anti-clerical secular line (even though they have a blind spot about who it is actually having an impact on).

And I am just reading (elsewhere) a FB friend who is European but lives in southeast asia who thinks it is a fine law. I don't think it is just overt racists and anti-immigrants. I think a lot of would be progressives have let their imperialism (and racism) get the better of them. But then that's hardly a new story.

I'm just more curious as to what the political motive is at this time

The motive is carrying "the regions" in the next Quebec election. The PLC, the CAQ, and the PQ all think they have to out-Islamophobe each other to do that. If this was 1939, the PLC, the CAQ and the PQ would be passing the equivalent legislation against a different group.

josh

As I said,this is Canada. We can accept diversity but we're not a theocracy and we have absolutely no desire to become one.

Theocracy?  What on earth are you talking about.  They are not seeking to impose their wardrobe of choice on anyone else, or make it the law.  They dress differently.  So what?  As I said, a solution in search of a problem.  What this really is is bigotry and political demogoguery.

Caissa

The effect of the law will be racist and disproportionately applied to women. It will not pass a court challenge. Will the Quebec Government invoke the not withstanding clause?

lagatta4

I agree that the law is a farce on top of all its other problems - this will become evident in the next cold wave, when we all pull our scarves over our noses and mouths and our headwear (tuques, hoods and other hats) far down on our foreheads. But I don't agree that all women who wear religious clothing are exercising their freedom. There is a hell of a lot of social pressure. I recently met a younger woman who used to be Hassidic and the pressure on her was horrible. Now that she has exited that sect and is bringing up her children alone, the former community shuns her. Obviously, the state barrelling in is no solution. I think universal public education is a big part of the solution, beginning by eliminating all state funding for private schools (including religion-based ones) and clamping down on sham "home schooling" in which children learn hardly any French or English, little about maths and sciences or most other basics of modern life.

I think the crucifix in the National Assembly and the cross on Mt-Royal are very different cases. The crucifix is a monument to La Grande noirceur of Church domination, and has no business being displayed in a deliberative chamber where parliamentarians of any faith or none should be equal. The cross was privately funded and is among many statues and other monuments in parks throughout Montréal and elsewhere.

The National Assembly has a small museum where the crucifix could be displayed as a historical relic, contextualized. And now it appears that it wasn't even the original crucifix!

6079_Smith_W

lagatta4 wrote:

Obviously, the state barrelling in is no solution. I think universal public education is a big part of the solution, beginning by eliminating all state funding for private schools (including religion-based ones) and clamping down on sham "home schooling" in which children learn hardly any French or English, little about maths and sciences or most other basics of modern life.

Exactly, and that is another reason why this will make things worse. Women will just stop taking buses, going to libraries and other public spaces, and stay cloistered.

The state stepping in here is akin to those who want to restrict information about pregnancy as a supposed solution to female fetuses being aborted. It is a forced restriction that doesn't actually change anything or even go near the root of the problem.

And alan said pretty clearly what it is really about - our discomfort over people who we assume are not like us because they wear different clothes. Funny how most of these paternalist moves say far more about us than the people we are supposedly trying to free by forcing them to take their clothes off.

Though again, there are plenty of things one can do while wearing a niqab in Canada - vote, testify in court unless there is a serious reason otherwise, and declare citizenship. And the issue is not whether one can get a driver's license (which is a photo carried in one's pocket) but more importantly whether one can drive while wearing one. The answer is yes. I see it on a regular basis here. I haven't seen people ploughing their cars into trees in shock over it.

Mobo2000

"The effect of the law will be racist and disproportionately applied to women."

To me this is the bottom line.   The public transportation aspect of this law is baffling and huge overrreach.  I am a very secular and fairly anti-religious person, but I can't see how this will acommplish anything useful.   I get the need for identification but as noted above there's all kinds of easy ways to do that in a more limited manner.

 

Pages