What's new

Quebec introduces bill banning religious symbols [Update Post #95]

Black Zero

Test Debutant
Joined
Dec 10, 2009
Runs
13,922
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montr...liberal-government-stephanie-vallee-1.4357463

Bill 62 bans all public workers and all those receiving any government service from wearing niqab or burka

A bill that requires people in Quebec who give or receive any public service to uncover their faces is expected to become law as early as today.

Many important details still need to be crafted, and its implications may be decided by the courts.


In August, Justice Minister Stéphanie Vallée proposed amendments that see 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.

On Monday, Vallée told CBC Montreal's Daybreak that a woman who normally wears a burqa or niqab would have to show her face for the duration of her ride — "as long as the service is being rendered."
 
I sincerely hope that there are no repercussions of this in Quebec from some misguided terrorists

I think it's a fair law. One can easily commit a crime and hide himself in a burqa. How often do we see in subcontinent that robbers hid themselves in Burqa after committing a crime. I can sense the uncomfortableness among the locals when someone sits in a Burqa in my daily commute train.

However, I don't think there is any problem with Hijab.
 
Lmao, Canadians here love to parade about how great their country is compared to the great US of A. PM Trudaloo couldn't save you here.

Can't stump the :trump2
 
After 2018 provisional elections, these types of issues would be settled for next decade.

Liberal / NDP would just kick the local Party Québecons out for good.
 
I sincerely hope that there are no repercussions of this in Quebec from some misguided terrorists

I think it's a fair law. One can easily commit a crime and hide himself in a burqa. How often do we see in subcontinent that robbers hid themselves in Burqa after committing a crime. I can sense the uncomfortableness among the locals when someone sits in a Burqa in my daily commute train.

However, I don't think there is any problem with Hijab.

Previous (harper) govt banned burqa during citizenship oath ceremony but Canadian Supreme court overturned this ban. Govt appealed however recent govt dropped the appeal.

Canadian courts are extremely liberal it's next to impossible to restrict any individual rights.
 
I support this, I don't want to see any government worker wearing a face veil. Looks absolutely ridiculous.
 
Whenever I’ve visited Ontario I haven’t really come across anyone with niqab/burqa in Ontario. So, I don’t understand the need brought about this law.
 
- It's not about govt. worker.

Even aside from that personally I believe it should be banned in general its regressive and shows that the Muslim community is not integrated at all in Canadian society.
 
Whenever I’ve visited Ontario I haven’t really come across anyone with niqab/burqa in Ontario. So, I don’t understand the need brought about this law.

This isn't a law in Ontario. It's in Quebec (different province).

And it depends on where you went in Ontario.
 
Even aside from that personally I believe it should be banned in general its regressive and shows that the Muslim community is not integrated at all in Canadian society.

Some wanted an amendment to remove cross from the house in the spirit of the bill...but it did not materialize.
Basically it's a bill based on Islamophobia and will be discarded by court. (Similar thing happened in 2012)

There could be very few cases of burka in canada, so basically 99.999999% are not impacted...but religious freedom is paramount.
 
This isn't a law in Ontario. It's in Quebec (different province).

And it depends on where you went in Ontario.

I understand Quebec and Ontario are two different province. I have visited almost every area in GTA many times (every time I’m there I curse 401) and I don’t remember coming across anyone with Burqa/ Niqab.
 
Even aside from that personally I believe it should be banned in general its regressive and shows that the Muslim community is not integrated at all in Canadian society.

Older kids arriving will have hard time integrating in Canada (particularly GTA) compared to USA, and I say this because desi culture is so readily available in every corner.
 
I understand Quebec and Ontario are two different province. I have visited almost every area in GTA many times (every time I’m there I curse 401) and I don’t remember coming across anyone with Burqa/ Niqab.

Indeed, it's quite rare.

BUT you can spot a few women wearing niqabs from time to time around the GTA.

Silly law nonetheless.
 
A silly piece of clothing and an even sillier law.

Given that the majority of Muslim scholars/Islamic schools of thought say the full face covering isn’t a requirement of Islam why do these women even bother?

Ironically they are just attracting more attention to themselves by wearing such things especially in the West.
 
The burqa/niqab/hijab/abaya etc. etc. are not explicitly Islamic garments - they are Arab customs and traditions. Culling them doesn't make a country anti-Islam, and it's a fair move considering the security factors involved.
 
The burqa/niqab/hijab/abaya etc. etc. are not explicitly Islamic garments - they are Arab customs and traditions. Culling them doesn't make a country anti-Islam, and it's a fair move considering the security factors involved.

Hijab and abaya will never be banned. If they were to then what would nuns use to cover their heads?

On burqa and niqab, I agree.
 
Hijab and abaya will never be banned. If they were to then what would nuns use to cover their heads?

On burqa and niqab, I agree.

I'll be honest - I just threw all of them in the post. I have no idea what the differences between each of them are, all of them look the same to me.
 
I support this, I don't want to see any government worker wearing a face veil. Looks absolutely ridiculous.

I agree, but then so do turbans, yet Sikhs parade around in them like they were still living in Amritsar. The Canadian politician who got heckled by the woman last week being a prime example. Integration my foot.
 
I'll be honest - I just threw all of them in the post. I have no idea what the differences between each of them are, all of them look the same to me.

I’m sure you have seen Nuns, they have their head cover, no hair showing, hijab is similar and for the same reason.

Abaya is basically outerwear, like jacket or coat.

Burqa, makes female “invisible” and Niqab makes female look Ninja.
 
I agree, but then so do turbans, yet Sikhs parade around in them like they were still living in Amritsar. The Canadian politician who got heckled by the woman last week being a prime example. Integration my foot.

Comprehension issues? He said face veil aka niqab/burqa. NOT head cover like Hijab or a turban

Jew men also wear on their heads like Sikhs but it doesn't stop others to see their face
 
Comprehension issues? He said face veil aka niqab/burqa. NOT head cover like Hijab or a turban

Jew men also wear on their heads like Sikhs but it doesn't stop others to see their face

What are you talking about? There was no mention of any of those things in the post I was responding to.
 
It is law now..
66-in favor
51 - opposed

Still not clear, when it would become effective...some say sometime next year.
 
Quebec, although a part of Canada, has totally different values to the rest of the country. Nothing like this will happen in the rest of Canada, especially Ontario where most of the Muslims are located, InshAllah.

Don't expect this to bill to become effective without a lot of back and forth, still. Harper tried to ban the Niqab and it got shot down by the courts three times.
 
I agree, but then so do turbans, yet Sikhs parade around in them like they were still living in Amritsar. The Canadian politician who got heckled by the woman last week being a prime example. Integration my foot.

Like the poster above said I said I have a problem with the face veil, head gear like hijabs, tubran or a kippah are ok with me. But when wearing a full on black burkah which makes you look like a ninja is very odd in western society.
 
The burqa/niqab/hijab/abaya etc. etc. are not explicitly Islamic garments - they are Arab customs and traditions. Culling them doesn't make a country anti-Islam, and it's a fair move considering the security factors involved.

They are Islamic garments, which is why they are worn by Muslims around the world, not just Arabs. Funny how you seem to know so much about them, despite not knowing the differences between each.
 
Like the poster above said I said I have a problem with the face veil, head gear like hijabs, tubran or a kippah are ok with me. But when wearing a full on black burkah which makes you look like a ninja is very odd in western society.

As I said, I agree with your sentiment that it looked ridiculous, but in my personal opinion so do turbans, dupattas, and other garb designed for hotter climates and culture of the east.
 
They are Islamic garments, which is why they are worn by Muslims around the world, not just Arabs. Funny how you seem to know so much about them, despite not knowing the differences between each.

When the subject of suppression of women is discussed the claim is that burkahs are not part of islam but when there is discussion of banning the burkah it is claimed that the burkah is part of islam.
 
Globe and Mail editorial:

Globe editorial: With Bill 62, Quebec attacks religious freedom


OCTOBER 18, 2017
The Quebec National Assembly passed a law on Wednesday that is a direct attack on religious freedom. It targets the small number of Muslim women who wear a face covering, and promises to expose them to discrimination, public humiliation and abuse.

Bill 62 bans government employees, from the provincial to the municipal level, from wearing a face-covering on the job – and also bans face-coverings for anyone receiving government services.

It is perfectly reasonable for government officials to ask someone who wants a driver's license or health card to lift her veil to confirm her identity. At the federal level, a new Canadian wearing a burqa or niqab can take the oath of citizenship with her face covered, as long as she shows her face in private beforehand to prove who she is.

But Bill 62 demands that women wearing face-coverings remove those coverings for "as long as the service is being rendered," according to Justice Minister Stéphanie Vallée. The law's wording appears to mean that a woman wearing a veil will be asked to remove it before she can board a municipal bus, or while she is in line at a government office, or in a school, or waiting in a hospital emergency room.

The law goes way past accommodation and veers into intimidation. This is disturbing and wrong. If we believe in religious freedom, this is a law no Canadian government should ever adopt, and no person living in Canada should have to endure.

Bill 62 is the festering afterbirth of ugly politics – a sop designed to immunize the Liberal government of Premier Philippe Couillard from opposition charges that it isn't doing enough to force Quebec's secular beliefs on immigrants, and specifically on Muslims.

The new law will do almost nothing to reinforce secularism, but it will hurt Muslims living in Quebec – who are still recovering from a massacre at a mosque in Quebec City in January that killed six and injured 19.

A law like this gives voice to unspoken suspicions about immigrants, and empowers bigots. Veiled Muslim women could find themselves subjected to verbal attacks by vigilantes who demand they remove their face-coverings the minute they sit down on a bus seat. Or they could be humiliated by being ordered to remove their covering in order to enter a government building.

All of this is allegedly being done in the name of Quebec secularism.

The province was once tightly linked to the Roman Catholic church; it has grown, since the 1960s, into a democracy that prides itself on its belated separation of church and state.

But that secularism has become a cudgel in the past few years, used by divisive politicians to prey on Quebeckers' fears and prejudices regarding immigrants that have a strong attachment to their religion.

The Parti Québécois led the charge in 2013 with its absurd Charter of Quebec Values – a failed attempt to make secularism the de facto state religion by amending the preamble of the Quebec Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and by preventing government employees and police officers from wearing "conspicuous" religious symbols, such as a kippah, turban or large cross, while on the job.

It also banned face-coverings on anyone providing or receiving provincial government services, while laughably preserving the right of the National Assembly to hang a crucifix in its legislative chamber on the grounds that the most potent symbol in Christianity is nothing more than a cultural artifact.

The Charter and its attacks on fundamental freedoms were decried inside and outside the province. The backlash contributed to the PQ's downfall in the 2014 election that brought Premier Couillard to power.

But the issue didn't go away. In one instance last year, another opposition party, the Coalition Avenir Québec, published racially-charged ads accusing both the Liberals and the PQ of plotting to allow Muslim teachers to wear full-body coverings in class.

The Liberals' response is Bill 62. It waters down efforts to impose secularism as the state belief system, preferring instead "to foster adherence to state religious neutrality." And while it requires public employees to be "careful to neither favour nor hinder a person because of the person's religious affiliation or non-affiliation," it quite rightly doesn't ask them to denude themselves of any religious symbols they hold dear.

With one notable exception: face-coverings.

On Wednesday, Justice Minister Vallée haplessly defended the law by arguing that it isn't about religion, or Muslims, since it applies equally to all face-coverings and doesn't target a particular group. She insisted that scarves, bandanas and even sunglasses will have to be removed when you board a public bus – an embarrassing stance she is obliged to take because any other would amount to an admission that the law is discriminatory.

This law can and will be challenged in court; we find it hard to believe it is constitutional. But the law is already under attack from the PQ and the CAQ – both of which voted against it on the grounds that it doesn't go far enough. They will make it an election issue, with Muslim women caught squarely in the middle.

Women wearing face-coverings in Canada will sometimes be asked to make a reasonable accommodation to society, by briefly exposing their face to government officials to confirm their identities.

But at all other times, they should be free to live and move about and practise their beliefs, without fear or discrimination. That is no longer the case in Quebec. The province's secularism was once a point of pride. Now, the government has made it an accomplice to bigotry.

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/op...6646731/?ref=https://www.theglobeandmail.com&
 
Globe and Mail editorial:

Globe editorial: With Bill 62, Quebec attacks religious freedom


OCTOBER 18, 2017
The Quebec National Assembly passed a law on Wednesday that is a direct attack on religious freedom. It targets the small number of Muslim women who wear a face covering, and promises to expose them to discrimination, public humiliation and abuse.

Bill 62 bans government employees, from the provincial to the municipal level, from wearing a face-covering on the job – and also bans face-coverings for anyone receiving government services.

It is perfectly reasonable for government officials to ask someone who wants a driver's license or health card to lift her veil to confirm her identity. At the federal level, a new Canadian wearing a burqa or niqab can take the oath of citizenship with her face covered, as long as she shows her face in private beforehand to prove who she is.

But Bill 62 demands that women wearing face-coverings remove those coverings for "as long as the service is being rendered," according to Justice Minister Stéphanie Vallée. The law's wording appears to mean that a woman wearing a veil will be asked to remove it before she can board a municipal bus, or while she is in line at a government office, or in a school, or waiting in a hospital emergency room.

The law goes way past accommodation and veers into intimidation. This is disturbing and wrong. If we believe in religious freedom, this is a law no Canadian government should ever adopt, and no person living in Canada should have to endure.

Bill 62 is the festering afterbirth of ugly politics – a sop designed to immunize the Liberal government of Premier Philippe Couillard from opposition charges that it isn't doing enough to force Quebec's secular beliefs on immigrants, and specifically on Muslims.

The new law will do almost nothing to reinforce secularism, but it will hurt Muslims living in Quebec – who are still recovering from a massacre at a mosque in Quebec City in January that killed six and injured 19.

A law like this gives voice to unspoken suspicions about immigrants, and empowers bigots. Veiled Muslim women could find themselves subjected to verbal attacks by vigilantes who demand they remove their face-coverings the minute they sit down on a bus seat. Or they could be humiliated by being ordered to remove their covering in order to enter a government building.

All of this is allegedly being done in the name of Quebec secularism.

The province was once tightly linked to the Roman Catholic church; it has grown, since the 1960s, into a democracy that prides itself on its belated separation of church and state.

But that secularism has become a cudgel in the past few years, used by divisive politicians to prey on Quebeckers' fears and prejudices regarding immigrants that have a strong attachment to their religion.

The Parti Québécois led the charge in 2013 with its absurd Charter of Quebec Values – a failed attempt to make secularism the de facto state religion by amending the preamble of the Quebec Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and by preventing government employees and police officers from wearing "conspicuous" religious symbols, such as a kippah, turban or large cross, while on the job.

It also banned face-coverings on anyone providing or receiving provincial government services, while laughably preserving the right of the National Assembly to hang a crucifix in its legislative chamber on the grounds that the most potent symbol in Christianity is nothing more than a cultural artifact.

The Charter and its attacks on fundamental freedoms were decried inside and outside the province. The backlash contributed to the PQ's downfall in the 2014 election that brought Premier Couillard to power.

But the issue didn't go away. In one instance last year, another opposition party, the Coalition Avenir Québec, published racially-charged ads accusing both the Liberals and the PQ of plotting to allow Muslim teachers to wear full-body coverings in class.

The Liberals' response is Bill 62. It waters down efforts to impose secularism as the state belief system, preferring instead "to foster adherence to state religious neutrality." And while it requires public employees to be "careful to neither favour nor hinder a person because of the person's religious affiliation or non-affiliation," it quite rightly doesn't ask them to denude themselves of any religious symbols they hold dear.

With one notable exception: face-coverings.

On Wednesday, Justice Minister Vallée haplessly defended the law by arguing that it isn't about religion, or Muslims, since it applies equally to all face-coverings and doesn't target a particular group. She insisted that scarves, bandanas and even sunglasses will have to be removed when you board a public bus – an embarrassing stance she is obliged to take because any other would amount to an admission that the law is discriminatory.

This law can and will be challenged in court; we find it hard to believe it is constitutional. But the law is already under attack from the PQ and the CAQ – both of which voted against it on the grounds that it doesn't go far enough. They will make it an election issue, with Muslim women caught squarely in the middle.

Women wearing face-coverings in Canada will sometimes be asked to make a reasonable accommodation to society, by briefly exposing their face to government officials to confirm their identities.

But at all other times, they should be free to live and move about and practise their beliefs, without fear or discrimination. That is no longer the case in Quebec. The province's secularism was once a point of pride. Now, the government has made it an accomplice to bigotry.

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/op...6646731/?ref=https://www.theglobeandmail.com&

I see absolutely nothing wrong with this law, like I mentioned Ontario better pass this laws as well. You cant really go and get driver license without proving that its you behind the veil.

Good Job Quebec.
 
Quebec is a very racist state, I've been there a few times. They even hate English, I can only imagine how much they hate brown skinned folk.
 
They are Islamic garments, which is why they are worn by Muslims around the world, not just Arabs. Funny how you seem to know so much about them, despite not knowing the differences between each.

They aren't Islamic garments, they are Arab outfits. Fact.

That Muslims in the sub-continent and other pockets want to don it to be culturally closer to the Arabs is another debate.
 
I see absolutely nothing wrong with this law, like I mentioned Ontario better pass this laws as well. You cant really go and get driver license without proving that its you behind the veil.

Good Job Quebec.

It's against liberal principles.
If you do not find anything wrong with this, then it's likely that you are not liberal.
 
They aren't Islamic garments, they are Arab outfits. Fact.

That Muslims in the sub-continent and other pockets want to don it to be culturally closer to the Arabs is another debate.

It's a moot point in the court.
If the individual says that he/she is doing for religious reasons, that's enough for courts.
 
It's a moot point in the court.
If the individual says that he/she is doing for religious reasons, that's enough for courts.

So can an individual break any law based on the pretext of it being for religious reasons?
 
It's against liberal principles.
If you do not find anything wrong with this, then it's likely that you are not liberal.

It has nothing to do with me being liberal or not, can you be 100% sure the person coming for drivers license is same person behind the veil? I see nothing wrong with officer verifying the individual. And please dont tell me ID/DL will allow having an individual covering their face, that just wrong in so many ways. I have no problem them convering their face in public places but some places like Airport and Govt offices they need to unveil it.
 
It has nothing to do with me being liberal or not, can you be 100% sure the person coming for drivers license is same person behind the veil? I see nothing wrong with officer verifying the individual. And please dont tell me ID/DL will allow having an individual covering their face, that just wrong in so many ways. I have no problem them convering their face in public places but some places like Airport and Govt offices they need to unveil it.

It has everything to do with being real liberal or being fake liberal.

I am all for educating others, but I am not sure if we both have the same understanding.

My understanding 9based on the clarifications by minister) is that law demands that for the duration of giving or taking the public service, one cannot cover his/her face.

This means that if you want to use a public transport, you cannot cover your face, when you are in queue and also during the complete travel.

Same thing with govt offices, while you are in queue, in waiting room, the whole time you cannot cover your face.


This ban will be challenged and strike down soon.
 
[MENTION=138254]Syed1[/MENTION] [MENTION=42489]Black Zero[/MENTION]


What a sad decision yaar.


Many from my community would have to give up Jobs which isn't any good for families or society.


Pluralism ?

[MENTION=138508]aloo paratha[/MENTION] now that you are grown up Man give your solid opinion :)
 
[MENTION=138254]Syed1[/MENTION] [MENTION=42489]Black Zero[/MENTION]


What a sad decision yaar.


Many from my community would have to give up Jobs which isn't any good for families or society.


Pluralism ?

[MENTION=138508]aloo paratha[/MENTION] now that you are grown up Man give your solid opinion :)
It's only in Quebec and about full face covering.

I think your community is in Mississauga/toronto Ontario.
 
As long as they do not ban hijab, I'm ok with it. Full niqab is not in our religion, but practiced by people who are over zealous.
 
It's only in Quebec and about full face covering.

I think your community is in Mississauga/toronto Ontario.

I'm only 15:D

I've always thought that Quebec is the most backwards minded province anyways, most of the time when I hear racism in Canada it's in Quebec. So many of them don't want to be a part of Canada anyways.

This law doesn't really have much reason behind it though. I mean what is really the point?
 
Lmao, Canadians here love to parade about how great their country is compared to the great US of A. PM Trudaloo couldn't save you here.

Can't stump the :trump2

Still better than Trump lol, just because one thing happened here, it doesn't change the fact that America has more racism.
 
As long as they do not ban hijab, I'm ok with it. Full niqab is not in our religion, but practiced by people who are over zealous.
So if Canadians follows this selfish principle then they should ban muslims entering canada.
 
I'm only 15:D

I've always thought that Quebec is the most backwards minded province anyways, most of the time when I hear racism in Canada it's in Quebec. So many of them don't want to be a part of Canada anyways.

This law doesn't really have much reason behind it though. I mean what is really the point?

Racism is everywhere, excent major population areas. However it's more in Quebec and francophone feel closeness to France.

Yes, Quebec is the backward place, but as per canadian constitution they have freedom to pass their own laws.
 
Good decision. Not just Quebec, this should be strictly implemented in all of Canada.
 
As long as they do not ban hijab, I'm ok with it. Full niqab is not in our religion, but practiced by people who are over zealous.
Exactly what you said. I have no problem with the Hijab but I'm definitely against face covering for the safety and security of everyone.
 
Lmao, Canadians here love to parade about how great their country is compared to the great US of A. PM Trudaloo couldn't save you here.

Can't stump the :trump2

Please don't bring in third world underdeveloped countries in discussions involving elite nations like Canada. Thank you.
 
As long as they do not ban hijab, I'm ok with it. Full niqab is not in our religion, but practiced by people who are over zealous.

That’ll never happen, if they were to then what would nuns wear?
 
What to expect Next:


Bill 62, passed by the province’s National Assembly on Wednesday, cannot simply be overturned by the federal government. It must be challenged in court, something that is expected to happen almost right away.


What the federal government can do, however, is participate in court challenges, and potentially influence the speed at which they wind their way up from the provincial courts to the ultimate judicial authority — the Supreme Court of Canada.

The federal government, via cabinet, would need to submit what is called a “reference question” to the court, Behiels explained. The court, in turn, could expedite its ruling. The ruling is not legally binding, but no government has ever ignored one.


While campaigning in Roberval on Thursday ahead of a federal by election, Trudeau suggested that he personally doesn’t like Bill 62, but he stopped short of promising federal intervention on any level.


“You cannot be a free society and say what women should wear or should not wear … It’s a question of respect for individual choice,” Trudeau said in French

Quebec sparked heated criticism across the country Wednesday after it passed the controversial new legislation. Muslim organizations, civil rights groups and the province of Ontario have come out strongly against Bill 62.

Source: https://globalnews.ca/news/3813986/bill-62-quebec-trudeau-intervene/
 
Another good read for posters interested in Canada:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/quebec-neutrality-law-1.4360942



Protections under the Charter

It is this systemically discriminatory aspect of the bill which will fail to meet constitutional muster under the Charter of Rights. For not only does the bill violate the freedom of religion guarantee, it undoubtedly violates the Charter's equality rights protections as well. The ban takes effect immediately, but detailed guidelines for exemptions – specifically, religious accommodation – apparently will not materialize until next July. In the meantime, the government better hope no Muslim woman wearing a niqab is prevented from accessing government services, for the law is unlikely to survive a court challenge.

No doubt the government has attempted to shield the law from precisely this sort of legal challenge. The ban applies to all face coverings, not just religious ones. But rights are held by individuals, and where it may be constitutional to force someone to remove a winter scarf or a pair of sunglasses, governments must justify imposing limits on religious freedoms like wearing the niqab.


It is at this point that some readers might object: "the niqab is a cultural affectation, not a religious requirement!" But courts in Canada do not engage in theology when ascertaining whether someone's religious freedom has been infringed. Religions are not monolithic, and adherents have a diversity of viewpoints on all sorts of religious rules and practices. You will not see the Supreme Court sailing into the text of the Bible or Qur'an to determine which religious practices are "legitimate" requirements and which are not. The test is whether a rights claimant has a sincere belief that their religion requires particular practices or traditions.

So what justification does the government have for this law? The justice minister has cited reasons of communication, security and identification. You will be forgiven for wondering if you missed the news about a rash of nefarious people riding public transit lately, for it is unclear what security-related issues are actually at stake. As for identifying people using public services, there haven't been any issues when people legitimately do need to show their face, such as when obtaining driver's licenses.

There is no reason, security or otherwise, that anyone needs to see anyone else's face on the bus. Especially in Canada with its pesky winters. To meet the Charter's requirements, the benefit of a law needs to outweigh the harms imposed, and here religious freedoms will be violated for entirely illusory benefits
 
Its only my opinion and this law will have no effect on me and neither do I care if it is enacted or not.

What I can see happening is when this is challenged in court it will be seen by many as a challenge to their way of life, most non muslim people see hiding your face as a unfriendly gesture and some see it as a sign of oppressing women. This will be viewed as an attack on their beliefs and will create further divisions between muslims and non muslims.

I dont support either side but do think the onus of inter grating into a community should be the prime motivation for muslims if they want to live in Canada and the consistent fall back to religious rights will only divide the community more. I cant see any good coming from this for Canadians or muslims.
 
Its only my opinion and this law will have no effect on me and neither do I care if it is enacted or not.

What I can see happening is when this is challenged in court it will be seen by many as a challenge to their way of life, most non muslim people see hiding your face as a unfriendly gesture and some see it as a sign of oppressing women. This will be viewed as an attack on their beliefs and will create further divisions between muslims and non muslims.

I dont support either side but do think the onus of inter grating into a community should be the prime motivation for muslims if they want to live in Canada and the consistent fall back to religious rights will only divide the community more. I cant see any good coming from this for Canadians or muslims.

Except the niqab isn't challenging Canadian beliefs.

Freedom of Religion and the Charter of Rights in Canada suggest so. It's one of the reasons Bill 62 has been worded in the most ambiguous way possible.

I think it's far more damaging when a country starts ignoring its own constitution!
 
Except the niqab isn't challenging Canadian beliefs.

Freedom of Religion and the Charter of Rights in Canada suggest so. It's one of the reasons Bill 62 has been worded in the most ambiguous way possible.

I think it's far more damaging when a country starts ignoring its own constitution!

It is challenging their beliefs, otherwise they would not have proposed the law in the first place.

I think its far more damaging when the constitution is used to make a community conform to something they prefer not to. The ramifications will effect everyone.
 
It is challenging their beliefs, otherwise they would not have proposed the law in the first place.

I think its far more damaging when the constitution is used to make a community conform to something they prefer not to. The ramifications will effect everyone.

So "their" beliefs are people shouldn't wear sunglasses on a bus?

Because that's what the law seems to articulate.
 
I support this. Nowhere does it in the Quran ask for women to wear veils, or even Hijab's at that. The Quran only asks us to dress modestly. A lot of terrorism can be caused through people being veiled, as we've seen on multiple occasions in the Muslim world.

In my opinion, veils should banned in Pakistan as well.
 
Its only my opinion and this law will have no effect on me and neither do I care if it is enacted or not.

What I can see happening is when this is challenged in court it will be seen by many as a challenge to their way of life, most non muslim people see hiding your face as a unfriendly gesture and some see it as a sign of oppressing women. This will be viewed as an attack on their beliefs and will create further divisions between muslims and non muslims.

I dont support either side but do think the onus of inter grating into a community should be the prime motivation for muslims if they want to live in Canada and the consistent fall back to religious rights will only divide the community more. I cant see any good coming from this for Canadians or muslims.

I also believe that the onus should be on Muslims to integrate into the community, added to that, I also believe the niqab has no place in western society regardless of whether it is religiously sanctioned or not. For the same reason I have long campaigned on these forums that turbans, dhotis, saris and Arabic robes should also be discouraged. My concern is not legality, but to show a willingness to respect and integrate into the community these foreigners are living in.

Full disclosure: I don't wear any of these ethnic clothing, my dress is totally in line with normal western fashion so I practice what I preach.
 
If one were to grow a full beard, let the (head) hair grow long and comb it in such a way that much of it falls onto one's face, along with also wearing a pair of dark sunglasses, would that constitutes 'covering one's face' and thus fall foul of this new law?

Furthermore, if wearing a hijab (- cover the head and hair) is to be made illegal, how different is that to men wearing a turban, since it also 'covers the head and hair'? Shouldn't wearing a turban also be banned in that case, otherwise the law becomes sexist?
 
If one were to grow a full beard, let the (head) hair grow long and comb it in such a way that much of it falls onto one's face, along with also wearing a pair of dark sunglasses, would that constitutes 'covering one's face' and thus fall foul of this new law?

Furthermore, if wearing a hijab (- cover the head and hair) is to be made illegal, how different is that to men wearing a turban, since it also 'covers the head and hair'? Shouldn't wearing a turban also be banned in that case, otherwise the law becomes sexist?

some right wingers voted against this bill as they wanted to include sikh turban and jewish stuff in ban too.
 
I also believe that the onus should be on Muslims to integrate into the community, added to that, I also believe the niqab has no place in western society regardless of whether it is religiously sanctioned or not. For the same reason I have long campaigned on these forums that turbans, dhotis, saris and Arabic robes should also be discouraged. My concern is not legality, but to show a willingness to respect and integrate into the community these foreigners are living in.

Full disclosure: I don't wear any of these ethnic clothing, my dress is totally in line with normal western fashion so I practice what I preach.

basically you supporting your way of life.
 
some right wingers voted against this bill as they wanted to include sikh turban and jewish stuff in ban too.
You can't have a bill that discriminates on the basis of gender. If women are not allowed to cover their head/hair, then the same should apply to men. And that should include Sikh turbans. A law based upon gender and/or religious discrimination in a civil and democratic country like Canada should be a no-no.
 
You can't have a bill that discriminates on the basis of gender. If women are not allowed to cover their head/hair, then the same should apply to men. And that should include Sikh turbans. A law based upon gender and/or religious discrimination in a civil and democratic country like Canada should be a no-no.

current law is about covering face and it also applies to men.
 
current law is about covering face and it also applies to men.
Growing a big bushy beard, along with growing hair long and combing it such that it falls over one's face (a very long fringe?), and to cap it off, wearing a pair of large sunglasses, definitely 'covers one's face'. And if you also happen to wear a cap or large hat, then the face is covered as much as any burqa/nijab. (Not that I'm in favour of women wearing the burqa - because I'm not).
 
Growing a big bushy beard, along with growing hair long and combing it such that it falls over one's face (a very long fringe?), and to cap it off, wearing a pair of large sunglasses, definitely 'covers one's face'. And if you also happen to wear a cap or large hat, then the face is covered as much as any burqa/nijab. (Not that I'm in favour of women wearing the burqa - because I'm not).

Pretty much.

It's one of the reasons STM drivers (Société de transport de Montréal) said they want no part of this headache. :))
 
Spurce: cbc

Amid criticism, Quebec explains the rules of its face-covering ban
'I'm sorry that it wasn't as clear,' Justice Minister Stéphanie Vallée says of religious neutrality law.

Quebec Justice Minister Stéphanie Vallée sought to clarify the province's controversial face-covering ban on Tuesday, saying the law will only apply when it's required for communication, identification or security reasons.

At a news conference that lasted more than an hour, Vallée explained how the new law will be implemented in specific cases. She said the law, which pertains to those giving or receiving public services, is not meant to be repressive.

"I'm sorry that it wasn't as clear," she said. "Maybe what I'm doing today I should have done the day after we adopted the bill."

Bill 62 has been the subject of questions and confusion since it became law last Wednesday in Quebec's National Assembly.


Civil rights advocates have accused the province of targeting Muslim women who wear a niqab or burka, while municipal politicians have said it's unfair to ask public servants, such as bus drivers or library workers, to enforce the law.

Hospitals, libraries, public transit

Vallée said Tuesday a Muslim woman wearing a niqab or burka would only be required to uncover her face to take public transit if a photo ID is required, as in the case of those paying a reduced student fare.

The same rules would apply to someone wearing sunglasses and a scarf, she said.

As well, an individual would not be required to uncover the face for the duration of the ride on a bus or Metro, she said, in a departure from what she had previously told CBC News.

What you can and can't do wearing a niqab in Quebec
At public libraries, a person with a covered face is free to roam the stacks but would be required to uncover their face to communicate with staff, Vallée said.

At a hospital, a person requiring emergency care wouldn't be turned away because of a face covering, she said.

"People will have to have their face uncovered when they are in direct contact with an employee but when they return for example to the waiting room, they will not be obliged to have their face uncovered,'' she said

Vallée said the law is in effect and applies across the province. But she also said a Muslim woman wearing a niqab or burka would be eligible for an exemption to the law on religious grounds.

There are no sanctions listed in the legislation for those who don't comply.

'A comedy act'

The government's two main opponents, the Coalition Avenir Québec and the Parti Québécois, have argued the Liberals didn't go far enough.

After the news conference, they pounced on Vallee, with the CAQ's Nathalie Roy calling the justice minister's change of tune "a mess" and a "comedy act."

She said Vallée had said during hours of committee hearings on the bill that the ban would apply throughout the time of service, and now she's backtracking because of the backlash.

The PQ's Jean-François Lisée said he's "ashamed" of a government that's unable to stand up and defend its laws.

The left-leaning Québec Solidaire also voted against the law, calling it "absurd and impossible to apply," and arguing it's incoherent to legislate on the clothing a tiny religious minority wears while a crucifix hangs in the National Assembly.

A motion to debate that issue was shot down by the Liberals on Tuesday.

Law aims to address decade-old debate

The guidelines were originally set to be released by next July, after a round of consultations. But that timeline was moved to Tuesday in attempt to quell uproar over the law.

The law has been criticized by the premiers of Ontario and Alberta, Montreal Mayor Denis Coderre, and citizens, who have held protests to show their opposition.

Following Tuesday's clarifications, Coderre said he still doesn't "think it is valid."

How Quebec's face-covering ban stacks up to laws elsewhere around the globe
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has said governments shouldn't tell women what they can and cannot wear.

But there is support in Quebec for what the law is trying to achieve.

According to an Angus Reid poll published before Bill 62 became law, 87 per cent of Quebecers agree with its objectives.

The law, Vallée argued, represents a "well-balanced response" to a debate over the reasonable accommodation of minorites that has been ongoing in the province over the past 10 years.

She said Quebec is blazing a trail on the question of religious neutrality, as it did when it became the first province to pass doctor-assisted dying legislation.


________________
 
'It’s going to encourage more hate': Women in Quebec who wear niqab speak out against Bill 62

They have been shoved, spat on and told to return to their country more times than they can remember. Because they are covered from head to toe, they have been mockingly called "Ninja."

That one, they find funny.

The three women all wear the face-covering niqab. And they have been drawn into the epicentre of the debate over Bill 62, the new Quebec law requiring people to show their faces to obtain public services.

The legislation's rollout has been so shrouded in confusion that no one knows precisely how it will apply. Yet the women fear they will pay the price for the law. They decided to speak out, worried that women like themselves will bear the brunt of Bill 62.

The three are confident and well-spoken, busy raising children and driving to the mall. All insist they are not victims, not submissive and not the instruments of their husbands' will.

"People are trying to liberate us, but they're doing the opposite when they're telling us what to do," said Asma Ahmad, 30, who moved to Canada from the United Arab Emirates a decade ago. "Nobody is forcing us to cover ourselves, but this law is forcing us to uncover ourselves."

They met a reporter at one of the women's homes in Montreal's suburban West Island this week, on a street of tidy single-family homes and driveways with vans. They uncovered their faces to a female reporter; they cover up again when they step beyond the door. The women understand that hiding one's face in public makes people feel uncomfortable. They are used to stares and muttered insults.

"I don't mind. If you see anything for the first time, you can be shocked," said Ms. Ahmad, who has worn the face veil since age 15, an act of religious conviction and modesty.

"I believe the face is the most attractive part of the body," Ms. Ahmad said by way of explaining why she covers hers. "I'm not getting judged by my looks, by my makeup, or how beautiful I am."

Saima Sajid, a 31-year-old Concordia University graduate, began wearing the niqab as a teenager in Montreal. "I was raised to believe that as a confident individual I can make my own choices, no less than a man," she said.

"My love of Islam made me feel I wanted to take the extra step," Ms. Sajid said. "If you tell me to take my niqab off my face I would feel like I'm walking naked down the street."

Now, the veil is part of her identity. "If you can choose to wear a bikini, why can't I cover myself? Feminists should support women and the choices they make. Youngsters are so worried about their body images. I don't have to worry about that."

No one knows exactly how many women wear the niqab in Quebec. Estimates vary from 50 to more than 100; one can spend a year in Montreal and perhaps cross the path of one or two. But to hear the debate over Bill 62, one would imagine the veils are everywhere. They have become a flashpoint in the debate over identity, religious accommodations and Quebec's attachment to secular values.

To some in Quebec, the veils evoke the domination of the Catholic Church and represent a threat to the legacy of the Quiet Revolution of the 1960s. Others see the veil as a symbol of oppression – what the head of the Quebec Council on the Status of Women once called a "retrograde cultural practice that signifies women are inferior to men."

Some critics also say wearing the veil stems more from tribal practice than Islamic teachings.

"It's a prison for women," said Nadia El-Mabrouk, a Tunisian-born professor at the University of Montreal who belongs to a pro-secularism group. "It's incredible that it's being defended. It's not religious. It's the oppression of women, the erasing of women from the public space."

Yet research shows that most women who wear the niqab in Canada arrive at the choice themselves – as an expression of their Muslim identity, as a spiritual awakening, or as a personal challenge. They often do so despite the disapproval of loved ones and the larger Muslim community.

"The women do it entirely for their own reasons, and certainly against the will of the community," said Lynda Clarke, a specialist of religion and Islam at Montreal's Concordia University and author of a 2013 study on women who wear the niqab in Canada. "They're not following any authority, and are almost always acting against the will of family and sometimes their husband."

It's still unclear under Bill 62 exactly where or when anyone will be told to unveil. The three women say they are already accustomed to removing their veils for security purposes at the airport, licence bureau and other places where needed. They fear the law's real impact will be to embolden those who already harbour anti-Muslim feelings.

"It's going to justify some people to say: We didn't like the niqab before, and now the government is on our side," said Ms. Sajid, who arrived in Canada from Pakistan when she was six months old. "It's going to encourage more hate."

The women, with their young children, worry about placing themselves at risk. They worry the law will isolate them, and others like them.

One of the three has already had the experience first-hand. Seven years ago, Mahvish Ahmad was attending a government French class in her face veil, eager to learn the language of Quebec after emigrating from India. One day, two Quebec government officials turned up and Ms. Ahmad was told she'd have to either unveil or leave. At the time, Quebec's then-Liberal government was taking a hardening stance on the wearing of religious displays when using public services.

Ms. Ahmad felt she could not remove her niqab. The woman, who says she had been appreciated by her classmates and described as a model student, left the community centre in tears.

She never returned to school. She never learned French.

"I was so traumatized, my self-confidence was shattered," says Ms. Ahmad, now 33. "It was just a shock."

Quebec's Justice Minister says that under the new law, a person will also have to uncover her face in classrooms for the purposes of communication with the teacher. Ms. Ahmad wonders whether more women like her will stay home.

"You can't judge me just by my looks and what I'm wearing. You have to judge me on the person I am and how I'm being loyal to this country and its people," she says. "We're not harming anyone. We're not a threat. It's wrong to judge people on their looks, their colour or the clothes they wear."

Rarely has a piece of clothing worn by so few inflamed passions among so many. From behind their veils, the women just ask people to try to understand them.

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/ne...niqab-fear-impact-of-bill-62/article36753623/
 
Can't believe how some people justify concealing your identity in this day and age for no reason at all. Not even a requirement in Islam.

In my opinion, this needs to be implemented in Pakistan and India too. Terrorism and crime will take a massive hit.
 
Can't believe how some people justify concealing your identity in this day and age for no reason at all. Not even a requirement in Islam.

In my opinion, this needs to be implemented in Pakistan and India too. Terrorism and crime will take a massive hit.

can you explain in detali(india/pakistan)l how you came to this conclusion?
 
In my opinion, this needs to be implemented in Pakistan. Terrorism and crime will take a massive hit.

Nah it’s just a distraction from real solutions. Terrorism is already going down in Pakistan. If people want to commit crimes and terrorism, they will, with or without Niqab. Aping Quebec won’t change a thing.
 
can you explain in detali(india/pakistan)l how you came to this conclusion?

Most, if not all, terrorists in Pakistan usually dawn the burqa. Around 2 days ago, there was news of two burglars who had worn the buqra pretending to be women. Have heard similar things about India. Not statistics of course, just my personal opinion!
 
Back
Top