Quebec moves to prohibit veiled women from receiving public services

[Alceste]

MONTREAL–Quebec Premier Jean Charest and his cabinet have introduced sweeping legislation that effectively bars Muslim women from receiving or delivering public services while wearing a niqab.

Actually, I would like to see this taken to court, as it is a clear violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

27. This Charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians.

32. (1) This Charter applies
(b) to the legislature and government of each province in respect of all matters within the authority of the legislature of each province.

Game, set, match.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Actually, I would like to see this taken to court, as it is a clear violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

27. This Charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians.

32. (1) This Charter applies
(b) to the legislature and government of each province in respect of all matters within the authority of the legislature of each province.

Game, set, match.

Not quite. To switch sports metaphors, the Quebec government will always have the hammer, because they've got the notwithstanding clause... and they haven't been afraid to use it in the past.

 

[Alceste]

Not quite. To switch sports metaphors, the Quebec government will always have the hammer, because they've got the notwithstanding clause... and they haven't been afraid to use it in the past.

Ah, well - that explains a lot about Quebec. I remember hearing stories of all the Irish pubs having to go knock off the apostrophes on their signs ... or face dire consequences!!!

I had the idea that the notwithstanding clause was not often used. And it isn't, apparently - except in good old racist Quebec.

 

[kai]

same old same old , is covering your face Islamic or cultural? how can you expect to interact with people with your face covered up, its bad enough dealing with officials as it is . making laws about it makes me feel uneasy ? but i suppose we will all have to sometime because Doctors,schools Shopkeepers etc will be deciding unilaterally and getting sued.


Imagine going to the doctor and she has her face covered up, www hhoooooaaahhhhh

 

[blackout]

I personally would not teach music to someone who'se head was hidden in a bag.

I just wouldn't.

sorry.

Go find another teacher.

 

[Alceste]

same old same old , is covering your face Islamic or cultural? how can you expect to interact with people with your face covered up, its bad enough dealing with officials as it is . making laws about it makes me feel uneasy ? but i suppose we will all have to sometime because Doctors,schools Shopkeepers etc will be deciding unilaterally and getting sued.


Imagine going to the doctor and she has her face covered up, www hhoooooaaahhhhh

If the Charter's clause 15 is not explicitly waived in the legislation, it makes no difference whether the garb is religious or cultural. Both are protected. There is, on the other hand, no protection from "being made to feel uneasy" by another person's rights and freedoms in the Charter.

 

[Alceste]

I personally would not teach music to someone who'se head was hidden in a bag.

I just wouldn't.

sorry.

Go find another teacher.

I would. I think you'd get used to it quicker than you think. If you can handle a Grizzly Adams beard, you can surely handle a niqab.

 

[linwood]

would you dare to say i wear modest to be isolated? "the entire purpose"...you know nothing about my purpose..geez this is one thing that makes me go crazy, people telling why i and all the other Muslim women do things

.

I never made a claim about why "you" do anything.

I claim the tenants of Islam isolate women and this is a fact.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

same old same old , is covering your face Islamic or cultural?

Does it matter?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There is, on the other hand, no protection from "being made to feel uneasy" by another person's rights and freedoms in the Charter.

Some of our Human Rights Commissions may disagree, but that's a whole other ball of wax.

 

[kai]

Does it matter?

Good Question


From the OP

However, Charest reaffirmed the right to wear other religious symbols, such as crosses, skullcaps or headscarves, which was met by some as evidence of hypocrisy and discrimination.

It refers to "other" religious symbols i have never been convinced that face covering is actually "Islamic" But at the risk of "here we go again" If its not religious to cover your face then you cant claim its religious discrimination when your asked not to.

 

[LittleNipper]

From today's Toronto Star:



Personally, I disagree with the move. There may be isolated cases where obscuring a person's face may cause a problem, but I think this law bans veils in circumstances where it can't be justified. IMO, the motivation for this law was simple dislike of the burqa and niqab, not any legitimate public policy concern.

Also, I think that Ms. Naz is correct in her assessment: this bill won't convince veiled women to remove their veils; it'll just push them out of mainstream society. I especially don't like the idea that people might be dissuaded from seeing their doctors.

What do you think?

I do not see making women unveil to receive public services is any more appropriate than making them veil. I do however, imagine that unless such women see a woman doctor, dentist, etc., that here might be some logical issues involved.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It refers to "other" religious symbols i have never been convinced that face covering is actually "Islamic"

I'm a bit leery on having the government or the courts decide what is or isn't a legitimate religious belief. Also, I think that the whole religion vs. culture question might be a false dichotomy: IMO, it's a matter of culture that they feel that this is a requirement of their religion. It's based in both.

But at the risk of "here we go again" If its not religious to cover your face then you cant claim its religious discrimination when your asked not to.

There also the issue of freedom of expression: people are free to wear what they want unless there's a very good justification for restricting them.

Also, I see it as a bit of a double standard to prohibit religious veils from public institutions in the name of "security" while at the same time allowing religious weapons.

 

[kai]

I'm a bit leery on having the government or the courts decide what is or isn't a legitimate religious belief. Also, I think that the whole religion vs. culture question might be a false dichotomy: IMO, it's a matter of culture that they feel that this is a requirement of their religion. It's based in both.


There also the issue of freedom of expression: people are free to wear what they want unless there's a very good justification for restricting them.

Also, I see it as a bit of a double standard to prohibit religious veils from public institutions in the name of "security" while at the same time allowing religious weapons.

Yes but i suppose the security issue is all about identity, what good is cameras if people can hide their faces. Like i said its going to need legislation because people are going to decide for themselves that they don't want people in their Office,Shop,bank,Hospital, or wherever with their faces covered up, which is going to leave them open to litigation.

 

[YmirGF]

Yes but i suppose the security issue is all about identity, what good is cameras if people can hide their faces. Like i said its going to need legislation because people are going to decide for themselves that they don't want people in their Office,Shop,bank,Hospital, or wherever with their faces covered up, which is going to leave them open to litigation.

Personally, I would be in favor of a law that stated that one cannot use religion as an excuse to mask their identity, or require any particular special handling of men or women.

 

[Alceste]

Yes but i suppose the security issue is all about identity, what good is cameras if people can hide their faces. Like i said its going to need legislation because people are going to decide for themselves that they don't want people in their Office,Shop,bank,Hospital, or wherever with their faces covered up, which is going to leave them open to litigation.

Believe it or not, we don't have chronic CCTV surveillance in Canada. Even the crowd monitoring cameras recently installed for the Olympics have been removed. Our government takes our privacy legislation more seriously than the UK does.

 

[kai]

Believe it or not, we don't have chronic CCTV surveillance in Canada. Even the crowd monitoring cameras recently installed for the Olympics have been removed. Our government takes our privacy legislation more seriously than the UK does.

Then a veil is the utmost for privacy, maybe it will catch on.

 

[Alceste]

Then a veil is the utmost for privacy, maybe it will catch on.

You never know. The trend seems to be going in the opposite direction though - can't tell the difference between high school students and hookers any more.