Quebec’s Bill 62 is a heavy-handed effort by the government to solve a problem nobody knew we had.
The new law will ban public workers and anyone receiving public services from wearing a face covering.
The province said this is an attempt to solidify religious neutrality in the province when it comes to public servants and those using government services.
The fact that adherents to the Muslim religion stand to be the only Quebec citizens affected by the new law shows it is anything but neutral.
If the government really were concerned with religious neutrality, it would have discarded the crucifix that currently hangs in the legislature.
And before the Bill’s supporters claim that the crucifix is an important part of Quebec heritage, the crucifix only went up in 1936 – hardly a longstanding tradition in a province that traces its roots back to the 1600s.
Why is this bill being passed? The fervour that this bill was passed with tells us that people are consuming public services with face coverings at an epidemic level. In reality, that’s not the case.
Frédéric Castel, a researcher at Université du Québec à Montreal told BuzzFeed News that out of nearly 150,000 Muslim women in Quebec, he estimated that there were between 50 and 100 women who actually wear the niqab in the province.
Judging by these numbers, Quebec just passed a law to target 0.0012 per cent of the population.
With that in mind, the response seems completely out of proportion to the alleged problem. It’s like killing a housefly with a sledgehammer, or a fighter jet.
There are already rules in place that make it mandatory for those with a face covering to remove it when they have to prove their identity – like getting a driver’s license or a passport. It’s called reasonable accommodation and Quebec just threw it out the window.
But a new law forbidding these women from even riding the bus? Are Quebec transit companies that concerned about people donning religious garb to use someone else’s bus pass?
What happens to these women when they are in a snowstorm in February and the bus driver tells her she can’t get on the bus unless she removes her veil? Is this the kind of society we want?
Many people point to this law as an altruistic attempt by the Quebec government to improve the quality of life of these women. They point to the fact that the face covering is a method of male domination over their spouses.
These women are isolated as it is. Most of them are new to Canada.
Now, the government is forcing them into an even deeper isolation because these women won’t even be able to get around when they leave their homes.
Many people also point to the niqab as an example of those who are unwilling to assimilate and become “Canadian.”
What about the women who are attending university or college in order to integrate into our society? University and college are considered public services, does that mean they can’t attend classes anymore?
What about the can of worms that is the enforcement of this law?
Are we going to have specially-trained government employees doing the rounds to make sure everyone is dressed appropriately? Or will public servants be the ones who have to enforce a discriminatory law?
What about the thousands of people who board busses each day in the winter with a scarf wrapped tightly around their faces? Will they be refused?
We’ve already seen bus drivers in several cities throughout the province protesting the new law, so it’s doubtful they’ll be the ones enforcing it.
To add to all of these issues is the fact that this law won’t survive the first court challenge that comes its way. Bill 62 infringes on the Canadian Charter’s right to freedom of religion as well as the equality rights protections.
It’s beginning to look like none of these politicians thought this law through. Either that, or it was just a cynical attempt to stir up nativism and identity politics in a province that has – unfortunately – been all too willing to take the bait in recent years.
Clearly, this new law is as much about religious freedom as McDonald’s is about healthy lifestyles.
So, can someone please bring a court challenge so we can move beyond this nonsense?
Chris Lowrey
