Off Topic

Quebec set to pass law banning face coverings for anyone receiving public service — even a bus ride

  • Last Updated:
  • Nov 17th, 2017 12:03 pm
Tags:
None
Deal Guru
User avatar
Nov 15, 2004
14181 posts
1532 upvotes
Toronto
AndySixx wrote:
Nov 9th, 2017 4:22 pm
With so few other Muslims covering their faces like this, how does it give credence to the argument that this is some sort of essential function of their religion?

I really had no opinion about the merits of the case but with what you cited I'd say it gives Quebec even more validity.
That passage is so loosely worded it basically justifies anything anyone does for any reason as long as they throw out the magical 'r' word.

Does someone hold a sincere belief that God requires them to be armed to the teeth at all times even though the leaders and fellow adherents of their religion vehemently disagree and state the person is just mentally ill? It's allowed under the charter!

Polygamy, Warren Jeffs style? Allowed!

Advertising a Jonestown kool-aid party? Allowed!

Distributing terror material as part of your holy books to get closer to God? Allowed! (even though it's illegal)

FGM? Allowed! (though this is also illegal)

Not letting black people in your church, home, or business because you believe they're the spawn of satan (like a certain US religion does)? Allowed!

Not seeing a doctor for your HIV infection because God will cure you? Completely fine!
Last edited by Piro21 on Nov 9th, 2017 4:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Could HAVE, not could OF. What does 'could of' even mean?
Deal Addict
User avatar
Mar 29, 2008
2820 posts
213 upvotes
mr_raider wrote:
Nov 9th, 2017 3:53 pm
https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-c ... 1/index.do

Freedom of religion under the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms (and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ) consists of the freedom to undertake practices and harbour beliefs, having a nexus with religion, in which an individual demonstrates he or she sincerely believes or is sincerely undertaking in order to connect with the divine or as a function of his or her spiritual faith, irrespective of whether a particular practice or belief is required by official religious dogma or is in conformity with the position of religious officials.
Even as recently as last week the SCC followed this line of reasoning in Ktunaxa.
Deal Expert
Feb 29, 2008
16438 posts
1763 upvotes
Montreal
Piro21 wrote:
Nov 9th, 2017 4:35 pm
That passage is so loosely worded it basically justifies anything anyone does for any reason as long as they throw out the magical 'r' word.

Does someone hold a sincere belief that God requires them to be armed to the teeth at all times even though the leaders and fellow adherents of their religion vehemently disagree and state the person is just mentally ill? It's allowed under the charter!

Polygamy, Warren Jeffs style? Allowed!

Advertising a Jonestown kool-aid party? Allowed!

Distributing terror material as part of your holy books to get closer to God? Allowed! (even though it's illegal)

FGM? Allowed! (though this is also illegal)

Not letting black people in your church, home, or business because you believe they're the spawn of satan (like a certain US religion does)? Allowed!

Not seeing a doctor for your HIV infection because God will cure you? Completely fine!
Every item you cited contravenes an existing criminal law or presents a clear danger to the public, or harm to someone.

If the religious practice harms no one I don't see how the court can justify it being disallowed. Wearing a niqab inconveniences the wearer more than the general public.
Deal Guru
User avatar
Nov 15, 2004
14181 posts
1532 upvotes
Toronto
mr_raider wrote:
Nov 9th, 2017 5:09 pm
Every item you cited contravenes an existing criminal law or presents a clear danger to the public, or harm to someone.

If the religious practice harms no one I don't see how the court can justify it being disallowed. Wearing a niqab inconveniences the wearer more than the general public.
Shutting yourself off from the world is harmful. Advertising that a society prioritizes shutting members away from society instead of open integration is harmful. Social pressure on little girls who may be on the fence about wearing one and shutting themselves away or not wearing one and integrating is harmful. Social harm is just as real as physical harm.

If an 18-year-old woman 'chooses' to undergo FGM with 'no pressure' from her family or community we don't allow it.
If that same 18-year-old woman chooses to become someone's third wife we don't allow it.
If she chooses to hand out harmless pieces of paper with ISIS propaganda on them we don't allow it.
If she chooses to join the church of the 2nd amendment and exercise her god-given right to safely open carry a rifle we don't allow it.
Why should we allow this?
Could HAVE, not could OF. What does 'could of' even mean?
Deal Expert
Feb 29, 2008
16438 posts
1763 upvotes
Montreal
Piro21 wrote:
Nov 9th, 2017 5:45 pm
Shutting yourself off from the world is harmful. Advertising that a society prioritizes shutting members away from society instead of open integration is harmful. Social pressure on little girls who may be on the fence about wearing one and shutting themselves away or not wearing one and integrating is harmful. Social harm is just as real as physical harm.

If an 18-year-old woman 'chooses' to undergo FGM with 'no pressure' from her family or community we don't allow it.
If that same 18-year-old woman chooses to become someone's third wife we don't allow it.
If she chooses to hand out harmless pieces of paper with ISIS propaganda on them we don't allow it.
If she chooses to join the church of the 2nd amendment and exercise her god-given right to safely open carry a rifle we don't allow it.
Why should we allow this?
Let's cut the FUD.

Charter rights can be restricted in cases where there is clear harm, or danger to the public, or where the rights of others are infringed.

We restrict freedom of expression with hate speech laws. We restrict freedom of press with child pornography laws. We restrict freedom of religion to not allow discrimination against homosexuals.


I ask you again (and again, and again), can you demonstrate that wearing a niqab constitutes a danger to any one?

For reference, here is the judgement on obscenity:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Butler

In asking whether the law could be demonstrably justified, the objective was considered, in accordance with R. v. Oakes (1986). Objectives suggested by the Crown included prevention of harm that may arise from the attitudes promoted by the obscenity. The protection of decency was also a proposed objective. Those challenging the law stated its only objectives were moral. Historically, the objective of the law was meant to combat immorality and its impact on society. The Charter of Rights suggested this objective would no longer be sufficient, as it contradicted the individual's rights. While many criminal laws were enacted against perceived immoral things, the Supreme Court turned away from this objective and decided the true objective of the law was to minimize dangers to society.
Deal Addict
Dec 21, 2011
3215 posts
570 upvotes
London
The nine justices were unanimous in the decision to reject the Ktunaxa appeal on grounds of public interest - I hope the same happens to any appeals for this change.
Deal Guru
User avatar
Nov 15, 2004
14181 posts
1532 upvotes
Toronto
mr_raider wrote:
Nov 9th, 2017 6:56 pm
Let's cut the FUD.

Charter rights can be restricted in cases where there is clear harm, or danger to the public, or where the rights of others are infringed.

We restrict freedom of expression with hate speech laws. We restrict freedom of press with child pornography laws. We restrict freedom of religion to not allow discrimination against homosexuals.


I ask you again (and again, and again), can you demonstrate that wearing a niqab constitutes a danger to any one?

For reference, here is the judgement on obscenity:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Butler

In asking whether the law could be demonstrably justified, the objective was considered, in accordance with R. v. Oakes (1986). Objectives suggested by the Crown included prevention of harm that may arise from the attitudes promoted by the obscenity. The protection of decency was also a proposed objective. Those challenging the law stated its only objectives were moral. Historically, the objective of the law was meant to combat immorality and its impact on society. The Charter of Rights suggested this objective would no longer be sufficient, as it contradicted the individual's rights. While many criminal laws were enacted against perceived immoral things, the Supreme Court turned away from this objective and decided the true objective of the law was to minimize dangers to society.
You keep trying to paint wearing a niqab as a simple choice of clothing with no external pressures or context whatsoever, and completely ignoring the danger to the wearer that comes with choosing not to wear one. You brush aside the very real risk of physical harm and social ostracism that comes with the choice to not cave into the pressure of putting it on and checking out of Canadian society. That really just reveals your biases.

The truth of the matter is that clothing is restricted in this country all the time. The niqab has no basis in religion, no use in contemporary society, and only stands as false choice that presents real danger to those who are forced to wear it. A few women may choose to put it on of their own free will, but they are nowhere near the majority.

Women going topless is legal in this country, but it would be made illegal in a nanosecond if even a single case of a woman being forced to go topless under threat of murder or banishment from her family and social circle came to light. The niqab is the other side of that coin, but some people are too blinded by childhood indoctrination to step back and see things objectively. Dog whistle arguments about 'the right to choose how to dress' don't apply here since these women are fighting for the right to be forced to dress a certain way. They may as well be fighting for the rights of residents of a battered women's shelter to tattoo "MY HUSBAND/BOYFRIEND/PIMP OWNS ME" across their faces since under Canadian law they're 'free' to do that too.
Could HAVE, not could OF. What does 'could of' even mean?
Deal Fanatic
Jul 5, 2005
5966 posts
221 upvotes
mr_raider wrote:
Nov 9th, 2017 3:53 pm
https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-c ... 1/index.do

Freedom of religion under the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms (and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ) consists of the freedom to undertake practices and harbour beliefs, having a nexus with religion, in which an individual demonstrates he or she sincerely believes or is sincerely undertaking in order to connect with the divine or as a function of his or her spiritual faith, irrespective of whether a particular practice or belief is required by official religious dogma or is in conformity with the position of religious officials.
Thanks for the link. I see what you're saying but you're talking about a split decision where the dissenting opinion was basically that there should be some way to test the sincerity of a person's beliefs. That basically comes down to the makeup of the SCoC and I see a lot of Harper appointees sitting in seats...

Interestingly, the decision from that case supports the Quebec government's position that this is an issue of security and safety and so limits to religious rights are reasonable. "Conduct which would potentially cause harm to or interference with the rights of others would not automatically be protected. The ultimate protection of any particular Charter right must be measured in relation to other rights and with a view to the underlying context in which the apparent conflict arises." Which would be disappointing as I hope they have to defend women covering their faces as being a sincere belief.
Deal Expert
Feb 29, 2008
16438 posts
1763 upvotes
Montreal
hugh_da_man wrote:
Nov 10th, 2017 4:39 am
Interestingly, the decision from that case supports the Quebec government's position that this is an issue of security and safety and so limits to religious rights are reasonable. "Conduct which would potentially cause harm to or interference with the rights of others would not automatically be protected. The ultimate protection of any particular Charter right must be measured in relation to other rights and with a view to the underlying context in which the apparent conflict arises." Which would be disappointing as I hope they have to defend women covering their faces as being a sincere belief.
Someone wearing a niqab does not infringe on another person's charter rights, to the best of my knowledge.

Again I ask you, what is the safety or security issue being addressed by the ban? The law does not simply require showing your face when photo ID is presented. It goes beyond that.

Here is the section likely to be challenged. Google translate it if you can't read french:
SECTION II
SERVICES À VISAGE DÉCOUVERT
10. Un membre du personnel d’un organisme doit exercer ses fonctions à
visage découvert.

10
De même, une personne qui se présente pour recevoir un service par un
membre du personnel d’un organisme visé au présent chapitre doit avoir le
visage découvert lors de la prestation du service.
Newbie
Nov 8, 2017
82 posts
12 upvotes
Somewhere in Ontario
I think coverage on his law has been biased and does not speak to the truth of the law. Quebec didn't ban the niqab or burqa, they have set guidelines that if a public officer (be it a police officer, a child support worker, or even a bus driver) asks you to reveal your face, because they need to identify you, then you are obliged to do so. There is no ban. And most bus drivers aren't going to ask you to take it off, so this is not invasive. It is simply if you need to be identified you can't use religious extremism as an excuse to hide your face.

This is a rational, reasonable law for that reason. There's no ban here, ban is a term used by the media, the law itself does not use that terminology.

In so far as public employment is concerned, I have a private employer that has a dress code. The code says I must wear business casual slacks or business attire. I'm not allowed to wear what I want to work, either. My rights aren't violated. These women's rights aren't violated either, they can't wear a very specific religious dress at work if they are hired by a government agency. That's not much to ask for, its standard professionalism.

Vive le Quebec, you guys did it right. The rest of us and the feds should consider these laws, because yes, the Canadian government was sued by a woman who wanted to become a Canadian citizen without removing her face cover. I'm sorry, but if you want to adopt Canadian citizenship, you should at least respect the ceremony you're a part of by revealing yourself to your new country. If you like women being required to wear these things, there's flights daily from Pearson or Dorval. You're welcome aboard a luxurious flight to a country that subjugates women into wearing full body garb and face covers. So, if someone doesn't like the law you can have that fixed in less than 24 hours to anywhere in the world that condones the suppression of women.

I KNOW, I totally get it. The potential of being asked by a bus driver to reveal your face is absolutely going to destroy your life, it is an affront to Islam, and it is going to be the end of the world as we know it, but freedom to be subjugated is within your grasp! Get to the airport today! LOL

This 'debate' is absurd, I can't believe so many people pull the religious rights garbage when this is not about religious rights, its a basic request required in the law. I can't go before a judge and wear a brown bag over my head and declare religious freedom... Logic people. Come on.
Deal Fanatic
Jul 5, 2005
5966 posts
221 upvotes
mr_raider wrote:
Nov 10th, 2017 9:45 am
Someone wearing a niqab does not infringe on another person's charter rights, to the best of my knowledge.

Again I ask you, what is the safety or security issue being addressed by the ban? The law does not simply require showing your face when photo ID is presented. It goes beyond that.
Public safety which would potentially infringe on the right to life of others.

No different than the kirpan rulings really. The SCoC put limits on the kirpan by essentially limiting the size of the blade and requiring it to be sewn into it's sheath rendering it nearly useless. A ceremonial knife is a safety concern in a court or school the same as a face covering is a safety concern in a bank or anywhere else that concealing your identity would aid you in harming other people. No one is saying that Sikhs want to stab people with their kirpans, there just needs to be limits to balance religious rights with the rights of the public. Same with face coverings and the government is starting by requiring face coverings to be removed when accessing government services. I wouldn't be surprised if it's extended to all businesses that see face coverings as a potential danger.

mr_raider wrote:
Nov 10th, 2017 9:45 am
Here is the section likely to be challenged. Google translate it if you can't read french:
Yeah I still don't see it. The charter says, and the SCoC has affirmed, that the government can set reasonable limits on charter rights for various reasons. Maybe the fact that it's vague could be an issue as it doesn't state the reason for the face covering to be removed but I think the security argument is reasonable if the government decides to make it (that seems to be what they have suggested their defence will be).

If you concealing your identity is potentially dangerous then the government can put limits on your rights to protect the rights of the public.

EDIT: That being said, I hope the legislation is struck down as the slope is very slippery.
Deal Expert
Feb 29, 2008
16438 posts
1763 upvotes
Montreal
The devil is in the details. If you go to the clinic and are asked to briefly uncover your face when you present your health card, and then cover up again in the waiting room, then I can buy the security or ID argument. That would pass. But if you are required to keep your face uncovered the whole time you are at the hospital or buying coffee at the snack bar, that would cross the line into infringing your rights.


Then again, why aren't they banning trenchcoat, heavy back packs, and puffy jackets. Those are far more likely to be security risks?

What if they can confirm your ID with biometrics like a fingerprint, will the need to show your face be waived?
Moderator
User avatar
May 8, 2009
1696 posts
447 upvotes
45.420833°N, 75.69°W
I would argue that if Quebec passes such a law, women can still freely wear niqabs anywhere, but would have to uncover their face to receive public service. How often do such women receive public service? I admit, bus riders it's daily, but if a woman is driven around by a family member (or too liberal for Saudi Arabia and drives herself), then receiving public service becomes extremely rare. The government should be free to lay their house rules when it comes to administering service to its residents (anyone can establish a dress code).

Buses are an understandable concern, as one could pull a stunt and pack plenty of explosives under a niqab. Aside perhaps Halloween, you'd probably deny a ride to someone wearing a face mask that isn't designed to protect them from harsh weather.

I can't see why any government can't pass a dress code as a requirement to access their services.
mr_raider wrote:
Nov 10th, 2017 4:57 pm
The devil is in the details. If you go to the clinic and are asked to briefly uncover your face when you present your health card, and then cover up again in the waiting room, then I can buy the security or ID argument. That would pass. But if you are required to keep your face uncovered the whole time you are at the hospital or buying coffee at the snack bar, that would cross the line into infringing your rights.


Then again, why aren't they banning trenchcoat, heavy back packs, and puffy jackets. Those are far more likely to be security risks?

What if they can confirm your ID with biometrics like a fingerprint, will the need to show your face be waived?
We could put metal detectors everywhere and hire security guards, too. Seems like a lot of overhead and big expenses to support simply to ensure one's right to wear outfits that conceal their identity.
Motorola phone. Linux on 2xcomputers. Brew beer & wine @home.
Home service reseller internet + FPL + antenna with streaming on smart TV
Wireless 1 line w/ Virgin on QC plan, few lines w/ Koodo to get phones, couple FreedomPop SIM's for roaming
Deal Guru
User avatar
Nov 15, 2004
14181 posts
1532 upvotes
Toronto
It's very telling that the harm to the wearers is completely ignored, as per usual.
Could HAVE, not could OF. What does 'could of' even mean?
Deal Expert
Feb 29, 2008
16438 posts
1763 upvotes
Montreal
titaniumtux wrote:
Nov 10th, 2017 5:05 pm




We could put metal detectors everywhere and hire security guards, too. Seems like a lot of overhead and big expenses to support simply to ensure one's right to wear outfits that conceal their identity.
What can you conceal under a niqab yo can't conceal under a winter coat or full length skirt?

Top