Off Topic

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

  • Last Updated:
  • Nov 24th, 2017 6:18 pm
Tags:
None
Deal Fanatic
Jul 5, 2005
5986 posts
224 upvotes
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.
The potential risk to public safety isn't removed by briefly uncovering your face though. I think it's fair that you have your face uncovered for the duration of you providing or receiving government services. That might mean that you can cover your face in the waiting room but you must uncover your face when you see the nurses and doctors. That seems reasonable as you will likely need to show a nurse or doctor much more of yourself to receive treatment anyways.

mr_raider wrote:
Nov 10th, 2017 4:57 pm
Then again, why aren't they banning trenchcoat, heavy back packs, and puffy jackets. Those are far more likely to be security risks?
Like ConsumerBran said, it's not a ban. Trenchcoats, heavy backpacks, puffy jackets, etc can all be banned or searched without violating people's rights. I have to take off my jacket and backpack and submit to a search to enter the courts building.

mr_raider wrote:
Nov 10th, 2017 4:57 pm
What if they can confirm your ID with biometrics like a fingerprint, will the need to show your face be waived?
What if they can confirm your ID through telepathy? What if we evolve tails? I don't think they have to address all of the edge cases.
Deal Expert
Feb 29, 2008
16490 posts
1764 upvotes
Montreal
hugh_da_man wrote:
Nov 10th, 2017 6:23 pm
The potential risk to public safety isn't removed by briefly uncovering your face though. I think it's fair that you have your face uncovered for the duration of you providing or receiving government services. That might mean that you can cover your face in the waiting room but you must uncover your face when you see the nurses and doctors. That seems reasonable as you will likely need to show a nurse or doctor much more of yourself to receive treatment anyways.
What risk to public safety does having your face covered pose?
Jr. Member
Nov 8, 2017
107 posts
12 upvotes
Somewhere in Ontario
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.

Here is the section likely to be challenged. Google translate it if you can't read french:
Quebec still writes laws in both languages, no translation required. Here is the official English version of the law:

http://www2.publicationsduquebec.gouv.q ... 17C19A.PDF
Jr. Member
Nov 8, 2017
107 posts
12 upvotes
Somewhere in Ontario
mr_raider wrote:
Nov 10th, 2017 6:13 pm
What can you conceal under a niqab yo can't conceal under a winter coat or full length skirt?
Let's be honest. The Niqab and Burka have become issues because of individuals pushing the issue not just a random move without purpose. The federal Canadian government was sued over the "right" of someone taking the citizenship ceremony to leave their religious garb on by using religious persecution as the legal means to fight the case. To me that's offensive to the process of citizenship, offensive to the fact that we're a welcoming country and becoming officially Canadian you lack the respect to even show your face in a pluralistic, secular country that has given you a home.

These laws are being enacted because the issues are being pushed by specific people. Furthermore, the burqa and niqab isn't even something that traditional in islam per se. There were fewer people using them in the 60's and 70's than there are today, because there has been a religious extremist push among a few people. Poll many muslims and they think wearing of it is ridiculous.

Why are so many people in the west going out of their way to protect a symbol of religious extremism, a symbol of the subjugation of women? Why are we using projections and unrelated arguments like can I wear a Halloween mask one day of the year on a subway ride to this as if there are correlations?

All this law does it it makes it legal for a public official to request you to remove your religious garb so they can see your face and identify you. Nothing more, nothing less. You can't use religious extremism as a reason to deny that reasonable request, with this new law especially.

Defending something that is even extreme within many Islamic communities of the world on the basis that it somehow reduces rights for us is not logic I can follow.
Deal Addict
May 17, 2005
3662 posts
457 upvotes
ConsumerBran wrote:
Nov 10th, 2017 8:20 pm
Let's be honest. The Niqab and Burka have become issues because of individuals pushing the issue not just a random move without purpose. The federal Canadian government was sued over the "right" of someone taking the citizenship ceremony to leave their religious garb on by using religious persecution as the legal means to fight the case. To me that's offensive to the process of citizenship, offensive to the fact that we're a welcoming country and becoming officially Canadian you lack the respect to even show your face in a pluralistic, secular country that has given you a home.

These laws are being enacted because the issues are being pushed by specific people. Furthermore, the burqa and niqab isn't even something that traditional in islam per se. There were fewer people using them in the 60's and 70's than there are today, because there has been a religious extremist push among a few people. Poll many muslims and they think wearing of it is ridiculous.

Why are so many people in the west going out of their way to protect a symbol of religious extremism, a symbol of the subjugation of women? Why are we using projections and unrelated arguments like can I wear a Halloween mask one day of the year on a subway ride to this as if there are correlations?

All this law does it it makes it legal for a public official to request you to remove your religious garb so they can see your face and identify you. Nothing more, nothing less. You can't use religious extremism as a reason to deny that reasonable request, with this new law especially.

Defending something that is even extreme within many Islamic communities of the world on the basis that it somehow reduces rights for us is not logic I can follow.

and that's my problem - "extreme" and "islam" ... and i know that's a "islamophobic" :rolleyes:
Jr. Member
Nov 8, 2017
107 posts
12 upvotes
Somewhere in Ontario
I've never understood those who argue against Christian fundamentalism and have argued strongly to make our own governments secular who now turn around and defend a different strand of religious extremism just because its not Christian and therefore not the majority here. Many of these same people who I've agreed with in the past who fought against Christian religious values in our systems and laws over the decades are now some of the same people turning around and calling people 'islamophobic' for calling this stuff out.

I stand equally against the Jerry Falwells of the world who stood against gay marriage and I stand against religious extremism of other faiths as well. I'm not islamophobic anymore than I'm Christian-phobic. I just believe in secular government. Maybe you are in the same boat?
Deal Expert
Feb 29, 2008
16490 posts
1764 upvotes
Montreal
ConsumerBran wrote:
Nov 10th, 2017 8:20 pm
Let's be honest. The Niqab and Burka have become issues because of individuals pushing the issue not just a random move without purpose. The federal Canadian government was sued over the "right" of someone taking the citizenship ceremony to leave their religious garb on by using religious persecution as the legal means to fight the case. To me that's offensive to the process of citizenship, offensive to the fact that we're a welcoming country and becoming officially Canadian you lack the respect to even show your face in a pluralistic, secular country that has given you a home.

These laws are being enacted because the issues are being pushed by specific people. Furthermore, the burqa and niqab isn't even something that traditional in islam per se. There were fewer people using them in the 60's and 70's than there are today, because there has been a religious extremist push among a few people. Poll many muslims and they think wearing of it is ridiculous.

Why are so many people in the west going out of their way to protect a symbol of religious extremism, a symbol of the subjugation of women? Why are we using projections and unrelated arguments like can I wear a Halloween mask one day of the year on a subway ride to this as if there are correlations?

All this law does it it makes it legal for a public official to request you to remove your religious garb so they can see your face and identify you. Nothing more, nothing less. You can't use religious extremism as a reason to deny that reasonable request, with this new law especially.

Defending something that is even extreme within many Islamic communities of the world on the basis that it somehow reduces rights for us is not logic I can follow.
An eloquent discourse. But nothing in there speaks to the constitutionality of bill 62. Can you demonstrate that forcing people not to cover their face makes the public safer?

There's a damn good reason the federal govt never enacted such a law. It would be struck down for violating the charter.
Jr. Member
Nov 8, 2017
107 posts
12 upvotes
Somewhere in Ontario
I'm not so sure you're correct about it being struck down, I'm not sure any charter rights are violated when I read the law.

Again, what charter rights are denied because of a law that sets guidelines for dress codes in public employment and requires someone to remove covers from their face when asked by public employees for verification purposes.

You are missing the point because you don't have to make a case about public safety at all (although I think for public safety its a good idea to be able to see someone's face if requested, its irrelevant), the law is simply a request to remove your cover for identification. It isn't a ban. There's no charter rights violated.
Last edited by ConsumerBran on Nov 10th, 2017 10:31 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Oct 23, 2003
6653 posts
793 upvotes
The clothing isnt the problem, burka's are just a cloth like everything else.

The issue is 2 fold:

1. Religion does not allow uncovering -> which...you're more than welcome to go back to your original country if thats an issue when it comes to security screenings

2. Do the people wearing that type of clothing have a tendency to harming others frequently enough that its a major issue? Say, bombings or shootings (not counting the US where mass shootings are a seasonal sport).



So....ban the religion? Good luck with that when you dont have a majority population entrenched in a specific culture (Quebec might be the closest province to have one)
What about banning those specific type of people? Again, good luck identifying and banning "bad" people. That white kid shooting up the mosque, being a prime example.

Banning clothing is the equivalent of a bandaid on a cancer patient. Political pandering to show the fearful masses that the politicians are "doing something".

As of the mid 2000s, those types of clothing are synonymous with terrorism and oppression.

When's the last time you saw people wearing Nazi uniforms in public while being accepted in a positive way by the population at large? Maybe only on a movie set where they're filming a comedy.
Jr. Member
Nov 8, 2017
107 posts
12 upvotes
Somewhere in Ontario
Buggy166 wrote:
Nov 10th, 2017 10:38 pm
The clothing isnt the problem, burka's are just a cloth like everything else.

The issue is 2 fold:

1. Religion does not allow uncovering -> which...you're more than welcome to go back to your original country if thats an issue when it comes to security screenings

2. Do the people wearing that type of clothing have a tendency to harming others frequently enough that its a major issue? Say, bombings or shootings (not counting the US where mass shootings are a seasonal sport).



So....ban the religion? Good luck with that when you dont have a majority population entrenched in a specific culture (Quebec might be the closest province to have one)
What about banning those specific type of people? Again, good luck identifying and banning "bad" people. That white kid shooting up the mosque, being a prime example.

Banning clothing is the equivalent of a bandaid on a cancer patient. Political pandering to show the fearful masses that the politicians are "doing something".

As of the mid 2000s, those types of clothing are synonymous with terrorism and oppression.

When's the last time you saw people wearing Nazi uniforms in public while being accepted in a positive way by the population at large? Maybe only on a movie set where they're filming a comedy.
I think there's a bit of projection going on there, rather than what is in the law this is assuming its a ban.

There isn't a ban on wearing burqas or niqabs. You can't wear one on the job in public employment so there is the dress code element (which many jobs have, there's nothing illegal about it) and if you receive public services the public official can ask you to remove it for identification. That's not a ban, you can continue to wear it and you can wear it to and from any event that you're asked to show your face. Again, no ban...

There really isn't much more to the law than that, which is why the responses linking this to completely unrelated topics and things that aren't actually in the law are interesting to listen to.

I am not sure where you get the idea that an entire religion is about to be banned? Again... Projection!! Not something that has been said or that is in the law. You are projecting your own thoughts as if they are the other side's point of view when that was never said.

These slippery-slope arguments are weak.
Moderator
User avatar
May 8, 2009
1891 posts
530 upvotes
45.420833°N, 75.69°W
I am totally in favour of dress codes. It's completely understandable for me to expect a certain dress code from my guests when they're on my turf. When I'm on the turf of QC gov't, only makes sense that they expect compliance with their dress code.

We're an already extremely accommodating country to religious minorities. In Canada, mosques don't broadcast their call to prayer via loudspeakers. @mr_raider are you suggesting they should have the right to do so since it doesn't prevent homosexual marriage?
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 Expert
Feb 29, 2008
16490 posts
1764 upvotes
Montreal
titaniumtux wrote:
Nov 10th, 2017 11:04 pm
I am totally in favour of dress codes. It's completely understandable for me to expect a certain dress code from my guests when they're on my turf. When I'm on the turf of QC gov't, only makes sense that they expect compliance with their dress code.

We're an already extremely accommodating country to religious minorities. In Canada, mosques don't broadcast their call to prayer via loudspeakers. @mr_raider are you suggesting they should have the right to do so since it doesn't prevent homosexual marriage?
That's looking at it from teh wrong end. The first question is does bill 62 infringe on the right to practice religion? The answer, IMHO is yes. You can even argue that it infringes on freedom of expression since I can't walk into police station with a pig mask. SO IF it does infringe on a charter right, then the question is if the limitation is reasonable? Does it serve to protect the public? DOes it speak to some kind of common good? Does it protect other rights?

I remind you the bill does not ask to simply show your face for identification, it states you have to show your face while receiving a service, which could be anything from a bus ride, to checking out a library book.

As for broadcasting calls to prayer, I would expect them subject to the same laws that regulate when churches can ring their bells.
Deal Guru
User avatar
Nov 15, 2004
14200 posts
1536 upvotes
Toronto
mr_raider wrote:
Nov 11th, 2017 7:41 am
That's looking at it from teh wrong end. The first question is does bill 62 infringe on the right to practice religion? The answer, IMHO is yes.
That's just looking at it from an end you don't want to see it from. It's a valid argument.

How does it infringe on the right to practice religion when the niqab isn't a religious requirement? I don't have a charter right to walk around in a swim suit everywhere I go. People would be right not to deal with me if I did. How is this any different?
Could HAVE, not could OF. What does 'could of' even mean?
Deal Addict
User avatar
May 19, 2003
4584 posts
132 upvotes
London
This is strange for me for multiple reasons:

1) How does banning face covering in public places like buses, improving public safety? Not sure whether any of the recent string of terrorism involved masked individuals, and furthermore not sure whether having a mask would've made attacks more deadly. Conversely, among crimes that I can think of that are committed with masked individuals (e.g. robberies, muggings, violent crimes, etc.), I'm not sure any suspects ever use public transit as their getaway vehicle.

2) If this is law, this better mean aviator glasses are banned as well? They cover a significant portion of the face and obscures arguably the most important facial structure used for recognition -- the eyes. Otherwise, it's clearly targeted legislation.

3) Does that mean runners can't wear balaclavas or facemasks? Kids can't wear them on the tobaggan hills? Police better start arresting parents for covering their kid's faces.

This is like banning baseball bats. It has a legitmate use, but gets banned because of some sensationalized stereotype,
Deal Fanatic
Mar 10, 2004
5549 posts
1382 upvotes
I find that wearing the Niqab or Burka are offensive to me as the person wearing the garb is implying that I have such low self control that she fears that the sight of her face would so sexually excite me that I would be unable to restrain myself and that she fears a danger that I would harass or attack her in a sexual manner.

The public danger to society is that the individual hiding their face is using the garb as a disguise to enable the commission of illegal acts.

People are socially interactive creatures and facial expression is a type of interaction.

Top