Quebec's Bill 62

[Goddess]

http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/bill-62-would-mean-no-face-coverings-on-the-bus-minister-confirms/ar-AAtF1TF?li=AAggNb9

Quote

 

QUEBEC — A person riding a Montreal city bus would have to have their face uncovered for the duration of the ride once the province’s new state neutrality bill becomes law.

Clarifying a key amendment that toughens the original language of Bill 62 — to be voted on Wednesday in the National Assembly — Quebec Justice Minister Stéphanie Vallée said the intention of the legislator is clear when it says public services must be rendered and received with the face uncovered.

It includes something as basic as a bus ride, which is a form of public service being rendered. There had been confusion over whether that meant only if the person was addressing the driver for assistance or showing their ticket.

“The point of Bill 62 is having the face uncovered during the duration of the service and while the service is being rendered by the employee and being received by the citizens,” Vallée told reporters.

“Having your face uncovered is a legitimate question of communication, identification and security.”

 

 

I'm not sure how I feel about this - on the one hand it irritates me that how women dress is a subject of legislation and I understand the religious freedom aspect of it and the issue of personal choice.

On the other hand, I also understand the communication, identification and security aspects involved.  A burka'ed woman in Alberta went into a Canadian Tire store with a huge knife to stab people and had to be restrained.  Fortunately no one got stabbed in that incident.

I dont' like the "separation" and "otherness" of the burka/niqab and how it makes the woman into a non-entity, barely human  or the denigration of women messages inherent in it.

I sometimes think if it's truly a "choice", then there should be no problem with not wearing it at inappropriate times, or when asked not to for security and ID purposes.  It's not like these women are left without a choice - They have options, they could switch to hijab if they feel it's necessary.

If it's not a choice and the woman is being held captive in her home because her family refuses to let her out without the burka, then I think we should be prepared to prosecute the families who do this.  We can't put forth this kind of legislation and not follow through on prosecuting, that would be unfair to the women.

And sometimes I think we have to regulate stupidity.  Like we did with seat belt laws.

[Michael Hardner]

This isn't about security.  You won't be able to wear a face covering while *riding* the bus ?

And the excuse for this is a move to secularism, in a province with a crucifix in their legislature ?

This is about letting the rabble lead the leaders, IMO.

[Goddess]

4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. This isn't about security.  You won't be able to wear a face covering while *riding* the bus ?

2. And the excuse for this is a move to secularism, in a province with a crucifix in their legislature ?

3. This is about letting the rabble lead the leaders, IMO.

1. I think it is.  At least part of it.  No one wants a burka'ed lady (or man, they're starting to disguise themselves in burkas in Europe, too) getting on a bus, pulling out a knife and stabbing people in a confined space.

2.  Sort of agree.  Canada was founded on the Christian religion, so.....but at the same time - Yes, if we're going to be secular, then be secular and ditch the crucifix.  Also don't force our women MP's to use the side entrance of a mosque, hijab up and sit seperate from the men.  It works both ways.

3. Or maybe they're finally listening to people's concerns.  And learning from Europe.

 

Either way, there's going to be growing pains on this one.  On both sides.

[Goddess]

As I said, I'm not sure how I feel about this.  I see both sides.  

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, Goddess said:

1. I think it is.  At least part of it.  No one wants a burka'ed lady (or man, they're starting to disguise themselves in burkas in Europe, too) getting on a bus, pulling out a knife and stabbing people in a confined space.

2.  Sort of agree.  Canada was founded on the Christian religion, so.....but at the same time - Yes, if we're going to be secular, then be secular and ditch the crucifix.  Also don't force our women MP's to use the side entrance of a mosque, hijab up and sit seperate from the men.  It works both ways.

3. Or maybe they're finally listening to people's concerns.  And learning from Europe.

 

Either way, there's going to be growing pains on this one.  On both sides.

1) And the face covering ban prevents this from happening ?

2) You sort of agree, but now you're going even further to have the state impose rules on religion, eg. women priests ?

3) "Learning from Europe" is bullshit.  It's a completely different situation - already discussed elsewhere.

We need people who will lead, not play to pre-existing prejudices.

[Goddess]

I don't think it's any ONE concern in particular.  Not "security" and not "playing into prejudices."  

I think there's a combination of concerns.  

I'm not sure how you balance the right to religious freedom, with the principle of equality between the sexes when the two are so blatantly at odds with each other in this case.

[capricorn]

Why dance around the issue. I support this legislation if only that it affords some measure of security, and feeling of security, for transit customers and transit workers, and employees working in provincial government offices offering government services. What is the downside of having persons show their face for a short period of time, as they are the ones to benefit from whatever they expect from the public employee. Don't get me wrong, I advocate this should apply to anyone hiding their face be it a burqa or a ski mask.

[Michael Hardner]

1 minute ago, capricorn said:

I advocate this should apply to anyone hiding their face be it a burqa or a ski mask.

And in the name of secularism, they will continue to pass laws under a crucifix.  The worst kind of pandering there is...

[Argus]

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

This isn't about security.  You won't be able to wear a face covering while *riding* the bus ?

And the excuse for this is a move to secularism, in a province with a crucifix in their legislature ?

This is about letting the rabble lead the leaders, IMO.

Define rabble. My understanding is every party supports this, and the only reason they voted against it is it doesn't go far enough.

That would seem to indicate near unanimity across the political spectrum.

[Michael Hardner]

Just now, Argus said:

Define rabble. My understanding is every party supports this, and the only reason they voted against it is it doesn't go far enough.

That would seem to indicate near unanimity across the political spectrum.

Then they're all rabble.  

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2017/10/18/quebec-and-its-niqab-legislation-needs-to-stay-out-of-womens-closets-paradkar.html

“an act to foster adherence to state religious neutrality”

[dialamah]

1 hour ago, Goddess said:

I don't think it's any ONE concern in particular.  Not "security" and not "playing into prejudices."  

I think there's a combination of concerns.  

I think its a bill that will affect the least number of voters, but pander to those who lack perspective and critical thinking skills.  It doesn't improve security by one iota, but it does appease the fearful by targetting a few women. 

Bill 62 attempts to solve a problem that doesn’t exist. An Environics study shows about 3 per cent of Canadians who are Muslim wear a niqab in public. The numbers in Quebec are not known but it’s also expected to be minuscule

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2017/10/18/quebec-and-its-niqab-legislation-needs-to-stay-out-of-womens-closets-paradkar.html

 

[Michael Hardner]

5 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Bill 62 attempts to solve a problem that doesn’t exist. 

Even beyond that - you mention security but the bill is supposedly about secularism.

[PIK]

There is no need to hide your face in this country . And it is only a thing that keeps the women under the mans foot. To see someone totally covered in black on a very hot day, tells me they have to wear it or just have been so brainwashed that they don't know any better and I don't know how anyone can even think of saying it is OK. 

[PIK]

39 minutes ago, dialamah said:

I think its a bill that will affect the least number of voters, but pander to those who lack perspective and critical thinking skills.  It doesn't improve security by one iota, but it does appease the fearful by targetting a few women. 

Bill 62 attempts to solve a problem that doesn’t exist. An Environics study shows about 3 per cent of Canadians who are Muslim wear a niqab in public. The numbers in Quebec are not known but it’s also expected to be minuscule

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2017/10/18/quebec-and-its-niqab-legislation-needs-to-stay-out-of-womens-closets-paradkar.html

 

Put a end to it now, dont wait till it is to late. Bill 62 should be expanded to canada. There is no need for that here.

Edited October 18, 2017 by PIK

[PIK]

2 hours ago, Goddess said:

I don't think it's any ONE concern in particular.  Not "security" and not "playing into prejudices."  

I think there's a combination of concerns.  

I'm not sure how you balance the right to religious freedom, with the principle of equality between the sexes when the two are so blatantly at odds with each other in this case.

I have not seen anywhere where it is a religious thingy, it is a man over women thingy. No need for it here in this country. And anyone that wants it ,has mommy issues.

[Rue]

Interesting how "liberal" Canadians deal with an issue Israel has had to deal with for at least 68 years if not longer before it came about.

I lost track how many arm chair liberals in Canada have accused Israelis of being racist over security issues just like this one.

What Israel does is physically body check anyone suspicious getting on and off a bus. Its life. It means if you are an Orthodox Jew, Muslim whatever, you will get physically searched.

In countries where terrorism is a moment by moment reality, security trumps such issues as your right to cover your face or carry a bag in public without it being searched all the time.

Now in Canada we may one day get to that point. However I would say right now, as we speak I think the issue in Quebec about head coverings is not about security but a feeling by Quebecois that their culture is endangered by visible religious symbols.

Technically a beard is a face covering. Should we order those shaved too? 

This is an issue that aint going away in Quebec. Les Quebecois, predominantly the French Quebecers calling themselves Purelaines or old stock, i.e., white French speaking Quebecers, as well to be fair as certain English Quebecers don't like the face coverings and are using the law to express their belief.

Its not an easily resolved issue. Its going to get worse before it gets better.

 

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, Goddess said:

1. I think there's a combination of concerns.  

2. I'm not sure how you balance the right to religious freedom, with the principle of equality between the sexes when the two are so blatantly at odds with each other in this case.

1. The bill is ostensibly about secularism.  If you're saying it's not, then you're saying the bill is bullshit.

2. Luckily, you don't have to be sure.  You don't have to know anything at all about it - there's an entire body of legal precedent that can deal with it and your opinion is not needed.

 

[Michael Hardner]

9 minutes ago, Rue said:

Interesting how "liberal" Canadians deal with an issue Israel has had to deal with for at least 68 years if not longer before it came about.

Would Israel be so stupid as to pass a law outlawing Arab clothing to foster social cohesion ?

 

[Goddess]

26 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

and your opinion is not needed.

Would this be just my opinion that is not needed, or your opinion, or any and all opinions or just opinions that you don't agree with?

Sorry, I thought we could speak our opinion on a discussion forum.  My apologies.

 

[OftenWrong]

What you see is democracy in action. So like it or not, this is the will of the people and they have the right to pass such laws.

Majority of Quebecers want ban on religious symbols: poll
February 22, 2017
63 per of respondents agree with the old Bouchard-Taylor formula on religious symbols

Also, some may recall that Quebec legislature proposed laws in 2013 to disallow the wearing of religious symbols in the workplace, applicable to public service workers. The law was not passed before the provincial election in 2014 and the Liberals were opposed to the legislation, although Liberals promised to put forward a different set of measures on the "reasonable accommodation issue." So this issue has been part of the political dialogue in Quebec for several years now.

 

[Michael Hardner]

4 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Would this be just my opinion that is not needed, or your opinion, or any and all opinions or just opinions that you don't agree with?

Yours, mine, and any opinion of someone not associated with the legal case.

 

5 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Sorry, I thought we could speak our opinion on a discussion forum.  My apologies.

Sure, go ahead.  Some people, though, show a distinct lack of understanding for how things work.  They use the terms 'the system' in ignorance, to say it's stacked against them but don't make an effort to ask how it is supposed to work, where it goes wrong etc.

They think that making pronouncements like "we don't need this in this country" is relevant/interesting.

 

This will be decided by politicians and judges, and your opinion counts as a fraction of fraction of a percentage on a poll.... IF you live in Quebec.

 

[OftenWrong]

 

6 hours ago, Goddess said:

As I said, I'm not sure how I feel about this.  I see both sides.  

Agreed. I support the idea only if it applies equally to all religious symbols on display in public. That's not to say I support banning religion of course, the right to practice must be protected but I would be ok with removing public displays. There needs to be more clarity.

[OftenWrong]

2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Yours, mine, and any opinion of someone not associated with the legal case.

 

Sure, go ahead.  Some people, though, show a distinct lack of understanding for how things work.  They use the terms 'the system' in ignorance, to say it's stacked against them but don't make an effort to ask how it is supposed to work, where it goes wrong etc.

They think that making pronouncements like "we don't need this in this country" is relevant/interesting.

 

This will be decided by politicians and judges, and your opinion counts as a fraction of fraction of a percentage on a poll.... IF you live in Quebec.

 

You didn't need to say it that way and I think all reasonable posters should be welcome to give their opinions here. Then the dialogue can include WHY they think so. As a former forum facilitator you should know better than this.

[Goddess]

1 minute ago, OftenWrong said:

I think all reasonable posters should be welcome to give their opinions here. Then the dialogue can include WHY they think so.

It's very confusing here.  I've received warnings for posting something without my opinion on it and now scolded for including my opinion.  I'm starting to feel like I can't win here.

[OftenWrong]

Just now, Goddess said:

It's very confusing here.  I've received warnings for posting something without my opinion on it and now scolded for including my opinion.  I'm starting to feel like I can't win here.

Sure you can. It's called "Report... ignore... and move on." Don't let things get under your skin, you're doing just fine.