• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

In the news: Quebec will require bare face for service

TimBit

Full Member
Inactive
Reaction score
0
Points
160
Good on Quebec. Of course others will call them racists, but then secretly wish their home province/country/whatever had the balls to do the same...

Quebec will require bare face for service
Legislation addresses thorny issue of accommodating minorities
Last Updated: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 | 12:26 PM ET Comments0Recommend27The Canadian Press
Naïma Atef Amed is one of a handful of Quebecers who wear a niqab for religious reasons. She will have to remove it to get any kind of public service. (CBC)
Muslim women and others with concealing headwear will have to uncover their faces when they deal with Quebec government services, under landmark legislation tabled Wednesday in the province's legislature.

In tabling the controversial bill, Quebec has delved into sensitive territory where governments in Canada have largely avoided treading.

The bill says people obtaining — or delivering — services at places like the provincial health or auto-insurance boards will need to do so with their faces in plain view.

The legislation says people's face coverings will not be tolerated if they hinder communication or visual identification. The traditional Muslim niqab shows little more than a woman's eyes.

Quebec is drawing a line in defence of two principles, gender equality and secular public institutions, Premier Jean Charest said at a news conference Wednesday morning.

"This is a symbol of affirmation and respect — first of all for ourselves, and also for those to whom we open our arms," Charest told reporters. "This is not about making our home less welcoming, but about stressing the values that unite us. ...

"An accommodation cannot be granted unless it respects the principle of equality between men and women, and the religious neutrality of the state."

Fear to tread
While the debate over such identity issues has raged in Europe for years, Canadian politicians have generally been reluctant to weigh in.

Charest's Liberal government has faced persistent criticism from those who say it has done too little to draw up guidelines for accommodating minorities.

Quebec newspapers have been full of stories where people express outrage over perceived religious excesses, and the opposition has clobbered the government in the legislature over its supposed inaction.

The bill, tabled by Justice Minister Kathleen Weil, explicitly points out that any provisions are subject to the guarantees of gender and religious equality outlined in the federal Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In Quebec, the debate over face coverings has consumed a tremendous amount of attention for what amounts to a minuscule number of cases.

Of the more than 118,000 visitors to the health board's Montreal office in 2008-09 only 10 were niqab wearers who asked for special dispensation.

There were no such cases among the 28,000 visitors to the Quebec City service centre over the same time period.

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2010/03/24/quebec-reasonable-accommodation-law.html#socialcomments-submit#ixzz0j75ZJpFd
 
I agree with this on a personal level and think it should be a national standard.  However with the current climate and the HRC at provincial levels being what they are I can see some interesting news fodder comming out of this. 

Cest Bon La Belle Province.  ( ok I am not french and am taking a stab at it )
 
Ah, but you forget that Quebec is not a signatory to the Constitution and thereby neither the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It will be interesting to see the government's response to the expected charter challenge.
 
ModlrMike said:
Ah, but you forget that Quebec is not a signatory to the Constitution and thereby neither the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It will be interesting to see the government's response to the expected charter challenge.

:) nope I didnt forget, Quebec does have a HRC though, that marches to it's own tune.  This time I whole heartedly agree with it.  I can see some interesting fallout from this though, either with other provinces, the usual aggrieved vocals groups or point making politicians. 
 
The Charter applies to Quebec, so does the constitution. As a law it was passed by the majority which was required and therefore it applies to all provinces. Quebec`s refusal to sign is but a political contention. Quebec could try to argue it won`t obey any SC ruling for that very reason but unless such a challenge were successful (doubtful) any ruling would still apply.

That being said, jurists and lawyers will undoubtedly argue that there is a ranking of rights, of sorts, both in custom and in the charter, with gender equality and non-discrimination by the state as "higher rights" than religious rights. Furthermore, it will no doubt be argued that public rights, i.e. right to vote, to congregate, to gender equality, are "superior" to private rights such as freedom of religion which affects individuals in their private life, not groups in their public life.
 
Quebec already has laws to screw the minority Anglophones, so whats wrong with removing rights from Muslims too? Yes, Quebec has a right to promote their rich language and culture, but not at the expense of every other group.
 
PuckChaser said:
Quebec already has laws to screw the minority Anglophones, so whats wrong with removing rights from Muslims too? Yes, Quebec has a right to promote their rich language and culture, but not at the expense of every other group.

If you read the article and others relating to it you'll see that they want faces revealed when questions of identity come in to play -- such as government services like licensing and health care.  They are not saying that there will be no covering of faces everywhere.

Wow.  Wing nut much?
 
TimBit said:
The Charter applies to Quebec, so does the constitution. As a law it was passed by the majority which was required and therefore it applies to all provinces.

Yep.

In fact, we have 2 charters, here, aren't we the lucky ones  ;) ?

The Canadian and the Québéoise ones ...

The Canadian Charter of Rights Decisions Digest

Charter of human rights and freedoms



I thought that we would already have a line somewhere,
in a law about security, about bare face inside walls. I'm surprise
that we don't seem to have that...
 
I am just wondering how long it will be before the death threats start coming through in regards to this open face policy, and then we'll see if Quebec will cave i,n or stand her ground.

Here its against the law to enter a financial institution and certain agencies with a motorcycle helmet on, and other businesses too have adopted this policy for decades (signs placed on doors etc), and recently there was an attempt to have this applied to muslim women. It was only a matter of hours before the death threats started coming in, and the idea was shelved.

The whole plan was about having open faces in view of bank tellers, etc,  and where ever such places were required when making payments where cash is involved. Far from discrimatory.

The topic was also discussed on 1116am 4BC talk radio in Brisbane, and the radio announcer. Michael Smith, even recieved death threats to himself, and get this, his family too.

Pathetic!

OWDU
 
Wow, death threats? That's just f'n sick. I'm a tolerant and open person, but you tolerate me. If you can't disagree with a law or a regulation other than by making death threats, you clearly are not getting the point of a liberal democratic society and therefore should be given the proverbial boot.

I don't know how many of you heard about the muslim French immigrant who showed up to her citizenship interview in a Burka. The citizenship judge basically wrapped up in 2 minutes and said, "you clearly didn't get the French values of tolerance and equality. Denied."

If you have to resort to violence to make your point then you have no place here. Or in Australia for that matter.
 
TimBit said:
I don't know how many of you heard about the muslim French immigrant who showed up to her citizenship interview in a Burka. The citizenship judge basically wrapped up in 2 minutes and said, "you clearly didn't get the French values of tolerance and equality. Denied."

I've read something like that, but it was her husband that was denied citizenship,
as his wife was wearing a burqa...
 
I've read something like that, but it was her husband that was denied citizenship,
as his wife was wearing a burqa...

possible... in both cases, good! There are some basic values one ought to assimilate when you immigrate somewhere. And my wife is an immigrant, so we have been down that path.
 
TimBit said:
Wow, death threats? That's just f'n sick.

It is, and thats just how it is in the larger Australian capital cities, where ethnic ghettos prosper.

However I would say that the 'death threat scenerio' is played out throughout the west, when that certain factions within this 'peaceful' religion does not get its way.

Look what happens when someone drew a cartoon of a certain religious prohet. Worldwide ramifications.

Although from 2007, I found this CBC article interesting, a death threat from 'within' the ranks? Ok, Jack and Jillaroo's, do chuck yourselves a squizz at this.....
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/03/22/muslim-threat.html


Welcome to the new world of the 21st century?

OWDU
 
Back
Top