The face of Quebec’s politics
Bill 62 has sparked much outrage in the rest of Canada
It’s a freezing day next winter and a woman is told she can’t get on a Montreal transit bus because she’s wearing a niqab.
Another Muslim woman and her daughters are ordered to leave a Quebec public library because they are all wearing hijabs.
A Quebec university professor is charged with violating Bill 62, Quebec’s Religious Neutrality Act because he goes ahead a teaches a class on human rights even though some students have their faces covered. Some are wearing burkas, niqabs and hijabs; others are attired with surgical masks, scarves and even over-sized reflective sunglasses, all in an act of solidarity with Muslim women targeted by this draconian legislation.
Welcome to the madness of what may transpire in Quebec in future months if the government of Quebec goes ahead and seeks to enforce the law requiring all persons in that province to have uncovered faces when they are delivering or receiving public services.
This law applies to all departments of the Quebec government as well as all school boards, universities, public health-care institutions including the work of all doctors, dentists and midwives, subsidized daycare centres, municipalities, and all public transit authorities.
It’s worth noting that Bill 62 was designed and promoted by the Quebec Liberal government led by Premier Phillippe Couillard. “We are just saying,” said the premier, “that for reasons linked to communication, identification and safety, public services should be given and received with an open face.”
In defending the legislation Stephanie Vallee, Quebec’s Minister of Justice, argued that the law was necessary to promote the secular identity of Quebec and “neutrality of the state.” She said this in the Quebec National Assembly adorned with a monumental crucifix on one wall.
The opposition Parti Quebecois and Coalition Avenir Quebec spoke out against the government’s policy not because they considered it a violation of human rights, hypocritical, offensive, and likely unenforceable, but because the legislation didn’t go far enough. These parties wanted to see the law ban the wearing of turbans, kirpans and kippahs, but not “modest” crucifixes.
News of Bill 62 becoming law last week has sparked much outrage in the rest of Canada. The Ontario Legislative Assembly has already passed a motion condemning the Quebec law and media coverage throughout English Canada has been uniformly hostile to the intent and form of the legislation.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has also been compelled to toughen his stance to the new face of Quebec religious neutrality policy. Immediately after Bill 62 became law Trudeau said that while he disagreed with the content of the new law it was not up to his government to challenge it.
By this past weekend, his position had shifted. “I don’t think it’s the government’s business,’ he said in Alma, Quebec, “to tell a woman what she should or shouldn’t be wearing. As a federal government, we are going to take our responsibility seriously and look carefully at what the implications are.”
The implications here are both political and legal. It’s important to realize that Bill 62 divides Quebeckers with many in urban Quebec being opposed to its divisive and prejudicial implications. But it is popular in rural Quebec, and there are many federal ridings in that part of the province.
The other implication, of course, addresses the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. On its face (pun intended) Bill 62 clearly violates a host of Charter provisions – freedom of religion, freedom of expression, right to liberty, freedom from discrimination based on religious and ethnic identity.
Rest assured that the very moment the government of Quebec seeks to enforce Bill 62, those charged with violating its discriminatory provisions will bring Charter challenges to the courts. All eyes will then be on the Trudeau government to see if it acts as an intervener to defend the Charter rights under attack.
“I don’t think it’s the government’s business to tell a woman what she should or shouldn’t be wearing.” Justin Trudeau