Niqab rule isn’t only problematic part of Bill 62
Law’s other provisions on religious accommodations will affect more people, Pearl Eliadis says.
What a difference a few weeks can make.
On Oct. 4, an Angus Reid Institute poll showed that 87 per cent of Quebecers support Bill 62, the new framework for accommodating religious minorities.
On Oct. 18, Bill 62 was passed by the National Assembly.
It was promptly denounced as intolerant or worse. There has already been a demonstration against it. A bus driver has symbolically covered his own face in protest.
Why the change in mood? Why now, after months of public debate that had barely risen above the decibel level required for human hearing?
The law’s objective of religious neutrality merely restates Canadian law; it is perhaps pointless, but benign. The prohibition on face coverings, while less benign, originally focused on provincial services. Few people paid much attention.
But when the bill was expanded to apply to municipal and public transit officials, things changed.
During Tuesday’s press conference, Quebec Justice Minister Stéphanie Vallée asserted that no one will be “chased” away from public services. In the same breath she said people must identify themselves to agents of the state. Never mind niqabs; large sunglasses, scarves and ski masks will also offend. No one has yet explained why such things are contemplated in a bill on religious neutrality.
Vallée then produced a document called “principles of application” (with zero legal effect) to explain that the bill does not regulate public spaces. This is the same bill that applies on public buses, in public libraries and in interactions with police. It is also becoming clear that assurances from politicians that the bill reflects “social consensus” are not entirely true.
Briefs filed before the parliamentary committee show that human rights and legal organizations are concerned about the impact on equality and civil liberties. Organizations in this camp include the Quebec Bar Association, Quebec’s human rights commission, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the Lord Reading Law Society (the collective voice of Jewish jurists in Quebec) and Amnesty International (Quebec).
Others have complained that the bill does not go far enough, including Quebec’s powerful Confédération des syndicats nationaux and a raft of secular organizations.
It is impossible to read these briefs and discern a “social consensus” on the actual bill, as distinct from the platitudes that have been used successfully to market it. The minister has been aware of these objections for a year.
In fact, the Quebec government’s religious-neutrality branding has diverted attention from the other 17 sections of the bill, many of which are more troubling and apply to more Quebecers than do the restrictions on face coverings.
If parents want to take their child out of Grade 1 for a day, because of Yom Kippur or Orthodox Good Friday, for example, the bill states that they will be refused if the request compromises compulsory attendance. For good measure, the request may also be refused for other reasons, including a mysterious principle called the “mission of schools.”
Religious minorities, already under-represented in Quebec’s public services, may be barred from religious accommodation based on the “good functioning” of the organization, which is assessed within the unit where the person works. By its very nature, religious neutrality requires reasonable accommodation, which in turn imposes a measure of inconvenience. Positive leadership would have ensured that public services champion diversity and reasonable requests, thereby minimizing resentment from co-workers and preventing conflicts from escalating. In contrast, Bill 62 represents a restrictive, negative approach to religious accommodation that goes far beyond face coverings.
As a result, religious minorities here have fewer rights in Quebec than in most of Canada. Taxpayers will pay the price for the coming battles in court. All of us are less free than we were a week ago.