Quebec adamant it will defend Bill 62 in court
Coalition mounts legal challenge on law that bans face-coverings
A coalition of Muslim and human rights groups have launched a court challenge of the Quebec law that bans face-coverings from public services, arguing it goes against both the Quebec and Canadian Charters of Rights and Freedoms.
Filed on behalf of the National Council of Canadian Muslims (NCCM) and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA), the application for judicial review of Bill 62 — the so-called burka ban — also names as a plaintiff MarieMichelle Lacoste, a Quebec woman who converted to Islam in 2003 and now goes by the name Warda Naili.
In the short term, the motion filed in Superior Court calls for a court order to suspend the legislation. Lawyer Catherine McKenzie says she hopes the court will hear arguments to stop the application of the law as early as next Wednesday.
It is urgent, she said, given the impact the law is already having on an unknown number of women.
Section 10 of Bill 62 — called “An Act to foster adherence to State religious neutrality and, in particular, to provide a framework for requests for accommodations on religious grounds in certain bodies” — bars anyone from giving or receiving a public service with their faces covered.
It applies to the provincial and municipal governments, universities and the public transit system.
Two women who wear niqabs outside the home, and whenever a man other than their husband is present, provided affidavits to the court about their experiences before and after the legislation came into force on Oct. 18.
Both insist that wearing a faceveil was their own choice, and is a means of feeling more connected to God. Both are willing to remove their veils briefly when necessary for identification purposes. And both women say they feel increasingly unsafe following Bill 62.
Their daily lives are different, however.
Fatima Ahmad, who was born and raised as a Muslim in Montreal, is now a second-year student at McGill University, studying to become a primary school teacher. She wore a hijab at 13, but received a niqab as a gift for Ramadan a little over a year ago and has worn the full face-veil ever since.
McGill has said it will not apply the law, so Ahmad continues to attend classes. But she no longer uses public transit, relying instead on her father to drive her, and is now concerned about her ability to visit the library, go to the doctor and eventually teach in Quebec, if the law stands.
In her affidavit, Ahmad says the Islamophobic remarks hurled at her on the street have multiplied in the three weeks since the bill was passed.
As for Naili, née Lacoste, she says her husband and other family members have asked her not to wear the niqab, out of concerns for her safety.
But she believes the garment protects her dignity and modesty.
“The law will force women to be on welfare or be dependent on their husbands,” Naili said. “This, in 2017. It’s anti-feminist.”
Naili, who ventured out of the house to vote on Sunday, said she lives in fear of how people will react.
“I was already bullied before the law,” Naili said. “This law sends a message to all intolerant people that they are right to think like this, to insult us and harass us.”
At a news conference on Tuesday, the NCCM’s Ihsaan Gardee said he, too, was concerned with the “ricochet effect” Bill 62 might have in Quebec and in other provinces, with politicians using the Muslim community once again as “political fodder for electoral gain.” The law was passed against the backdrop of the rise of far-right groups and hate crimes in Canada, he said.
“Under the guise of state religious neutrality, this unnecessary piece of legislation is emboldening Islamophobia and ugly identity politics in Quebec, leading to the marginalization of Quebec Muslims, many of whom are already feeling under siege,” Gardee said.
“People focus on the niqab and that’s all they see. But behind that is a real human being with hopes and dreams.”
The CCLA, for its part, channelled Justin Trudeau.
“Our governments should have no place dictating to a woman what she can or cannot wear,” said Cara Zwibel, acting general counsel of the CCLA.
“No woman should have to choose between her sincerely held religious beliefs and being able to take her children to school on the bus.”
Premier Philippe Couillard indicated the government is not surprised.
“Did anyone not expect a challenge?” Couillard said, before a meeting of the Liberal caucus.
But Justice Minister Stephanie Vallée said the government firmly believes the law respects freedoms and will defend it in court.
“It’s a law that is justified in a free and democratic society like Quebec,” Vallée said.
Vallée was asked repeatedly whether the government would make use of the Constitution’s notwithstanding clause to override rights in the event the law is struck down.
She ruled nothing out.
“We are not there for the moment,” Vallée said. “For now we will debate the law (in court) and its legitimacy.”
The two main opposition leaders said they were not surprised, either. They both voted against the bill.
“Now the real question is: will the Canadian government intervene in favour or not?” said Parti Québécois Leader Jean-François Lisée. “Will the Canadian government use its weight to say they are against the will of the National Assembly to legislate on this?”
Coalition Avenir Québec leader François Legault said even if the CAQ opposed the bill, he expects the government to defend it.