Face-covering law likely to face Supreme Court challenge

Bill 62, adopted last week, prohibits anyone wearing a face covering from receiving or giving a government service, including public transit

A lot is unknown about how Quebec will implement a new law banning people wearing face veils from receiving public services, but what’s virtually certain is that it will be challenged in court.

In the near future, a Muslim woman wearing a veil and possibly with the backing of one or several civil rights organizations will likely attempt to receive a public service in Quebec and be denied.

The interaction will spark a court challenge that will probably end up in the Supreme Court of Canada, said Natasha Bakht, a law professor at the University of Ottawa.

“I think it goes without saying,” she said, regarding the numerous civil rights groups gearing up to help challenge Bill 62. “Many groups will be impassioned by this.”

Bill 62 prohibits anyone wearing a face covering from receiving or giving a government service and extends to public transit.

It was adopted last week to much criticism outside Quebec but most of the details of the law, specifically regarding how it will be enforced, have not yet been made public.

The National Council of Canadian Muslims, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund have all told The Canadian Press they are studying the law and considering their next steps.

Another avenue to contest the law is the Court Challenges Program of Canada, set up to help finance cases involving language equality rights.

The body was recently restored by the Liberals after being abolished by the Conservatives in 2006, but Bakht said it’s not yet up and running.

Quebec Premier Philippe Couillard says Bill 62 is mainly about security and identifying people properly during an exchange of public services.

But Bakht said that’s a “thinly veiled argument” because the only people in society who regularly cover their faces in public are a minority of Muslim women.

Members of the national assembly voted 66-51 in favour of the legislation, with both major opposition parties voting against it because they wanted a much stricter law.