Cautious approval greets bill to ban face coverings
Even before it was tabled, pundits were calling it “Charter-Lite” — an ill-conceived and unnecessary attempt to solve the unsolvable and once again put identity issues on the Quebec front page at the expense of a handful of women.
But the language of the Quebec government’s proposed Bill 62, which calls for people offering and receiving public services to do so with faces uncovered, has met for the most part with quiet approval.
Amira Elghawaby, human rights co-ordinator at the National Council of Canadian Muslims, says on the face of it, the bill, which leaves room for exceptions, seems balanced.
“I’m pleased there’s this concept of reasonable accommodation because at least there’s a dialogue — it’s not a banning of this or that,” Elghawaby said. “This seems to be striking the right balance between concerns that some Canadians have around women who wear the niqab and their right to do so.”
Elghawaby said that the issue of women wearing a niqab — a head covering that leaves only the eyes exposed — has been going around and around for years, despite the tiny number of people who wear face coverings.
One study estimated there were about 80 women in Ontario who cover their faces, but there is no equivalent data for Quebec.
The Liberals first tabled Bill 94 in 2010. It would have banned the wearing of the niqab in receiving public services, but the Liberals were defeated in 2012 before the bill passed into law.
Then came Bill 60, introduced in November 2013, after the Parti Québécois was elected. Otherwise known as the charter of values, the bill was a major plank in its platform as it headed to the polls. Bill 60 went much further, calling for all public servants — including doctors, teachers and even school janitors — to not wear conspicuous religious symbols, like kippas, turbans or hijabs.
As the tables turned and the Liberals prepared for another election, leader Philippe Couillard said in January 2014 that if elected, he would prohibit the wearing of just three items of religious cloth- ing: the niqab, burqa and chador, all Muslim head coverings. But it would not be done through new legislation that would run counter to the Quebec Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but through new dress codes imposed by public administrations.
Justice Minister, Stéphanie Vallée said Wednesday that the bill is not about what you wear.
“We are not legislating on clothing,” Vallée said. “Public services have to be offered and received with the face uncovered for security, identification and communication purposes.”
But, she added, every case can always be submitted for a reasonable accommodation, and the proposed law also presents guidelines to help answer those requests: whether granting the request would respect the equality of women and men, or impose an excessive burden, for example.
Jack Jedwab, the executive vicepresident of the Association for Canadian Studies, said this time around the legislation seems more fair.
“I think the population has expressed the concern over a number of years and the government did make a commitment,” said Jedwab, whose polling in March showed that 80 per cent of Quebecers believe the niqab should be banned in government offices and the courts.
The same poll showed 61 per cent of Quebecers had rarely or never seen a woman wearing a niqab.
“If you put the accommodation clause that exceptions can be made, it will make it easier to pass the human rights test,” Jedwab said. “Clearly it will be apparent to niqab-wearing women that this is about them. But the Muslim community is quite divided about it and a lot of Muslims would be supportive of this — more than we assume. ... There is a lot more support for this out there across religious and language lines than we assume.”
The impact of the legislation could prove to be more symbolic. Federal cabinet minister Denis Lebel applauded Quebec’s proposed law, saying Ottawa would be following suit with new legislation over the coming days “with respect to face covering at citizenship ceremonies.”
But Elghawaby suggested that it will once again reinforce negative stereotypes about Muslims.
“It constantly brings into the public discourse these images of women covering their faces. As soon as that image comes into media, people react to it. It’s an unknown and it’s uncomfortable for people who haven’t seen it before and it creates the false assumption that all Muslim women cover their face when the opposite is true,” Elghawaby said.
“It reinforces the notion that Muslims are alien to this culture. But they are doctors, journalists, and scientists taking part in society and that goes missing — it becomes about this tiny minority.”