The Niqab in Quebec

[Gordon Nore]

This item dovetails with Bill's thread, US Army Officer Allowed to Wear Sikh Turban and Beard. I find this proposed legislation in Quebec curious and a bit disturbing. Essentially, Muslim women who wear niqab would not be permitted receive or dispense public services. One outcome of this legislation, if passed, is that a university student would be in violation for wear her niqab to school.

Quebec City — From Thursday's Globe and Mail Published on Thursday, Mar. 25, 2010 4:25AM EDT Last updated on Thursday, Mar. 25, 2010 7:32AM EDT



Quebec has tabled unprecedented legislation requiring Muslim women to show their faces in all government locations, including schools, hospitals and daycares.



The controversial move by the Charest government - which has said it is committed to secularism and gender equality - marks the first time it has chosen to craft laws to accommodate minorities.



The legislation means the niqab, a full veil covering worn by some Muslim women, will essentially be barred from all government bodies, whether the woman is working for the government or receiving services.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ons-new-bill-urges-quebeckers/article1511365/

The legislation would continue to allow other religious symbols to be worn, just not the full head covering. Seems two-faced to me. On the one hand, the government is preaching secularism, yet it will tolerate some symbols but not others. Should taxpayers and legal residents of Quebec be denied access to services based on the wearing of a particular garment?

No veil or no service from public institutions, new bill urges Quebeckers

Globe and Mail - David Boily - ‎4 hours ago‎
Quebec City - From Thursday's Globe and Mail Published on Thursday, Mar. 25, 2010 4:25AM EDT Last updated on Thursday, Mar. 25, 2010 7:32AM EDT Quebec has tabled unprecedented legislation requiring Muslim women to show their faces in all government ...
Quebec lifts the face veil Montreal Gazette

Quebec niqab bill makes women unveil Toronto Star

 

[tahuti]

Turban is not a problem, we don't identify people by hair, you need to see face.

Few links about criminal abuse of these coverings.

http://www.thenational.ae/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090804/FOREIGN/708039838/1002

http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2006/11/niqabs-and-burqas-as-security-threats

Why would full head coverings be allowed, and banks don't like even hats?

 

[Gordon Nore]

Turban is not a problem, we don't identify people by hair, you need to see face.

I only mentioned the turban as this story shares common issues with another post about military members wearing turbans.

Few links about criminal abuse of these coverings.

http://www.thenational.ae/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090804/FOREIGN/708039838/1002

http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2006/11/niqabs-and-burqas-as-security-threats

Why would full head coverings be allowed, and banks don't like even hats?

First, I would point out that the Quebec legislation potentially interferes with women's participation in lawful, taxpayer funded services, like attending a university or going to the doctor. Second, to what extent to do we curtail the actions of law-abiding citizens based on
the potential misdeeds of criminals? Strange, but I'm going to make the argument that this is like banning all firearms because someone will use them in a crime.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I only mentioned the turban as this story shares common issues with another post about military members wearing turbans.



First, I would point out that the Quebec legislation potentially interferes with women's participation in lawful, taxpayer funded services, like attending a university or going to the doctor. Second, to what extent to do we curtail the actions of law-abiding citizens based on
the potential misdeeds of criminals? Strange, but I'm going to make the argument that this is like banning all firearms because someone will use them in a crime.

Even in US states which permit open carry or require no CCW for concealed carry (Vermont), there are still places one cannot legally take a firearm; like into a courtroom for example.

The point of having a photo on a driver's license, for example, is for identification. A photo of a sack over someone's head, and a person standing in front of you with a similar-looking sack over their head, does not establish they're who they claim to be or the holder of the license.

Here in Detroit, we see lots of people in full burka going about their business. Nobody pays them any attention. However, I'm not sure I'd feel so complacent about a group of people wearing full burka getting on a plane and refusing to reveal their faces.

 

[Gordon Nore]

The point of having a photo on a driver's license, for example, is for identification. A photo of a sack over someone's head, and a person standing in front of you with a similar-looking sack over their head, does not establish they're who they claim to be or the holder of the license.

You've made a very good point about security, and, yeah, you're right, it's very hard to verify someone's identity with her face covered. But that doesn't seem to be what the Quebec gov't is talking about.

The controversial move by the Charest government - which has said it is committed to secularism and gender equality - marks the first time it has chosen to craft laws to accommodate minorities.

So in making this post I'm thinking somewhat along the lines of something you posted in your thread about Sikhs having turbans and beards in the military. I think you said something to the effect that we accommodate everyone or no one -- hope I'm paraphrasing accurately. I confess to being suspicious that the government has focused on Muslim women first.

Also, particularly in the case of women who are expected by their husbands or fathers to cover up, how many will not seek services from the gov't, visit a doctor, or go to school?

 

[SensibleManiac]

No problem, they can go somewhere else then where it's allowed.

There is nothing in Islam that says that women need to cover their faces, it is a cultural thing.
And the problem is that if you are joining another culture, then people there, may take offense to others covering their faces.
I take offense that someone would walk around with their face covered unless it's freezing outside or they have a reason for it.

The government is merely reacting to the public, that finds it unacceptable that anyone working for the government would have their face covered.
Imagine going to a public office and you can't see the person who you are dealing with, they are covering their face. Oh, what they look like? I don't know, um, they were dressed like a bee keeper. Problem is, this is at a voting station, or a police staion, or a hospital.

I don't think people should be free to cover their faces in banks, boarding planes, where children are watched and cared for.
It's just ridiculous, if someone is so bent on following these aspects of their culture, let them stay where their culture is.

I am primarily an english speaking person, but I speak French when I go to many places, why, because I choose to live here and the majority of people here are french speaking, It's part of their culture and many get offended if you speak to them in another language, so I can respect that.

I doesn't mean I don't speak english with my friends, it just means Ican respect the culture I'm living in.

They should do the same.

There are some who claim that this ruling will force these women to sink into the shadows of society, I disagree, I believe their desire to cover their faces with the nijab will do that.

 

[Carol]

I am only 3 hours from the Quebec border but sometimes I feel like I am a world away.

I think issues surrounding the niqab are significant. This was a comment from the article in the Sun:

Recently I was treated at a Toronto hospital by a medical student who was wearing a niqab. When I asked her to take it off or let me see her face, she refused. I explained that I was uncomfortable that someone who in essence could see "all" of me while I don't have the right to see/know who was examining me. I asked for her supervisor who treated my request as if I was being unreasonable. I can appreciate and respect religious values, but I also have the right to know who I am dealing with, particularly with my health matters. I have no objections to the wearing of the niqab in day to day situations, nor do I take issue with hijabs, head coverings, carrying kirpans etc. but when the identity of the person matters, the niqab should not be allowed.

 

[SensibleManiac]

The funny thing is that all hospital personnel are required to carry an official hospital provided picture ID, with the persons full name, their position and recent PICTURE.
What was on this persons picture, their veiled face? That's absolutely ridiculous.

I remember years ago, when I worked at a hospital, when I took my ID picture I was asked if I would keep my facial hair for at least 6 months. My supervisor told me as well, (back then I used to grow it and shave often) that I had to keep my goatee for at least several months if I was to be pictured with it.

If that was so important then, why wouldn't it be important now?

 

[Carol]

It is important. I don't know the details of Canadian law, but in the U.S., a significant stipulation to religious accommodation (public sector or private sector) is whether the accommodation is reasonable.

Another factor is a bona fide occupational qualifications (BFOQ) for the job. If identifying oneself during the course of a job is a BFOQ for the job, then it it is possible that covering oneself with a niqab is not a reasonable accommodation.

The U.S EEOC has stated in post-9/11 fact sheets that it is not permissible for a company to refuse to hire a Sikh in a turban or a Muslim in a hijab simply because one's customers might not be comfortable with such an appearance.

Mass. College of Pharmacy instituted a policy that all students must have their face visible, then later amended their policy to make an exception of the student was covering their face for medical or religious reasons.

http://pluralism.org/news/view/23479

The response from CAIR:
http://pluralism.org/news/view/23474

The alum mentioned in the CAIR response:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/22/us/22terror.html

 

[tahuti]

At what point do you consider it unacceptable. For me it is not only about women and religious rights.

How about Chasers and their discrimination, I know it is comedy but it raises point.

[yt]SUx0VvZd5rI[/yt]

 

[SensibleManiac]

Someone walking around like this is just stupid, you see how easily and rightly so, people are frightened by someone concealing their face.
The first thought people have is that this person is up to no good.

Imagine how this negatively impacts an environment where trust is neccesary like with a physician or pharmacy, it's so stupid to think that something like face covering should be accomodated.