Bad news: 'It's not a coercive law,' Quebec says amid criticism over face-covering ban

[guillaumeb]

From the article:

Isabelle Marier St-Onge said the provincial government has no intention of establishing a patrol unit to ensure compliance with the legislation, which effectively prohibits a Muslim woman wearing a niqab or burka from accessing public services.
"It's not a coercive law," Marier St-Onge said in an email, adding that there are no sanctions listed in the legislation for those who don't comply.
Generally speaking, she said, the government wants people to uncover their faces when they receive a public service but, she stressed, "we will apply common sense."
The rules are for communication, identification and security reasons, and will only apply when deemed necessary.

So we will only apply the law when deemed necessary? Utter nonsense. Former provincial Prime Minister Pauline Marois proposed a similar law, with even more extreme anti-religious bias, when she was falling in popularity, but she still lost the election.

Now we see another example of a law being proposed to address a non-existent problem.

People will speak of the veil as coercion, and they speak of veiled women as being coerced, but is state coercion of a religion truly a solution to a problem, or is it simply Islamophobia?

In Saudi Arabia, women are forcibly veiled. If this law survives a challenge, will Québec become the polar opposite of Saudi Arabia in that Muslim women will be forcibly unveiled, or relegated to the home?

Edited to add:

To read more:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-face-covering-muslim-bill-62-stephanie-vallee-1.4367431

[Voltaire2]

1. is prohibiting genital mutilation the polar opposite of requiring genital mutilation?

I'd say yes it is, and I'm all for it.

How far do we allow misogynist religions to go in their oppression of women in their communities?

It is pretty clear that FGM crosses the line, it is also pretty clear that a simple headscarf doesn't. In between those examples is a broad area within which there may be other regions where the state has a clear responsibility to intervene.

[Merlot]

26. It isn't a "simple headscarf" it's a full body covering

[Voltaire2]

28. Right. My point exactly.

A headscarf is one thing, a burka is another. The issue is far from simple.

[guillaumeb]

2. A clear responsibility to intervene?

In France, Muslim religious wear was a problem while RCC clothing that covered much was not.

There is a clear responsibility to treat all equally, but this law is Islamophobia thinly veiled in rhetoric of safety.

[Voltaire2]

3. Links establishing unequal application of the face covering ban in France?

Both this law and the earlier prohibition on overtly religious displays in public schools have survived court challenges and are overwhelmingly popular in France, including within the large Muslim population.

The European Court of Human Rights upheld the ban on 2 July 2014 after a case was brought by a 24-year-old French woman who argued that the ban violated her freedom of religion and expression.

Most of the population - including most Muslims - agree with the government when it describes the face-covering veil as an affront to society's values. Critics - chiefly outside France - say it is a violation of individual liberties.
A ban on Muslim headscarves and other "conspicuous" religious symbols at state schools was introduced in 2004, and received overwhelming political and public support in a country where the separation of state and religion is enshrined in law.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-13038095

[guillaumeb]

6. I did not specify face covering.

But if a majority of the population agrees that it is acceptable, does that make it the only correct choice?

[Voltaire2]

18. The clue there was that the vast majority of

the Muslim population in France supports both laws. It turns out that France is a fiercely secular nation. Nobody much wants religious nut-jobbery in public spaces.

But you claimed, apparently ambiguously that some law was only being applied to Muslims in France. Which law?

[guillaumeb]

19. Here is a link:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/life/burka-bans-the-countries-where-muslim-women-cant-wear-veils/

[Voltaire2]

20. Your link does not prove your assertion about FRANCE.

You made a claim about France and their laws:

"In France, Muslim religious wear was a problem while RCC clothing that covered much was not. "

Here is what your article says about FRANCE:

France was the first European country to ban the burqa in public. It started in 2004, with a clampdown on students in state-run schools displaying any form of religious symbol. But in April 2011, the government went further by bringing in a total public ban on full-face veils. President Nicolas Sarkozy saying they were “not welcome” in France.

Women can be subjected to 150 euro fines and instructions in citizenship for breaking the ban. Anyone who forces a woman to cover her face risks a 30,000 euro fine.

I'll wait.

[guillaumeb]

21. Wait for what?

It proves exactly what I stated.

Unless you consider this:

But in April 2011, the government went further by bringing in a total public ban on full-face veils. President Nicolas Sarkozy saying they were “not welcome” in France.


to be the exact opposite of what it says.

[Bretton Garcia]

4. What would you say to religious headhunting? Would you forbid it?

[guillaumeb]

7. Is this an attempt at humor?

If not, please clarify what your point and question are.

[trotsky]

5. Is it coercive to require women be covered up in public? n/t

[guillaumeb]

8. Is it coercive to force a woman to unveil in public? eom

[trotsky]

9. We have a lot of laws that are coercive.

That's kind of the point of laws, to keep you from doing certain things that are harmful or oppressive to others.

So, is it coercive to require women be covered up in public?

[guillaumeb]

10. Coercion obviously implies force.

If women choose to veil, that is their choice. If, as in Saudi Arabia, they are forced to veil, that is coercion. And if women are forced to unveil, that is also coercion.

[trotsky]

11. So what do you think about what Muslim and ex-Muslim women have said about the veil?

Do you slander and insult them as you have done to me?

[guillaumeb]

12. Where is the slander in #10?

And what is your actual response? Another deflection to another topic.

[trotsky]

13. You have slandered me on this topic, just not in post #10.

You'll slander me again no doubt. I honestly don't think you can help it, it's like you are religiously compelled to do so whenever anyone disagrees with you.

[guillaumeb]

14. So you disagree with #10?

I understand. I do not understand the why behind it, but I understand.

[trotsky]

15. If that's what you need to believe to feel superior, so be it.

I no longer care what you think.

[guillaumeb]

16. I feel no such need.

I do not claim that my beliefs make me better, or smarter, or more logical, or more adult. I do not claim that religion is a fragment of a primitive, superstitious past, nor do I claim that reason will lead to an unprovable conclusion that there is no Creator.

[trotsky]

17. LMAO

Irony is definitely not dead.

You: "I do not claim that my beliefs make me better, or smarter, or more logical, or more adult."

Also you: "nor do I claim that reason will lead to an unprovable conclusion that there is no Creator."

L O fucking L.

[guillaumeb]

23. Something to read, or to ignore:

Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_2_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms#Freedom_of_religion

Freedom is meaningless if it is the freedom to practice religion in one's own home. And intolerance is still intolerance even if it is directed specifically at a religion.

[trotsky]

25. I think I'll ignore it, because it has absolutely nothing to do with what I just told you. n/t

[guillaumeb]

31. Good, considering it undercuts your arguments.

[trotsky]

33. If you say so, g-man. n/t

[Merlot]

27. "choose to veil" as opposed to choosing to be beaten, ostrasized and outcast?

possibly never seeing their children and family again. That's a choice???

[trotsky]

29. Right, totally a free choice.

As liberals I would think we'd be reluctant to defend such misogynistic, oppressive practices no matter what.

[guillaumeb]

32. Quite certain that all of that happens in Quebec? eom

[trotsky]

34. Worse has.

http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/a-family-shame/

Mohammad Shafia, his wife, Tooba Yahya, and son, Hamed, allegedly committed unspeakable horrors. According to the police, the couple, along with their son, murdered their three daughters and Shafia’s first wife, Rona Mohammad, by forcing their car into the locks at Kingston Mills, drowning the four of them in three metres of water—an apparent bid to restore the family’s honour. The daughters dishonoured the family, it would appear, for having the gall to dress up, wear makeup and flirt with boys. “May the devil s–t on their graves,” Mohammad Shafia later told his wife in a conversation secretly taped by police.

I will of course include the disclaimer that very few Muslims (in most countries, however in some they are the majority) are this horrible. But it does happen, a fact that even you can't deny.

[Lordquinton]

35. Is it coercive to force a woman to wear clothing?

Cause that's pretty much universal. Or does that not count because there's no religion attached to it? In that case why are only religious rights being taken into account?

[guillaumeb]

36. If clothing laws are fairly universal,

all are affected equally. But if only one particular religious practice is affected, it sounds like discrimination against the one religion. If all religious practices are affected, it sounds like intolerance for theists.

[Lordquinton]

37. That's not what I asked

an actual response will be nice, but to address your comment, the followup ban on all iconography in public would be fine, cause it's "fairly universal" (which clothing laws aren't)

[guillaumeb]

38. It is not coercive to apply a law to all equally.

But it is coercive to craft a law that only applies to some followers of one religion.

[Lordquinton]

39. Clothing laws don't apply equally to all

does that change your answer?

[guillaumeb]

40. Explain your answer.

[Lordquinton]

41. Women can't go toppless

Now you.

[guillaumeb]

42. Obviously unequal application of the law if men can go topless and women cannot.

Just as this law is an example of unequal application of the law.

[guillaumeb]

22. Breaking down Bill 62: What you can and can't do while wearing a niqab in Quebec

From the article:

You can walk into a public library, but you can't take out a book.
You can sit in a hospital waiting room, but you can't interact with staff.
You can drop off your children at public daycare, but you can't pick them up.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/bill-62-examples-ministry-release-1.4369347

So if public security is a claimed reason, one could walk into the library and commit an act of violence.
One could walk into a hospital and commit an act of violence.
One could walk into a daycare and commit an act of violence.
One could walk in a public park and commit an act of violence.
All while veiled.

[struggle4progress]

24. What liability might a daycare center have if it allowed an unauthorized person to pick up a child?

[guillaumeb]

30. The daycare issue was covered.

One would have to prove one's identity, presumably by unveiling. I would imagine that this law will be contested and that the Supreme Court will rule.