Muslim Women will be forced to uncover their faces In Quebec Canada

[lino]

Landmark Quebec clothing law sparks debate



MONTREAL - Muslim women will be forced to uncover their faces if they want services from the Quebec government, according to landmark legislation tabled Wednesday in the province.

In tabling the bill, Quebec delves into sensitive territory where governments in Canada have largely avoided treading: setting hard-and-fast rules for accommodating minorities.

The bill says people obtaining - or delivering - services at places like the health-or auto-insurance boards will need to do so with their faces in plain view.

Face-coverings won't be tolerated if they hinder communication or visual identification.

Premier Jean Charest characterized the legislation as a defence of two valued principles, gender equality and secular public institutions.

"This is a symbol of affirmation and respect - first of all, for ourselves, and also for those to whom we open our arms," Charest told a news conference in Quebec City.

"This is not about making our home less welcoming, but about stressing the values that unite us. . .

"An accommodation cannot be granted unless it respects the principle of equality between men and women, and the religious neutrality of the state."

While the debate over such identity issues has raged in Europe for years, and played out around countless dinner tables and Internet chat boards in this country, Canadian politicians have been reluctant to weigh in.

Quebec is an exception to that rule.

In fact the Charest government has faced persistent criticism from critics who say it has failed to stand up for Quebec values by refusing to take a tougher stand against demands for accommodation.

Newspapers have been full of stories about perceived religious excesses, and such discussions are a near-daily feature on some of the province's television talk shows.

On Wednesday alone, a newspaper and talk radio reported on a mostly Jewish youth hockey team that was seeking to switch tournament schedules with another squad to accommodate the Passover. Their request was denied.

Quebec's former premier, Lucien Bouchard, recently warned that the debt-laden province had better start focusing on economic issues instead of identity ones.

But that plea appeared to fall flat Wednesday.

On a day when a major $3.2-billion deal for Hydro-Quebec fell apart, the most persistent chatter here was about the handful of people demanding services with their faces covered.

It dominated discussion on the cable talk networks, from LCN to RDI, while the prospect of Quebec becoming a mighty energy corridor to the United States became just another news story.

A Muslim group argues that Quebec's political oxygen is being unnecessarily sucked up by debate over a microscopic number of cases.

Of the more than 118,000 visitors to the health board's Montreal office in 2008-09 only 10 people - or less than 0.00009 per cent of cases - involved niqab-wearers who asked for special dispensation.

There were zero such cases among the 28,000 visitors to the Quebec City service centre over the same time period.

The Muslim Council of Montreal says there may be only around 25 Muslims in Quebec who actually wear face-coverings.

Though the law makes no overt reference to any particular religion, Muslim leaders say it's hard not to feel singled out.

Salam Elmenyawi of the MCM questioned the need to legislate against such a small minority of the population.

"It is a knee-jerk reaction to the opposition and vote-grabbing more than anything else," he said, adding the law was unlikely to encourage integration of Muslim immigrants.

The move was more favourably received in some quarters of the legal community, where it was praised as "smart policy."

However, scholars argued there was actually little new in the bill, in practical terms. Its novelty lies in legislating existing practices, one academic said.

"What is unique is that it tries to put some constraining principles on reasonable accommodation," said Lucie Lamarche, a human-rights professor at the University of Ottawa.

"It is answering the political demand for making a legal concept more predictable."

Charest is likely to welcome any move that would soften some of the emotional charge of the accommodation debate, which grew so heated in 2007 he was forced to call a public inquiry.

That inquiry pointed out one lingering inconsistency in the argument of those who claim to be defenders of a secular state: the giant crucifix that still hangs on the wall of the provincial legislature.

Wednesday's bill was silent on the Bouchard-Taylor commission's recommendation that the crucifix also be removed.

But, as Lamarche noted, the bill seeks to enshrine in law the religious neutrality of the state.

The end result of Wednesday's legislation, she says, is that Quebec may eventually be forced to pull down that crucifix.

Source: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/cap...tions

[Jesda]

Glad the legislature took time to take care of this really important issue.

[MinisterofDOOM]

So, wait. Entire cultures, nations, and civilizations can communicate just fine with women wearing niqabs but the Canadian DMV can't? I don't even have to try to make that hilarious.

[Veriest1]

Quote »http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/cap...tions [/quote]Eh?

[numbnuts240]

So, wait. Entire cultures, nations, and civilizations can communicate just fine with women wearing niqabs but the Canadian DMV can't? I don't even have to try to make that hilarious.

[lino]

So, wait. Entire cultures, nations, and civilizations can communicate just fine with women wearing niqabs but the Canadian DMV can't? I don't even have to try to make that hilarious.

Welcome to Quebec....a place in Canada or is it a part of Canada?

[TroubleBound]

I always envied Muslim women for their garb, wish i could get away with wearing it but in addition to not being Muslim i am also not a woman...Not many dudes rockin niqabs..

[numbnuts240]

we could start the trend. i can finally stop shaving.

[Alfador]

What the hell ever happened to that woman who was trying to get a driver's license in Florida like 6 or something years ago? Similar situation, they said that a license without a clear picture couldn't be legitimate ID or something.

[DrifterXRPS13]

interestling

[themadscientist]

I see no problem with it. Don't like it, go live in Saudi Arabia.

[Solar_Runner]

^ Concur.

Pretty hard to make a positive ID based upon the bridge of the nose and eyes.

[Dittoz7]

x3

Don't like?

Go kick roc...errr sand.

[G_whizz]

I see no problem with it. Don't like it, go live in Saudi Arabia.

Welcome to Quebec....a place in Canada or is it a part of Canada?

It seems to be more of a place in Canada, they've been pushing for a long time to be independent..

I say

[f1seb]

Good. I'm glad they did this. All those countries in the Middle east like, UAE, Saudi Arabia, they're all about arresting foreigners for not respecting their laws and religious customs and what not. And they don't care if you're a Scientologist, Buddhist, Christian or whatever....THEY FORCE YOU TO ABIDE BY THEIR LAWS OR YOU GET JAIL TIME.

Well guess what, this is a 2 way street, you need to respect other countries laws and customs and assimilate. See they get one sniff of freedom and they're all over it kicking and screaming about violation of this and that. But when it comes to their own country it's the tail between your legs stfu and let the govt. do what they please.

[szh]

There is a older, simple solution that is followed by many other countries that do allow veiled women - use a fingerprint. It is certainly far more definitively accurate than a face ... plus facial images change as you age, etc.

We already have such fingerprint readers installed at all major airports now and use it for all non-citizen incoming passengers - how tough would it be to add some of these to the DMV and other places where an identity is needed? Probably would have spent less money doing that in Quebec than the compensation of the politicians and others for the time they spent drafting, discussing and voting on this law.

These fingerprint readers are far more accurate than an individual's assessment of identity accuracy using pictures, by the way! The Homeland Security people certainly felt strongly enough about that method that they added these readers even though the passport pictures could be used by the agents at the airports.

Good. I'm glad they did this. All those countries in the Middle east like, UAE, Saudi Arabia, they're all about arresting foreigners for not respecting their laws and religious customs and what not. And they don't care if you're a Scientologist, Buddhist, Christian or whatever....THEY FORCE YOU TO ABIDE BY THEIR LAWS OR YOU GET JAIL TIME.

So, two wrongs make a right, eh? Slippery slope discussion.

We have public nudity laws in this country for example ... so if someone from a nation that doesn't have topless women laws (region of Bali for example) were to choose to walk around topless here, would't we raise a stink about it?

How about this situation:http://www.digtriad.com/news/w...d=176? ... t...jects/

By the way, I am a Muslim. My wife (also a Muslim) and other women family members on both sides do not (and never will, whew!) wear a burkha or hijab, but we can still respect the desires of the few who choose to do so.

My point is that there are simple, inexpensive alternatives to the "excuse" of needing a clear identity question - thereby making such explicit laws indeed be far more intolerant than they may seem if you are not on that side of the fence.

[szh]

Pretty hard to make a positive ID based upon the bridge of the nose and eyes.

Agreed.

So, use a fingerprint. Far more definitive, anyway.

Z

[MinisterofDOOM]

Agreed.

So, use a fingerprint. Far more definitive, anyway.

Z

Yeah, biometric scanners have come a LONG way. They're inexpensive, compact, fast, and easy to use.

[szh]

Yeah, biometric scanners have come a LONG way. They're inexpensive, compact, fast, and easy to use.

Yup!

I use a fingerprint to log in to my new laptop now on its built-in fingerprint scanner ... much faster than typing a long password. The scanner gets it right all the time ... far more often than my old typing skills.

Also, my work company has our network equipment at a secure facility in down-town San Jose. Access to the site requires a retina scan - on average, it takes two scans to get it right, but the process is pretty much impossible to deceive (short of Dan Brown's fictional gory approach to the problem. )

Z

[szh]

Pretty hard to make a positive ID based upon the bridge of the nose and eyes.

I forgot to mention that a retina scanner would work fine for eyes (we use them at our secure network site), but those are finickier than fingerprint scanners.

Z

[numbnuts240]

all of ct's emissions testing has been moved to private garages. each test station has a retina scanner for the inspector to sign in with before every test. sometimes it went quick, sometimes it took a few seconds.

[Alfador]

So, if I understand correctly, you're saying any time ANYONE who would require valid ID, be it for a pack of smokes, renting a car, police ticket, ANYTHING, that they would have to keep a fingerprint scanner or some crap? No thanks. It's an irrational expectation. If you are unwilling to be visually identifiable, you lose certain rights and privileges. Good luck walking into a bank wearing a mask like that and not being hurried out or having the cops called.

There is an expectation with religious freedoms that they are reasonable and practical. Requirements opposed on you by your religion should be respected by other people, but other people shouldn't have to further inconvenience themselves (or in this case compromise their safety and security) in order to accommodate you.

[szh]

They were talking about specific government places that required that kind of identification. Not general situations where identifications need to be established for some purpose or the other.

I may be wrong about this, but most of the women who go to this extreme of face mask covering don't drive or smoke either, so going in for a driving license or buying a pack of cigarettes, is hardly a reason for this to be an issue.

Also, did you miss this part?

Quote »Of the more than 118,000 visitors to the health board's Montreal office in 2008-09 only 10 people - or less than 0.00009 per cent of cases - involved niqab-wearers who asked for special dispensation.

There were zero such cases among the 28,000 visitors to the Quebec City service centre over the same time period.

The Muslim Council of Montreal says there may be only around 25 Muslims in Quebec who actually wear face-coverings[/quote]Do we really needs explicit laws for 10 events in the city of Montreal? From a potential population of 25 people in the province of Quebec who actually wear the face coverings that would prevent identification?

If so, then I question the sanity of the politicians in Quebec! Surely they have better things to worry about.

Z

[lino]

If so, then I question the sanity of the politicians in Quebec! Surely they have better things to worry about.

If you only knew . It's one "special" place.

[G_whizz]

If so, then I question the sanity of the politicians in Quebec! Surely they have better things to worry about.

Z

If you only knew . It's one "special" place.

You have no idea brosef!!

[Alfador]

I didn't miss anything. My concern isn't with those 25 people. It's with the 26th person who uses the anonymity this grants them to commit some criminal or unspeakable act. So many places of business wouldn't serve someone who was hiding their face from identification one way or another. Why should it be any different for government offices? They are still place of business, and the employees there should be able to feel just as safe, and be able to identify someone just as easily as any other business can choose to.

As for there being no cases of this to a specific building... that's fine, whatever. Why is it that people always insist on waiting until something goes horribly wrong before fixing an obvious problem?

[Mr1der]

we could start the trend. i can finally stop shaving.

just stop caring.

I'll go a few weeks before busting out the beard trimmer and knockin' down the ol neckbeard.

[Dattebayo]

I once made a woman remove that thing from her face when she handed me an unsigned credit card. She protested a whole bunch. She had a Maryland driver's license, but it showed her actual face and she put her thumb over the picture and wouldn't let go of it. The manager got involved, I didn't really care, neither did he. We refused her purchase and told her to get cash. She said she would, and didn't come back that day.

We put the books on hold she was going to purchase, and later that week, she came back and tried the same thing. I called the police. Turns out it was a scam and she had a stolen card. We got to see her face.

[hannibal]

^ When it comes to religion vs laws, a true believer chooses religion.

I believe Muslim women can only show their faces when no men are present. Just allow them to interact with women only at the DMV and there should be no problem.

[TroubleBound]

^ When it comes to religion vs laws, a true believer chooses religion.

I believe Muslim women can only show their faces when no men are present. Just allow them to interact with women only at the DMV and there should be no problem.

^This man speaks truthMuslim women wear the niqab to cover the awrah (part of the body that is covered...by law and against sin..), and a womans awrah when she is around unrelated men is her entire body. This is easily solved by a female DMV clerk and a demand for a female police officer should the situation arise where she needs to have her identification visually verified. I think they're hot.