Is the bill that bad?

by andrewricha98 on November 6, 2017 - 7:15pm

“The federal government can’t Standby when minority rights are being trampled” is the name of Andrew Coyne article published on Montreal Gazette.  Quebec’s bill 62 is widely shamed, by all and contradictory. This law promotes “neutrality,” but it targets one religion, Muslims. It bans them from wearing their traditional religious symbols, like the niqab and burka that Muslim women wear. For the law to not be discriminatory, it spreads to other face-covering, like sunglasses, which are not related to any religion. The law implies anyone using public services. The author says that this law does not protect them from the oppression their own culture makes and denying them public services won’t help either. After some clarification, the Liberal government says that they are only required to show their identity when getting on the bus and could leave her face covered the whole duration of the trip. This law will be undoubtedly challenged under the Canadian charts of Rights and Freedoms and its Quebec analog and go to the supreme court. The federal government’s role in the confederation was to protect minorities from the majorities below an authority known as disallowance.  This power hasn’t been used for a while now because the charter and Supreme Court make it seem unnecessary. The author agrees that this debate would create tension between the federal and provincial governments, and it could lead to Quebec wanting to separate again. It is crucial to understand when a minority feels threatened by its government. The opposition is pushing the mayor of Montréal to appeal the “notwithstanding” if the law is ruled unlawful.      
My opinion on that subject is a bit neutral, what I still do not understand is that when a Muslim woman wearing a niqab/burka goes to an emergency room before the bill, they didn’t show their faces? To add, some could see this law as a threat to a minority, but again it is for everyone, and unfortunately, this group is targeted. To add, not only Quebec “banned” this dress code, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy, Spain, Switzerland and the list goes on. They all had the same reason for the partial ban, for security reasons.  Furthermore, this law is still in progress and getting improved with time, when one goes on a bus with a card she should identify herself or go to the emergency room with her health card, the employer should know her identity and then she could carry on her day with the face cover. In my opinion, if one with the dress works in the school system you could see their religion, teachers should look natural, and they shouldn’t show any religion signs. I know this is hard for some, especially the individuals that are targeted but some of us feel unsafe because of the terrorism happening around the world. I’m not the only one that feels unsafe when they are around. That’s my personal view. One man put on a niqab and took the metro and said: “When you change into a burqa you really can see that the way people look at you changes, you see that initial fear in their eyes.”1
If you do not agree with my position leave a comment and let us talk about it, I’m open-minded.



Coyne, Andrew. “Andrew Coyne: The federal government can't stand by when minority rights are being trampled.” Montreal Gazette, 31 Oct. 2017,

some examples:




I understand how Quebec initially wanted to implement such a law for safety reasons, however, targeting ones religion has nothing to do with the safety of others. Just because an individual is apart of the Muslim community does not mean that they are a terrorist nor does it mean that they support terrorism. A terrorist attack is the premeditated use of violence on civilians in order to instil fear. There have been many planned attacks done by other people who are not apart of the Muslim community. Respectfully, I noticed you mentioned that you "feel unsafe when they are around", however, weapons can be hidden anywhere, purses, schoolbags etc. You do not need to be wearing clothing with a face covering to hide weapons. Does this mean every time you see someone with a purse or a schoolbag that you will feel unsafe? My point is, how are we supposed to know if someone is dangerous. Anyone walking onto a bus can be dangerous, does this mean that we will have to I.D. those who are wearing scarves that cover half their faces when its cold out? Will we have to start checking everybody's bags to make sure that no one is carrying a weapon? Airport security mechanisms are here for the safety of others because they check EVERYONE. But solely identifying those who wear face coverings because of religious reasons is blatantly targeting their beliefs. Obviously, they will not start checking everybody who receives public services, i'm not trying to say that that is what they should do, but i just find it unfair that this bill singles out people of that religion. Points like the ones i just stated make me question the intention of Bill 62.
Please feel free to respond to further explain the reasoning behind your belief.

About the author