Superior Court Justice Babak Barin has “stayed a key provision of the controversial law banning people from receiving or giving a public service with their face covered….. under which people can apply for a religious accommodation to the legislation.
Two key questions immediately come to mind: whose religious accommodations are being considered most? And when does such accommodation violate the rights of the whole population?
First, women are regarded as inferiors under Islamic jurisprudence. They are required (Quran 24:31, Quran 33:59) to cover up lest they be abused. Progressive, conciliatory, modernized Muslim women rail against this. The niqab is a recognized symbol of oppression and an affront to human rights. It is a requirement for women in the most oppressive societies, which routinely practice FGM, child marriage, polygamy and other misogynistic customs.
Second, Canadians have a right to security. The niqab debate has caused divisions in Canada (as have “anti-Islamophobia” initiatives). Many legal controversies have plagued Canada over the niqab issue, involving issues such as testifying in court to voting in elections.
Many have tried to advance the silly argument that people cover their faces in the winter. This fails to take into consideration the fact that when it gets warmer, that face covering is removed.
Quebec’s law was challenged by the National Council of Canadian Muslims.
This is no surprise, but should be expected, as the National Council of Canadian Muslims (former CAIR-CAN) is well known for its lawfare and bullying.
Like its counterpart in the U.S. (CAIR), the NCCM plays the victimology subterfuge with skill, and is a questionable entity at best.
Former Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s director of communications, Jason MacDonald, once slammed the National Council of Canadian Muslims for “documented ties to a terrorist organization such as Hamas”; but after the NCCM threatened to sue Harper and MacDonald for libel unless they retracted and apologized for the statement, MacDonald ended up stating in a joint statement with the NCCM that he “and the NCCM wish to state that they stand together in their commitment to human rights, pluralism and the condemnation of violence.” This was after a considerable ordeal which included the filing of a defamation lawsuit against the former PM and MacDonald. The resulting statement was indeed a retraction by MacDonald, bullied out of him by the NCCM, but the truth is otherwise:
The Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is the NCCM / CAIR-CAN’s parent organization (see ‘parent organization’ p.14). In 2009, the FBI “severed its liaison relationship” with the CAIR after evidence presented in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism trial demonstrated a relationship between the CAIR and the terrorist organization Hamas. In 2009, Judge Solis also ruled that “The [U.S.] Government has produced ample evidence to establish the associations of CAIR…with Hamas.
The research site Point de bascule has reported about “the Islamist background of the National Council of Canadian Muslims.” The role of the NCCM in various aspects of Canadian politics and political policy needs to be given close attention by all Canadians; freedom is still taken for granted by far too many.
According to Quebec Premier Philippe Couillard:
For reasons linked to communication, identification and safety, public services should be given and received with an open face….We are in a free and democratic society. You speak to me, I should see your face, and you should see mine. It’s as simple as that.
There should be one law for all Canadians and equality for all under the law, period; any religious accommodations should be in keeping with the constitution.
“Judge strikes down Quebec veil ban until province establishes rules for religious accommodation,” by Allen McInnis, The Gazette, December 1, 2017:
MONTREAL — A Quebec judge has temporarily stayed a key provision of the controversial law banning people from receiving or giving a public service with their face covered.
Superior Court Justice Babak Barin ruled today the article will be stayed until the province establishes rules under which people can apply for a religious accommodation to the legislation.
Bill 62 was passed in October and was criticized for targeting Muslim women because they are among the few people in society who wear face veils.
The law included a provision granting accommodations for religious grounds but it did not include the rules under which exemptions could be granted.
Quebec has given itself until next summer to establish guidelines for dealing with requests for religious accommodations.
Barin suggests in his ruling the law is not fully coherent or complete without clear rules establishing how people can be exempted from part of the legislation for religious reasons.
Quebec’s law was challenged by the National Council of Canadian Muslims……