Quebec has been making rounds on news platforms worldwide for their Bill 62, which bans the use of face coverings while, as National Post puts it, “receiving provincial and municipal government services.” These “services” include taking public transit and speaking to your child’s elementary school teacher.
It’s ridiculous, frankly. For a province whose historical struggle has been based in protecting its language and culture from being lost, Quebec appears to have missed the memo on what constitutes “assimilation.” Meanwhile, some Canadians defend this ban based on a misguided idea of keeping things equal and maintaining Canadian rights.
But “equality” is, itself, a subjective concept. One “equality” is “everyone must have their faces uncovered in public.” Another is “everyone must be allowed to practice their culture or faith.” In this case, they are not compatible. So who decides which equality is more important to obtain? Or, put another way: why would one definition be chosen over the other?
The plain answer, of course, is that the ruling class of society decides based on their own values. Most recognized Western belief systems do not require a facial covering, so it’s no problem for Quebec to implement a ban. It’s a very fake equality.
Then, there’s the argument that Canadian values must be preserved, and that those who come here need to accept that. Yet this explanation is also lacking. I’m Canadian born and raised, and I know for a fact that, if you see a person walking down the street in a ski mask or a hood or big sunglasses, your first thought is not that that person is committing cultural disrespect.
With the ski mask, there are security concerns, I guess. This is, nominally, what the ban on niqab and other facial coverings is actually addressing.
However, such an explanation is undermined by the extremity of the law. Justice Minister Stéphanie Vallée clarified that on the bus, for example, it isn’t enough to identify yourself upon boarding: you would have to keep your covering removed for the whole ride. This is blatantly unnecessary if speaking from an identification perspective.
Furthermore, the idea that Muslim women unanimously refuse to expose their faces for reasonable identification needs is untrue. As Al Jazeera writer Shelina Janmohamed points out, “Contrary to high-pitched opposition in the media discourse, women who cover their face are happy to lift their veils for identification such as in airports to ensure security.”
There are also those who support the ban under the supposition that facial coverings are not religious, that they are a form of oppression, and that people should be happy to be rid of them. This is a very “white saviour” point of view, which fails to recognize the ability of Muslim women to speak for themselves. Also, as Janmohamed and other Muslim authors are quick to point out, there’s no moral difference between forcing a woman to wear a veil and forcing her not to wear one.
Bill 62 is called “an act to foster adherence to State religious neutrality.” But at the National Assembly, the crucifix still dangles behind the chair of the speaker. It’s clear what the intent of the law actually is, and we can’t allow Quebec to further marginalize their people — any of their people.
