October 18, 2017

New Canadian Bill Would Ban Muslim Face Coverings

Rebel Staff

A bill is set to be voted on in Quebec today that would ban Muslim face coverings in the pubic service workplace. 

A person riding a Montreal city bus would have to have their face uncovered for the duration of the ride once the province’s new state neutrality bill becomes law.

Clarifying a key amendment that toughens the original language of Bill 62 — to be voted on Wednesday in the National Assembly — Quebec Justice Minister Stéphanie Vallée said the intention of the legislator is clear when it says public services must be rendered and received with the face uncovered.

It includes something as basic as a bus ride, which is a form of public service being rendered. There had been confusion over whether that meant only if the person was addressing the driver for assistance or showing their ticket.

“The point of Bill 62 is having the face uncovered during the duration of the service and while the service is being rendered by the employee and being received by the citizens,” Vallée told reporters.

“Having your face uncovered is a legitimate question of communication, identification and security.”

Vallée’s comments came as the bill entered the home stretch of the adoption process in the National Assembly and as the confusion over how it will eventually be applied continued unabated.

“I know people would have liked us to go further,” Vallée conceded in her remarks. “Others think we are going too far. I think a balance has been found.”

Tabled in 2015 following a Liberal election promise, the overall intention of the bill is that it requires people who give or receive any public service to uncover their faces.

It does not specifically mention niqabs or burkas, allowing the government to say the bill is not a ban on religious garb as was the case of the PQ’s old, failed charter of values. 

Liberals are of course up in arms about this, claiming that the bill is infringing on the rights of Muslims. However, as lawmakers all over the world have pointed out, laws such as this are not about religion: they are about security. If someone is wearing a full burqa, there is no telling who they are or what they are hiding. Terrorist attacks on transportation systems in the Western world are increasing in frequency, and it would be easy for a terrorist to obscure his or her identity with a burqa.

Laws like Bill 62 have been passed in countries such as France, where it is illegal to wear face coverings in public places such as the street, shops, museums, public transportation, and parks. Though France has still been plagued by attacks in recent years, terrorists have not been able to utilize the burqa to carry these attacks out. 

What do you think about this? Let us know your thoughts in the comments section. 

You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2017-10-20 11:17:53 -0400
Jay/Andrew add this to your research.

TAMMIE PUTINSKI-ZANDBELT commented 1 hour ago, Top 10 report – October 20
Item 1 – The NCMM is another Muslim Brotherhood front organization.
Bill 62 is a half measure and doesn’t go far enough. Face coverings used by extremist leaning muslims are antithetical to Western democracies.
Calling the bill racist is the default statement of the leftist media, Islamists and their apologists.

National Council of Canadian Muslims: The new name chosen by CAIR-CAN helps cover its links with Washington-based / Hamas-linked CAIR, By Point de Bascule on July 18, 2013
See link which includes many sources within the article:
commented 2017-10-20 10:54:47 -0400
Wow Jay Kelly/Andrew Stephenson, your post is really strange.
Jews, Catholics, Sikhs, Buddhists etc…don’t insist women shield their face from public view; and, embrace tactics that prevent them from integrating into society.
Subjugating women is not a Western value, Niqab’s and Burkha’s are the attire of extremists.

As for your claim that I have never had to deal with religious discrimination, quite lofty of you to post this.

It would do you well to research the roots of the rise in Anti-Jewish, Anti-Christian, Anti-Hindu, etc… you will not like the results. Remember, your research should go far beyond what a cursory google search will give; or what you have been fed on your campus.
Look to Western Europe, Canada, Britain, Australia.
Then research how Christian, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus and Sikhs are treated when they are a minority in Islamic countries.
commented 2017-10-20 02:35:48 -0400
Jay Kelly that has been happening for a long time to every religion , did you miss the shooting at the Church? And the Christian genocide going on in the middle east? And face coverings are oppression.
commented 2017-10-20 01:36:58 -0400
Tammie Putinski-Zandbelt and Liza Rosie have never had to deal with religious discrimination. It would be great if none of us had. Truth is many Jews and Sikhs and others have been subject to insults because of their appearance.

Even in the last few months we have seen synagogues and mosques spray-painted with hate language and revolting symbols.

Liza Rosie and Tammie Putinski-Zandbelt are rural Canadians who are isolated from the reality of Canadian bigotry. They forget how far this hatred of Jews and Muslims can go.

They cannot imagine what it would look like if their Provincial government forbade Jews from looking like Jews, or forbade Catholics from looking like Catholics.

Tammie Putinski-Zandbelt and Liza Rosie are not ignorant. They just need our support for them to speak out against bigotry.
commented 2017-10-19 16:53:32 -0400
Ron Joseph, I heard a report today citing the votes against were because Bill 62 doesn’t go far enough, as. it allows for religious accommodation; which seems like a strange provision. I will have to research this more.
commented 2017-10-19 13:00:54 -0400
Jay Kelly has no argument ever, so he……attacks the messenger.
I will never be comfortable with face coverings at all anywhere in my country, under any circumstance. I cross the street, get off the bus, walk out of the bank. People who cover their identities make me feel unsafe.
commented 2017-10-19 12:15:29 -0400
Tammy I did before long time ago when Quebec first raised issue to the AB gov.
They did respond with a formal letter basically admitting they lacked any balls to raise an issue like head coverings
commented 2017-10-19 11:18:12 -0400
Thanks Tammie for the Quebec Bill62 results; 66 for— 51against. The people that voted for the new law didn’t just win, they won by a convincing 29.4 %.
I hope that the 51Politicians that voted against are voted out in the next election.
commented 2017-10-19 11:15:02 -0400
Aqsa Parvez was murdered in 2007 by her father and brother for removing her muslim face covering while at school. It is the responsibility of our govenment to protect other young women who may be facing the same terror at home from being forced to wear similar face covering. Somebody who is terroized like this will not admit to it under any sort of questioning. The only way to protect the freedom of these women is to make it illegal to wear any religious face covering in public.
commented 2017-10-19 03:09:03 -0400
Poor Jay Kelly can do nothing about this and he is befuddled.
commented 2017-10-19 02:54:29 -0400
It is times like this that I am glad that Quebec is a part of Canada.
commented 2017-10-19 02:33:04 -0400
No, Andy, the people listed one the right each have proper names and write articles under those names. I doubt if any one of them posts these lazy items under the name “Rebel Staff”.
commented 2017-10-19 02:13:30 -0400
Jay… if you can move your eyeballs and scan three inches to the right, you will see who constitutes “Rebel Staff”… Now that wasn’t too hard was it?…
commented 2017-10-19 01:40:36 -0400
Do I take it from the headline that the “Rebel Staff” is based in the United States? The headline implies this is a Canada-wide law. No-one in Canada would make this mistake.

Just who is this “Rebel Staff” anyway? Is it just some odds and ends picked up off random internet sources? Often the facts are spurious, and the items show a distinct lack of geographical accuracy.
commented 2017-10-19 00:16:29 -0400
Glad to see it passed. There is hope.
commented 2017-10-18 23:11:05 -0400
Security for public worders, but not the citizens. They will still be walking the street with their identity hidden. This is another example of Libs being nice with incompatible cultures.
commented 2017-10-18 21:56:52 -0400
On second thoughts, perhaps it would be better if all these people had their face’s covered, including the males. Never have to look at the ugly Bar Stewards, that way.
commented 2017-10-18 21:47:52 -0400
Really everybody? , this is Canada, do you think this will be enforced
commented 2017-10-18 20:58:22 -0400
This should be a Canadian Law. For all of Canada, with no exceptions.
commented 2017-10-18 20:10:43 -0400
As I had said many times, we want Quebec on our side during Federal Elections etc..
Unlike English Canada, Quebec sticks up for its rights and doesn’t allow Politicians like Scheer and Jason Kenney to tell us that our demands are not fair for minorities.
commented 2017-10-18 20:03:56 -0400
" laws such as this are not about religion: they are about security."

RE: option to apply for an accommodation. Why do they always put in a ‘get out of it’ free card. It makes a mockery of any law passed.
commented 2017-10-18 20:02:46 -0400
As an Albertan it’s easy to find a lot of fault with Quebec and it’s arrogance toward the rest of Canada particularly the west however I have to give them credit where credit is due. At least they have the gonads to stand up for themselves and not be run over by political correctness and left wing mouthpieces.
What’s strange in more and more European countries that have caved to Islam, you can go to jail for even minor criticism but on the other hand they have no problem outlawing face coverings. I think the ROC will continue to cave to Islam but Quebec will be a bit of a pariah province. Very sad.
commented 2017-10-18 19:54:40 -0400
Dirk, maybe I will, if I get a response at all, it will be comedic no doubt!

Apparently, under Bill-62 there is an option to apply for an accommodation; the report didn’t specify how this mechanism works. Doesn’t sound the Quebec government have worked it out yet.
commented 2017-10-18 19:44:53 -0400
Tammie send a letter to your gov and you’ll get a nice letter back with all the standard omit and deflect blah blah blah…
commented 2017-10-18 19:43:04 -0400
I am certain the islamic prime monster (not a typo) of Canada will have something to say about this.

How sad that Canada is now close to being ruled in many ways by the evil cult of islam.
commented 2017-10-18 19:41:37 -0400
Since 9/11 – IN THE NAME OF ISLAM (SATAN): 34,219 Attacks, 220,715 Killed, 301,974 Injured that we know of
commented 2017-10-18 19:31:57 -0400
Excellent news… It’s a start.!!
commented 2017-10-18 19:19:33 -0400
In Quebec, Bill – 62 passed with a vote of 66 to 51.
I would like to see the same legislation throughout every province and territory.
commented 2017-10-18 19:18:47 -0400
Bring it on!!!