On October 17, 2017, the National Assembly of Quebec passed the State Religious Neutrality Law with a vote of 66-51. The law dictates that individuals cannot cover their faces while benefiting from public services. Such public services include: using public transportation, checking out books at the library, using public educational facilities, going to the doctor and much more. However, inconsistent answers given by various leaders in Quebec are leading to mass confusion regarding how many services will barr individuals from wearing face coverings. The Opposition Party voted against the bill because they feel as though the legislation did not go far enough. Instead, the Opposition Party believes the government should have banned wearing face coverings in public altogether. Other critics of the new law believe the legislature is directly targeting Muslim women who wear a burqa or niqab veil. Additionally, municipalities and state employees are having difficulty enforcing the new law and deciding whether or not enforcing the law should be required. Ultimately, the passage of the law has brought forward more questions and concerns than it has addressed.
This idea of banning supposed religious symbols from the public sphere did not begin in Quebec, though. This issue has become a global debate, with stronger legislation being adopted in France and other European countries currently debating the issue. Furthermore, the idea delves into broader ideas such as secularism and cultural conformity as opposed to multiculturalism. However, let there be no mistake: Quebec’s version of a law that bans supposed religious symbols in the public sphere is not about secularism, and is rather derived from either a disdain for other cultures or a lack of acceptance towards particular practices by a small faction of a minority religious group. Evidence of this statement can be seen in the Quebec provincial government’s refusal to take down a cross that remains prominently displayed in the very chamber the State Religious Neutrality Law was passed. Defenders of the cross (the same individuals who voted for the Neutrality Law) claim it represents Quebec’s Catholic heritage. Clearly then, the State Religious Neutrality Act has no intention of being neutral.
Proponents of the new legislation bring up various points regarding why the new law is necessary. Some like Quebec’s Premier Philippe Couillard have stated that the law shows that Quebec does not promote any specific religion. However, as stated earlier, this claim is ludicrous. If that was the intention of the law, then it seems strange that other religious symbols such as crosses are not banned when using public services. It is also strange that the same government that passed this law refused to remove a cross in the National Assembly of Quebec’s chambers. Couillard has also stated in regards to the law, “I speak to you, you speak to me. I see your face. You see mine. Simple as that.” This stance of Quebec’s Premier seems inconsistent with the original idea concerning religious neutrality and now seems as though the justification for the law is Quebec or Western customs opposing the covering of one’s face. Some have also cited safety as the reason for the new legislation, but this idea is also not sound. There are only roughly 50 individuals in Quebec who wear a burqa or niqab. Furthermore, there have not been any reports in Quebec of terrorist attacks or crimes being committed under the cover of a niqab. Therefore, with such a small population of women wearing the covering and no previous statistics indicating a security issue, it would seem unreasonable to pass the legislation with safety as a justification.
Others have more candidly stated that they are against burqas and niqabs and feel that they are not religious symbols but symbols of oppression. This stance actually has truth to it. The Quran (the holy book for Muslims) makes no mention whatsoever of burqas and niqabs. Instead, the tradition came out of Wahhabism, an ultra conservative and misogynistic interpretation of Islam originating from the deserts of present day Saudi Arabia. This skewed religious perspective has become the official doctrine of Saudi Arabia, the “main source of global terrorism” according to some. This ideology, which does not represent the diverse 2.2 billion Muslims on the planet, is not compatible with a progressive Western society. The idea of covering up women head to toe is oppressive and dehumanizing. As an individual who has visited Saudi Arabia, I can say I personally condemn the practice of wearing burqas and niqabs. However, I also do not support the Quebec government’s attempt to hide what their legislation stands for under the veil of religious neutrality. Further, I believe many of the criticisms of the legislation to be valid.
Criticisms of the legislation come from both inside and outside Quebec. In Quebec, the mayor of Montreal (a major city within the province of Quebec), Denis Coderre, has expressed his displeasure with the new law and has said he will not instruct city employees to enforce the law. Regarding the law, Coderre once asked, “What does it mean? We have niqab police as bus drivers? Will we refuse to provide them services if they are freezing with their children?” Surely, these questions reference some the impracticalities of enforcing the law through state and municipal employees. Outside Quebec, the Ontario provincial legislature unanimously condemned the State Religious Neutrality Law. Moreover, Prime Minister of Canada Justin Trudeau has stated regarding the legislation, “If you want to prevent women from being forced to wear a veil, maybe we don’t want to be a society that forces women to not wear a veil.” However, Trudeau also stated that while he disagrees with the law, he respects the National Assembly of Quebec for taking a position on the issue. Other critics have not been as even-keeled with their responses. Up-and-coming politician Jagmeet Singh, leader of the progressive New Democratic Party (NDP), has stated he believes the law violates human rights, and is confident that the civil rights protections in Quebec will undo the law. Singh is likely referring to the judicial system in Canada, as he hopes the courts will overturn the legislation.
To conclude, the new law passed in Quebec has clearly prompted fierce debate regarding its merits, implications, and enforcement. For this multifaceted debate to be resolved, it is ultimately crucial that those in support of the legislation are honest regarding the law’s intentions. The law is not about religious neutrality. Rather, it is about a specific grievance with niqabs and burqas. This grievance is surely justified, as the practice of wearing a burqa or niqab is counterintuitive to the goal of equality in a Western Society. However, it is important to understand that while this law perhaps aims to help women who are being oppressed by compulsion to wear the complete veil, it actually disenfranchises them even further by preventing them from using public services that they pay for through taxes. With questions and opposition gathering, the National Assembly of Quebec will likely have to either revise the law or perhaps fight for the law’s continuance in court on a later date. Regardless, the current situation surely will not suffice.