‘Wearing A Mask? No Service!’

“Quebec has adopted a law that would force Muslim women who wear a ‘niqab’ or ‘burka’ to uncover their faces to use public services.


“The legislation bans public workers — including doctors, teachers and daycare workers — as well as those receiving a service from the government, from wearing the niqab, burka or any other face covering.

“The ‘Liberal’ government’s ‘Bill 62’ on religious neutrality was put to a vote Wednesday morning in Quebec’s National Assembly.

“The ‘Liberals’, who hold a majority in provincial parliament, voted in favour of the bill, while all the other parties voted against.

“It was extended to municipal services, including public transit, in an amendment made in August…

“Quebec Justice Minister Stéphanie Vallée said earlier this week that the law is necessary for

communication reasons, identification reasons and security reasons.”

–‘Quebec passes law prohibiting Muslim women from wearing niqab while using public services’,
CBC News, Oct. 18, 2017



As long as the service is being rendered, the face should be uncovered.”

“Under a proposed provincial law, Muslim women in Quebec who wear a ‘burka’ or ‘niqab’ could soon be required to uncover their faces to ride a city bus.

“The Couillard government’s ‘Bill 62’ on religious neutrality could be put to a vote as early as Tuesday, two years after it was tabled.

“The controversial legislation would effectively ban public workers — including doctors, nurses, teachers and daycare workers, as well as those receiving a service from the government — from wearing the niqab, burka or any other face covering.

“Amendments introduced in August extended the proposed rules to services offered by municipalities, including public transit.

As long as the service is being rendered, the face should be uncovered,”

Quebec Justice Minister Stéphanie Vallée said Monday in an interview with ‘Daybreak’ host Mike Finnerty.

This is a bill about ‘le vivre ensemble’ [living together in harmony], it’s a bill about guidelines and clearly establishes neutrality of the state.”

“The legislation, she said, is necessary for

communication reasons, identification reasons and security reasons.”

“The bill, Vallée said, is unlike the PQ’s failed values charter in that it doesn’t target religious symbols. The law would also apply, for instance, to masked protesters.

We’re talking about having the face uncovered. It’s not what is covering the face,” she said.

Once the bill is passed, the province will work with municipalities, schools and public daycares to “establish clear guidelines.”

Quebec Justice Minister Stéphanie Vallée. (Jacques Boissinot–Canadian Press)

“Vallée said the law would be the first of its kind in North America.

“The bill has been subject to criticism from those who contend it unfairly targets Muslim women, while the two main opposition parties, the ‘Parti Québécois’ and ‘Coalition Avenir Québec’, have argued it doesn’t go far enough.

“The ‘Liberals’ hold a majority of seats at Quebec’s National Assembly.

“There remains confusion about how exactly the proposed law would work.

“Under the legislation, an exemption is possible if there is a “serious” request for accommodation on religious grounds.

“However, Lucie Lamarche of Quebec’s ‘Ligue des droits et libertés’ said it’s unclear how the term “serious” will be defined by the province and how such an exemption would work.

“The law, she said, would put the burden on someone asking for an exemption when, for instance, getting a driver’s licence or a bus ticket.

The management of the [law] is a bit hard to figure out,”

said Lamarche, a law professor at the University of Quebec in Montreal, adding that the guidelines will inevitably be open to interpretation.
{Another poorly-drafted law…}

“Those guidelines may not be in place until next June…

Zayneb Binruchd, 21, says she would rather stay home than be forced to take off her niqab to ride a bus. (Sylvain Charest—CBC)

“Shaheen Ashraf, a board member of the ‘Canadian Council of Muslim Women’ in Montreal, disputed that assertion {Here comes the cry of victimhood again. Cue the wailing and gnashing of teeth…}.

“Ashraf said the bill clearly targets Muslim women and will lead to their further marginalization in Quebec society.

For me, neutrality would be everyone believes what they want to,” she said.

Forcing someone to uncover, or forcing someone to cover: for me that’s not neutrality.”
{That’s hilarious, coming from a Muslim…}

“Montreal Mayor Denis Coderre previously raised concerns about the bill, accusing the provincial government of overstepping its jurisdiction and ignoring the city’s ‘multicultural character’.”

–‘Quebec set to pass law banning face coverings for anyone receiving public service — even a bus ride’,
Benjamin Shingler, CBC News, Oct. 16, 2017


“When a symbol comes with this much baggage, libertarian rigidity in its support looks less like principled idealism and more like cultural self-sabotage.”
“Libertarians are committed to the principle that every individual has the right to live his life as he pleases, as long as he does no harm to others. But the meaning of “harm” isn’t always as identifiable as a physical assault or “fire” shouted in a crowded theatre. Nor is the phrase “to others”. Add up enough “others” and you have a community; add more, a culture.

“The ‘National Post’ editorial board takes a libertarian line on the niqab (‘The niqab? Really?’ Sept. 26 – See link below…). Saturday’s editorial expresses astonishment that the niqab has morphed from “an otherwise straightforward issue of religious accommodation” into “moral panic”. The editorial concludes that the niqab is not doing “actual harm to anyone” and that the leaders should all feel ashamed for exploiting it politically.

“Yet there is nothing “straightforward” about face covering in a supposedly-open society. It is corrosive to the social reciprocity on which neighbourhoods depend for spontaneous camaraderie. And culturally speaking, Canadians’ opposition to the niqab is commendable, since it means most of us feel we still have an actual culture to be harmed, which is no small triumph in an era dominated by the pernicious ‘laissez-faireism’ of cultural relativism.

“Here are 10 justifications for banning the niqab, not just in citizenship ceremonies, but, as Quebec is rightly proposing, in the public sector generally:

1) “The niqab is not a religious obligation, it is, according to many Islamic scholars, a regional custom. But even in Saudi Arabia, where it is considered a religious obligation, it is removed by women participating in the ‘hajj’. Why must Canada be more niqab-consistent than Saudi Arabia?

2) “The niqab is indecent. Beyond “offence”, which can be cognitively managed, decency standards go to the heart of our psychological well-being in society, and are beyond our cognitive control. Our sense of decency is what regulates our comfort zone amongst strangers. Decency standards are not imposed by a charter, but spring up organically in all societies under a variety of historical and cultural influences. Decency standards differ amongst societies and shift with time, but the ‘when-in-Rome’ principle is universally accepted by reasonable people.

3) “Decency here resides in the perceived broad middle of a spectrum. Just as full nakedness provokes extreme discomfort in most Canadians, so does full cover. That full cover is almost invariably a Muslim custom is immaterial to those of us who find it indecent. (So enough, please, with the “Islamophobia” shtick.)

4) “Double standards: it is inconceivable that we would allow men to mask themselves in civic interaction, even if they considered it a religious obligation, because masked men are threatening to women (and other men). We should not permit to women what we would not permit to men.

5) “The only societies that mandate the niqab as a social norm are those in which women are considered sexual chattel with virtually no rights. Willed indifference to the niqab is more than tolerance; it is an endorsement of gender-rights relativism in our national home — equality for our women, inferior status for theirs.

6) “The editorial notes that “only a tiny minority of women” opt to wear the niqab. This is precisely why it should be regulated now, when it is enforceable, not when potentially thousands of women adopt it and it is unenforceable.

7) “Some women wearing the niqab have had it imposed on them against their will. What is the lesser evil: that all women should be forced to show us their faces while interacting with us in the public sector, or that we facilitate the lifelong misery of voiceless women? We should err on the side of support for vulnerable women yearning to fully integrate into Canadian life.

8) “The niqab is a gross insult to Canadian men, as it suggests they require a physical barrier to prevent lascivious thoughts or behaviour.

9) “The niqab is a gross insult to uncovered women, suggesting their “immodesty” invites sexual attention.

10) “In the West, the niqab is often a political statement, a proud sign of militant Islamist activism. “Put on your niqab!” cried ‘Hezbollah’ supporter Yvonne Ridley at a Montreal ‘Canadian Islamic Congress’ fundraiser in 2007. It wasn’t modesty she was encouraging, but participation in the stealth jihad.

“The niqab differs from other fashion accessories that promote faith and modesty like the kippah or hijab, and to pretend otherwise is disingenuous. The arc of contemporary Islamism, still in its ascendancy, frightens us. Our alleged “moral panic” is actually moral revulsion.

“When a symbol comes with this much baggage, libertarian rigidity in its support looks less like principled idealism and more like cultural self-sabotage. No leader who grasps and uproots this nettle need feel ashamed. True patriot love demands nothing less.”

–‘Ten reasons to ban the niqab — in the public service’,
Barbara Kay, National Post, September 30, 2015



‘Ban niqab, burka in all public places’

See also:
‘Ban niqab, burka in all public places’ {September 17, 2015}: https://www.facebook.com/345805362190090/photos/a.350308008406492.1073741828.345805362190090/732790620158227/?type=3

‘An Open letter to Niqab-Supporting Western Media’ {September 24, 2015}: https://www.facebook.com/345805362190090/photos/a.350308008406492.1073741828.345805362190090/736462939790995/?type=3

‘Muslim Canadian Congress calls for a ban on burka’ {October 15, 2015}: https://www.facebook.com/345805362190090/photos/a.350308008406492.1073741828.345805362190090/744743672296255/?type=3

‘Premier Looking For ‘Moderate’ Mohammedans’ {June 24, 2017}: https://saynotosegregationblog.wordpress.com/2017/06/24/premier-looking-for-moderate-mohammedans/


‘Muslim Suburb In Montreal?’ {November 17, 2016}:



Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

One Response to “‘Wearing A Mask? No Service!’”

  1. larryzb Says:

    Perhaps the larger issue is why does Canada allow people into the country whose ideology (cum religion) requires them not to assimilate to the host country but to try to change (Islamicize) it?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: