Face covering law passed in Quebec

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

Chen
Posts: 5266
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Face covering law passed in Quebec

Postby Chen » Wed Oct 18, 2017 4:30 pm UTC

So new law that ensures public servants and those receiving public services must do so with their faces uncovered. This is for secularity since the title of the bill is: "An Act to foster adherence to State religious neutrality and, in particular, to provide a framework for religious accommodation requests in certain bodies"

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/ ... -1.4360121

That article makes it sound like its purely religious garb but the law isn't written that way. The text appears to be:

Personnel members of bodies must exercise their functions with their face uncovered, unless they have to cover their face, in particular because of their working conditions or because of occupational or task-related requirements.

Similarly, persons receiving services from such personnel members must have their face uncovered.


There was an amendment that included public transit authorities or operators in the list of bodies that must adhere to this. So it means you need to have your face uncovered when you get on a bus and for the whole ride....in a province where it can go down to -40 in the winter. Even better, there IS a religious accommodation that can be allowed to get around this. Sooo, basically they've now passed a law where someone in a burka can still receive services provided they've gotten their religious accommodation (no idea HOW you identify these people of course) but it's technically illegal for me to get onto a bus with a scarf over my face in the winter. Bravo legislators, bravo.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 5564
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Face covering law passed in Quebec

Postby ucim » Wed Oct 18, 2017 5:36 pm UTC

Uh... there's a specific exception for this. No, it doesn't say you can cover up if the temperature goes below -40, but it does say, and I'm quoting from you, "unless...in particular because of their working conditions or because of occupational or task-related requirements." Getting on a bus at 40 below certainly counts. And if you want to nitpick that it's not a "working" condition or an "occupational" requirement, this clause is part of the part where people providing services are regulated. The next sentence in your own quote says "Similarly, persons receiving services..." and it seem to me that the word "similarly" de-nitpicks it.

You may not like the law, but your stated objection to it doesn't pass muster.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Jumble and 15 guests