Blog : Ragazou

By JANICE ARNOLD, Staff Reporter (CJN)

 

MONTREAL ? The association of Jewish jurists has come out strongly against Quebec's proposed legislation that would ban face coverings in provincial public institutions, saying it threatens religious freedom in general.

 

Bill 94, which is ostensibly aimed at Muslim niqab face coverings for women, ?goes against the grain of every position taken by the Canadian Jewish community nationally, and in Quebec, in the past, in that it targets ? in fact, if not in name ? a specific religious group, namely the Muslim community, with respect to an activity which represents no danger to the rest of society,? the Lord Reading Law Society states in its submission to the National Assembly committee that begins public hearings on the bill May 18.

 

?It is clear to [the society] that this legislation is a reaction by a government in a defensive posture against the outcry of the media,? it states, calling the bill ?a step backwards to the days before the Quiet Revolution,? the modernization that transformed Quebec society in the 1960s.

 

The proposed law, entitled an Act to Establish Guidelines Governing Accommodation Requests Within the Administration and Certain Institutions, has implications that go well beyond the issue of the niqab, the veil worn by a very small number of Muslim women in the province, according to the society.

 

It charges that the bill creates a ?hierarchy of rights,? which would make the equality of men and women more important than religious and other freedoms.

 

Article 4 states that an accommodation must comply with Quebec's Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, ?in particular as concerns the right to gender equality and the principle of religious neutrality of the state whereby the state shows neither favour nor disfavour towards any particular religion or belief.?

 

?The result of this article is that ?accommodations' will be interpreted in the light of an over-arching principle of equality of men and women,? the society states, and the courts will be ?hamstrung in their ability to make a reasoned judgment' in individual cases.

 

?For example, if a woman wishes, for religious reasons, to wear a head covering such as a sheitel (wig) or a hijab [scarf covering the hair and neck], could this now be prohibited because Jewish men do not wear such wigs and Muslim men do not wear hijabs'

 

?Does this mean that even in the absence of any need for an ?accommodation' by others, that the free exercise of religious rights would not be permitted'?

 

The society says that even if Muslim women are wearing the niqab or other coverings because of pressure from their communities or husbands, it doesn't mean laws should be passed against it.

 

?Is it the business of the state to legislate the way in which persons exercise their religious rights, where no harm is caused to the state'? the society asks.

 

The bill is so sweeping that the society says ?many other important religious practices, rituals and customs which would normally not be considered to be unacceptable, may be unintentionally caught by this legislation.?

 

The society notes that the Supreme Court of Canada has on many occasions ruled that rights must be examined on a case-by-case basis and in light of all of the rights protected under the Canadian charter.

 

The bill ?legislates conformity' that is at odds with the constitution's affirmation of Canada's multiculturalism, the society argues.

 

The Lord Reading Society, founded in 1948, is an association of principally Jewish lawyers, judges, notaries and professors. No sitting judge was party to the brief.

 

The community's two main lobby groups have been silent so far on Bill 94, which was introduced in March, torn between their traditional defence of a liberal understanding of religious practice and the fact that polls show the bill has the overwhelming support of Quebecers, and possibly concerns about Islamic fundamentalism.

 

After much deliberation, Quebec Jewish Congress (QJC) decided against making representations to the parliamentary committee.

 

?We do not perceive a consensus or unanimity within the Jewish community,? past president Victor Goldbloom said. ?We also were front and centre at the Bouchard-Taylor commission and other issues like immigration levels. We feel it is not wise to be front and centre every single time.?

 

QJC is reiterating the position it took in 2007 before the Bouchard-Taylor hearings on reasonable accommodation, which was that the wearing of religious symbols is a matter of personal choice, he said, and QJC regards the niqab as a religious symbol.

 

Goldbloom said there are Jews who support the bill, and he personally has no objection to people being required to show their faces to be identified, say, for a medicare card or driver's license.

 

However, the bill goes further than that, making it illegal for any public or para-public sector employee delivering services or citizen seeking services from that sector to have their faces covered. The niqab is not explicitly mentioned.

 

?We do have a sincere concern that the interdiction of the veil will lead those who dress that way to not go out publicly and that will not help them become full-fledged members of society,? Goldbloom added.

 

B'nai Brith Canada Quebec region chair Moise Moghrabi said his organization has been grappling with the bill and has not yet come up with a definitive position.

 

He predicts that, if passed, the bill will be contested all the way to the Supreme Court.

 

McGill University sociology professor Morton Weinfeld, who has written extensively on the Jewish community and currently holds the university's chair in Canadian ethnic studies, said: ?From a Jewish perspective, I could argue that restriction of one religious minority at some point in the future could spill over to other religious minorities. It's a slippery slope.?