Quebecers can browse a library, ride a bus, and sit in a hospital waiting room with their faces covered, according to the clarifications of Bill 62 offered by the province. But the rules still make it clear that in-person interactions with public employees must be conducted on a literal face-to-face basis.
For some, the fact that Quebec Justice Minister Stephanie Vallee responded to the torrent of public outcry, protest, and sharp criticism from legal experts on Tuesday by assuring the new law “does not include sanctions” represents a major softening of the controversial policy.
“Nobody will be refused use of public transit, nobody will be refused emergency health care, nobody will be chased out of a public library in Quebec,” Vallee told reporters on Tuesday.
But for many Muslim women, like 19-year-old Afifa Suleman, the damage to the fabric of Quebec society has already been done.
“It’s becoming 1,000 times harder to walk outside,” she told CTV Montreal.
Suleman said she has always been willing to remove her headscarf to identify herself, when necessary. Now, she feels the government is “spewing hate” rather than “trying to build on living together,” as Vallee put it on Tuesday.
Suleman chalks a recent verbal assault up to the ongoing fervor over Bill 62. She said a woman passing her in a car yelled at her because of her headscarf while she stood on the sidewalk.
“She called me a terrorist,” Suleman said. “I find this is just causing commotion.”
The commotion in the streets follows confusion among Quebec’s political class. Vallee apologized repeatedly for what she called a wide-spread misunderstanding of the law, while speaking at the press conference.
Last week, she said a person with any type of face covering would have to remove it for the entire duration of a bus ride, or interaction with a public servant. Now, she explains, only those using a photo ID card would have to expose their face, and only long enough to be identified.
Montreal Mayor Denis Coderre has said he expects to see a legal challenge against the bill.
“I don’t think it’s valid,” he said. “At the end of the day, there is no sanction.”
McGill faculty of law professor Daniel Weinstock agrees.
“I think that it doesn’t stand a chance before the equality provisions of both the Quebec and the Canadian Charter, let alone the freedom of religion provision,” he said.
Weinstock said the lack of legal consequence for a person who refuses to remove a face covering undercuts Bill 62’s merits as a valid law. He added that Vallee’s clarifications on Tuesday reinforce his view that Bill 62 will not affect any real change.
“I think the guidelines make it clear for those of us reading the fine print of the law that this is, from a legal point of view, a toothless law,” he said. “If there are no sanctions, it’s a question if this really qualifies as a law at all, which encourages the thought that a lot of us have had in the last week, which is that this is essentially politics rather than law.”
With a report from CTV Montreal’s Cindy Sherwin
