Justification And Criticisms Of Bill 62 By The Current Quebec Liberal Government

Throughout its history, Canada has pride itself on its ability to facilitate multiculturalism. It is a place where people of diverse origins, cultures and languages can work collectively and be successful. However, in Quebec, some minority groups may feel neglected in comparison to another; hence discrimination. As a result, one of the most essential factors to reduce racial tensions is to provide equality for all. Therefore, this paper will examine the adoption, justification and criticisms of Bill 62 by the current Quebec Liberal Government. More precisely, it will focus on the justifications presented by the Quebec Liberal Government. The Liberal Government believes the legislation fosters unity, harmony and religious neutrality. Yet, this

Furthermore, the Liberal Government insists that Bill 62 will foster unity and promote harmony amongst Quebeckers. As Boissinot (2017) argued, Bill 62 "An act to foster adherence to State religious neutrality,'' attempts to prevent Muslim women from hiding their faces from the public. As a result, the law directly targets employees working in the public realm such as, government positions, daycares, schools, hospitals and public transportation. These personnel must exercise their jobs with their face uncovered, unless it is required in certain jobs, like the medical field. Similarly, individuals receiving services from such personnel must have their face visible (para, 6). According to McManus (2017), the formal justification presented by the government was to promote a democratic environment. This is established by

In Quebec's attempt to rid itself of religious rule, Quebec's secular politics have become despotic. Rather than banning all religion, its focuses on banning the Muslim religion. In a democratic society, everyone is born equal, free and possesses the same rights. As a result, the law will do harm to the group of women it targets. Therefore, hindering what one religious group can wear, but allowing another no restrictions is discriminatory. As Boissinot (2017) explained, Saima Sajid was told to unveil her face in her French class. As a result, it caused her to withdraw from activities in the public which can lead to isolation (para, 24). Since the bill limits face covering, it establishes no barring against public servants wearing turbans, kippahs or the crucifix. As Amir Khadir, a politician in the National Assembly of Quebec put it, his party should have complained more to have the crucifix over the legislature speaker's chair removed. The crucifix is the ultimate symbol of the Catholic religion and critics claim it is contradictory and discriminatory to have a crucifix hanging where the laws are decided. Thus, removing it would not abandon Quebec's heritage but it would welcome the secular state the Liberals wish to achieve (Authier, 2017, para,