Quebec justice minister says face-covering ban 'protects display of religious beliefs'

Story transcript

Quebec Justice Minister Stphanie Valle is defending the province's controversial new face-covering ban against allegations it puts Muslim women in the crosshairs.

Bill 62, whichpassed into law on Wednesday, stipulates thatpeople must uncover their faces while providing or receiving public services in the province.

While the government has dubbed the law "religious neutrality" legislation, critics say it targets Muslim women who wear the niqabor burka.

• Justice minister apologizes for confusion around Bill 62
• AS IT HAPPENS:Neutrality bill not neutral: Muslim advocate
• What you can and can't do while wearing a niqab in Quebec

As It Happens host Carol Off askedValle about how the new legislation works and what its implications will be. Here's what she had to say.

Who is it you're aiming this bill at besides the women who cover their faces for religious reasons?

It's a bill that'saiming to address living together in harmony.

In Quebec, we've had debates around religious neutrality of state, secularism, around the general treatment of accommodationrequests that have been presented.We've had these discussions for 10 years over here at the National Assembly.

There have been bills presented by every political party here at the National Assembly since 2013 trying to give a response to the general preoccupation with the public with regards to these issues.

And the issue is what?

There were preoccupations with regards to the request for accommodation on religious grounds.

What happens when somebody who'scovered with a niqabis trying to get on a bus in Montreal?

If the person has a transportation ticket that doesn't call for identification, the person goes on the bus.

We have in Montreal and other cities transportation tickets that call for identification because they have a special rate, whether it is for students or for older people, and these cards, these transportation cards, have a photo identification. If the person has a photo identification, they have to identify themselvesand, once it's done, they go on the busand, here they go, they ride the bus.

Don't you already have a rule about that? ... Why do you need a new law that aims at women for religious reasons?

The law does not aim at women.

Well, by default it does.

I'll repeat it as often as I have to repeat it: this is not what the law is aiming at.

Why is it only pertaining to covering the face? Why doesn't this involve turbans? Why doesn't this involve crucifixes? Why doesn't this involve nuns' habits or a kippa?

The importanceof having the face uncovered while public services are being rendered is under a reason for the quality of the communication between the public servant and thebeneficiary of the serviceand also to make sure that identificationis being verified and some security reasons.

Throughout the discursions on the bill, wehave had many requests from the opposition asking us to go further, not to permit accommodationrequests, which would be totally disrespectful of the Charter.We didn'tgo there.

But there are reasons in a society, there are grounds that justify the need of clear communication between individuals for identification and security reasonsand this is what the bill is really all about.

You can appreciate that in an environment where you have Muslims facing far more hate crimes, exponentially more than before, you have had a shooting, six people dead in a mosque, that in this environment ... are you not putting these women at risk?

I will not accept the comment that we are putting people at risk. This bill is respectful of people's rights. It's respectful of the Charter. And it calls for better living together rules that have never been set before.

You know yourself that this bill is immensely popular. Eighty-seven per cent, according to a poll, support what this bill is doing. Some people wanted you to go further. This is as far as you're going to go. I will put it to you that this law appears to be politically-motivated. What do you say to that?

It's not politically-motivated. Any government in here Quebec would have had to table a bill about these very delicate issue of living together.

We have to make sure that whenever thereare discussions,there are grounds established,because we don't want to have misconception and there has been a lot of misconception about the place and the display of religious beliefs.

This bill protects display of religious beliefs and it does not prohibit the wearing of a religious symbols in the public space or even in government.

This interivew has been edited for length and clarity. For more on this story, listen to our full interview withQuebec Justice MinisterStphanieValle.