A Superior Court justice named Barack Barin (a Persian name) who is fluent in Farsi, on Friday ordered a temporary stay on the provision of a controversial Quebec law that prohibits citizens from receiving or giving public services with their faces covered.
CTV News (h/t Richard S) Justice Babak Barin ruled that Quebec cannot force people to uncover their faces until the province establishes clear guidelines under which someone can apply for a religious accommodation.
Bill 62 was passed in October and was criticized for targeting Muslim women because they are among the few people in society who wear face veils.
Section 10 of the law forces everyone to show their face when receiving or giving a public service and section 11 allows citizens to be exempted from that rule if they are granted an accommodation for religious reasons. But section 11 is not yet in force. The government gave itself until next summer to establish the guidelines for religious accommodation requests.
Quebec’s law was challenged by the National Council of Canadian Muslims and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.They argued section 10 of the Act violates the right to freedom of religion and to equality and requested it be put on hold pending a final ruling by the court on whether or not it is unconstitutional.
Barin granted a temporary stay only — until the government creates guidelines for religious accommodations. The judge suggested the law is neither complete nor fully coherent.
“It is not unreasonable to expect that a state religious neutrality law enacted by the government should apply in a well-thought-out and comprehensive manner, especially when the law in question has been in preparation for some time,” he wrote in his ruling.
“In the interim, noble as the ideology of state religious neutrality may be, the government must ensure that the law it is adopting for the public good is coherent and complete.”
The lawyer representing the applicants, Catherine McKenzie, said her clients would have preferred a total stay, but added they are “happy.”
“There is no mention in the ruling that the law contravenes the Charter or has any major constitutional issues.”