No balaclavas during winter in Quebec if you want to ride transit

[Looper]

Originally Posted by Badgerbadger

How about guys with beards? People wearing makeup? These, too, interfere with facial recognition.

What next? Pants-too-baggy/skirt-too-short regulations?

It's a stupid law.

Neither of those cover your face completely.

You actually needed that pointed out?


Looper

[58thecat]

Quebec is turning into nazi Germany...no soup for you...wonder why the Montreal Canadians suck....subjected to this province I would relocate like the expos did....

[The Spank]

Originally Posted by play.soccer

Neither of those fully stop the wind from going down your neck. Hoodies work better. Lemme guess you like fecto goggles too?

Actually I do not and do not think they should be used!!!

[CaberTosser]

How about when you're in line at the bank or grocery store and some 'look at me!' attention-seeking goofball (or felon who's about to rob the place) saunters in and waits in line with their motorcycle helmet still on? I've seen that repeatedly and every time I was lined up to tackle the dude, though for each of those times it turned out to just be dweebs with no social graces/ common sense rather than robbers.

I have zero problem with requiring people to show their faces.

Ever take notice of people who have their hoodies up even in warm/hot weather? Those people tend to do that so that security cameras can't catch their faces for the illegal stuff they're about to do/ are prone to doing. If it's uncomfortably warm yet they still have that hood up, there's got to be a reason. Either they're slaves to really bad trends or they're up to no good.

And then the religious thing? Oh Puh-lease, at what point do people figure that religious 'freedom' is more important than the subjugation of women? What women, given the choice would voluntarily wear such an item? A hijab is fine because the face is fully exposed (it's just a scarf after all) but a full face mask screams inequality and oppression in my opinion.

[sns2]

World is changing. Does the gov't responsibility to provide public safety trump freedom of religious expression? Interesting. I'm ok with it. In this day and age it kind of makes sense. My guess is it is about being able to identify people on cctv.

[Okotokian]

Mixed feelings on this. I think public servants should show their face. Not good with a female cop or teacher or nurse just showing her eyes through her niquab. This is about normal human contact and interaction in our society. It's also about the message sent about women's rights in this country. What message does a young student get about being a woman from her teacher in head-to-toe covering, including her face? That you should hide yourself? This is a medieval belief system.

On the other hand, I absolutely do not think that a tax-paying Canadian citizen, regardless of their dress or beliefs should not be able to get the public services they paid for and are entitled to. HAVE to be able to ride the bus, go to the hospital, etc.

Overall, I can't see this legislation standing.

[stuckincity]

Originally Posted by Badgerbadger

.....skirt-too-short.....

No such thing.

[CaberTosser]

I've noted this story on here before but it warrants a repeat. I was at a 24 floor condo tower trying to find a substantial leak that was affecting suites below and I had to run quite a number of floors before narrowing the source down to two floors. The occupants of the two possible source suites were not home (or so we thought despite frequent and assertive knocking and verbal requests) so building management arranged a locksmith to come out. The locksmith, myself & one of the building complex's security guards were all together for making entry. Upon making entry to one suite it was aparrent the that people actually were there as there was shuffling and noise when we opened the door, and the three women there had to 'burkha' up at our arrival. They were alarmed as none of their men were around and here the three of us were. The place was extremely sparsely furnished and so far as I could tell no men lived there (no men's shoes by the door, etc); so far as I could tell it was a middle eastern trick pad or similar. Those women were not free, I doubt they were even allowed to leave without being escorted by a male. Having worked at that complex very regularly for 3 years at all times of day and night I never once saw them save for the time we were in their suite. That's not normal, nor is it what Canada is about.

[CMichaud]

The CBC is beside itself.

The Liberal Government has been keeping their hands out of it thus far.

If Harper had remained silent it would have been front page Conservative bashing non-stop.

[260 Rem]

If the bill is about the display of religious symbols and applies to all ...including the garb of some orders of nuns, priestly collors, cross-type necklaces, “Hutterite” / Amish / .... garb ... then I could get behind desecularizing public services. But, given that the Quebec bill “seems” to target one faith, it seems wrong and will likely be rightfully tossed by the courts.
Circumstance (time and place) should be the overriding principle for imposing a face recognition requirement.

[dmcbride]

Originally Posted by CMichaud

The CBC is beside itself.

The Liberal Government has been keeping their hands out of it thus far.

If Harper had remained silent it would have been front page Conservative bashing non-stop.

If a conservative province introduced this law the PM would be all over this just like the election issue of citizenship swearing in and face coverings.

The Liberals divisive politics are coming back to bite them.

[The Cook]

Selfie the clown will keep his mouth shut and watch the new ndp leader hang himself in the land of quebexico. Selfie needs the votes from his home province.