Establishment Criticism Of Quebec’s Bill 62 Shows Massive Gap Between The Arrogant Elites & Common-Sense People

87% of Quebec residents support Bill 62, yet the arrogant elitist establishment acts like it’s some sort of fringe proposal.

It’s been very interesting to watch the criticism of Bill 62, the law requiring that people uncover their faces to receive or deliver government services.

The law has massively strong support throughout Quebec. The Quebec Liberals passed it, and the two main opposition parties only voted against it because they thought it should be even tougher.

The widespread support among Quebec’s political parties matches the almost unanimous support for Bill 62 among the Quebec public. An Angus-Reid poll from October 4, 2017 showed a whopping 87% of Quebec residents supported the Bill.

62% support it strongly, while 25% moderately support it. Just 4% strongly oppose it.

Yet, politicians across the political spectrum, from Justin Trudeau, Jagmeet Singh, to even the Ontario PC Party, have opposed the legislation to varying degrees. And much of the elitist media has been condemning it, seemingly totally ignorant of what people really think.

Representatives of the people have the right to express the will of those they serve

There was a time where I would have criticized Bill 62 out of a sense of political correctness. But, like an increasing number of Canadians, I’ve realized that the values that underpin our society must be upheld by those who claim to serve the public. If a country, or a province, is unable to declare what their values are and can’t require people to show their face when dealing with servants of the public, then where can we ever draw the line on what we will and won’t accept as a society?

If the government can’t enforce what 87% of the people want, then that government is no longer a democracy.

Yet, those like Trudeau, Singh, and even apparently some in the Ontario PC Party, have taken an elitist position that would arrogantly ignore the will of the vast majority of Quebec residents. Of course, we know that those same politicians are too cowardly to speak out against Female Genital Mutilation, or condemn nations where women are horribly oppressed. Instead, they play the virtue-signalling game while ignoring the will of the people.

We can bet that the numbers outside Quebec of those who support legislation like Bill 62 would be similar to the 87% figure. You can already see some of the gap from the Twitter polls below:

We can also bet that our own so-called “leaders” in the elitist establishment would ignore the common-sense views of Canadians, and instead impose their own arrogant elitist political correctness.

This growing gap between the elitist establishment and the Canadian people is a big concern, since it shows that those in power have decoupled themselves from an actual connection with the views of most Canadians. That connection must be re-established, or our country will continue to head towards a serious crisis of political legitimacy, which could erode our national unity and put the country at grave risk.

Spencer Fernando


If you support my writing, consider making a financial contribution:

You can be a monthly contributor through Patreon, or you can make a contribution through PayPal.

If you are unable to contribute at this time, consider sharing this article on social media or through email to help get the truth to more Canadians.

12 comments Add yours
  1. I absolutely support the bill….it’s ‘crazy’ that it is even up for debate.
    The “HOST” countries values ‘MUST” be embraced in order for immigration to be successful.
    Without apology.
    People need to know that when they move here…that way they can make an informed decision as to whether or not Canada is the best place for them. It will also remove the horrendous accusations that Canadians are racist and intolerant.
    Nothing could be further from the truth…we just love ‘our’ country enough to stand up for the Judeo Christian values that made it so great.
    We shouldn’t be shamed for that by our very own Prime Minister and his puppet cronies. The shame is on them!

  2. Finally a government that acts on the Will of the People!

    Now, the federal government needs a reboot too!

    Until such a time as the decision-making of the nation reflects the Leadership and the Will of a Real Majority of Canadians, we too will not know a true democracy!

    2019 will give Canadians an opportunity to take a hold of the WHIP through 338 Non-Partisans who will be elected to serve a Canadian VISION, on a simple Mandate, driven by a Real Majority of the People of this country! Removing the WHIP from partisan politics will give Canada a VALUE!

    Our chance to restore our National Sovereign Will and to step away from the globalist agendas!

    Vive Le Canada!

  3. I sure do support the bill and would like to see it in place across the country. Many other countries have already put in place such laws and more will do so. It is a right and privilege to be a Canadian and as part of that right and privilege everyone should show their face at all times. It is interesting that older Muslim women do not agree with covering your face and say that no where in the Koran is their anything saying you should. Yet, young women who pertain to be feminists and Muslim (something wrong with those two words being said in same sentence) say women should be allowed to cover their face. In a terrorist world safety should come first and everyone should show their face.

  4. OMG Thank you Tanya . When in Rome do as the Roman’s do, or leave. Do not be fooled by the Muslim Brotherhood and their plans for a Shari’ah Canada.

  5. For some reason, the pathetic politically correct gang have instantly assumed this is about Muslims. It isn’t. It is clearly aimed at the so called “antifa” fascists, terrorists who delight in terrorizing and threatening everyone and anyone who doesn’t think and act like the fascists want them to. Those horrible cowardly little terrorists in their black hoodie uniforms, masks hiding their faces to hide their identities, protective goggles hiding their eyes. Many arm themselves with pepper spray, steel rods, shields and knives in order to attack and injure those who promote free speech. We have all seen the pictures of their attacks on TV. How many carried guns? Which ones looted stores? We don’t know because they hid their faces.

    It will be interesting to see how things develop regarding Bill 62 and the recent changes to the Firearms Act. As it stands, if you have a letter from a recognized organization that forbids pictures, you can obtain a PAL, cleared by the RCMP, that has no ID picture. Imagine someone in a total body covering, including their face, loading up on firearms and ammunition at a local hunting / sports / gun shop and never have to show their face? Antifa terrorists and the Muslim Brotherhood were overjoyed with the gullible RCMP.

    In the event of a crime a face mask would make a police lineup useless.

    Bill 62 supports security and freedom, including freedom of speech, in Canada. It reinforces one of the many Canadian Values. Thank you, Quebec.

  6. I love it!!! Ie. Would any Canadian walk into a bank wearing a balaclava, irrespective of the fact that it is -30 outside!!! Plus it is not a religious requirement!!!! This is such bullshit crap!!! I want to see your face!!! If a cop is interrogating me and is wearing sungalsses I might turn around and wear mine or I may ask that he removes his…..I want to see your face period!!!!! Is that so fn difficult!!!!!

  7. Oh, sure. And hoodies, oversized baseball caps with wrap around sunglasses….
    How about “the people’s servants in government”, where you can’t meet face to face anymore. They hide behind internet connections and computers. Go to a government office to request any “service” and you will be directed to a computer terminal, even if it is to communicate with someone hiding in the back.


  9. Including ALL public services is going too far. Restricting getting on a bus is a bit extreme. The world has gone insane trying to counter jihadist terrorists but there has to be some form of trying to track and monitor such killers. Facial recognition software is getting quite sophisticated and hiding behind a mask makes it almost useless.

    Let’s take it to the other side. If hiding your identity is perfectly acceptable, then no form of ID should be used. What’s next, passports without a picture? A blank driver’s licence, a blank health care card? Applying for welfare would be a joke.

  10. I do have to admit that the rollout of Bill 62 has been poor, including its name, but also its focus on the individual covering their face, rather than those who force them to do so. That should be the focus.

    There are arguments on both sides, of course, and advocates of either side are caught up in hyperbole with the anti-bill 62 side hurling epithets at the other side such as Islamophobe, bigot, racist, and worse. The pro-Bill 62 side at times resorts to exaggeration, stating that Canadian or Quebecois culture is under siege and that PM Trudeau is intentionally trying to destroy the country through mass immigration from predominantly Muslim countries.

    Here is my argument in a nutshell against the wearing of the niqab and burqa in public (or anywhere). We have heard at length about genital mutilation, and rightly oppose it in all cases (even when the victim ‘consents’). The garments in question are examples of mutilation of the person, in that they deny the wearer an identity. I sincerely doubt anyone would consent to that, absent extreme coercion. Would you consent?

    An interesting argument the other side (a.k.a, the outrage machine) likes to trot out is:

    ‘There are so few Muslim women who wear these things…like maybe 8 of these women in all of Quebec! Why make a big deal?’

    This is a specious argument at best. I am sure it is much more that that; estimates are that 3% of Muslim women in Canada wear one of the 2 unmentionable garments, and there are over 1.5 million Muslims in the country, so if we suppose 600,000 are females over age 15, then we would have 18,000 women in Canada wearing one of these. Quebec has a quarter of all Muslims, so that would be maybe 4500 in that province alone covering their faces. Of course, if it were the case that someone pointed out these high numbers, someone would use the opposite argument, stating that ‘thousands of Muslim women will be banned from the bus, etc.’ In any case, I think we should nip this in the bud, before this becomes an acceptable way of presenting oneself in society.

    There are those who would accuse me and any supporter of Bill 62 of being an ‘Islamophobe’, whatever that means (I suspect it means people with views on Islam or Islamic practice that the person using the term doesn’t agree with). I think it curious what constitutes ‘Islamophobia’ in today’s political lexicon:

    Islamophobia (n): a belief that Muslims should be treated just like anyone else, without any special rights or preferences.

    (opposite – Islamophilia: love for Islam as demonstrated by inflicting mass murder on Muslims in their own countries, such as Obama did in his dirty wars on Yemen and Syria.)

    In any case, a phobia is a psychiatric condition requiring treatment, not a reasoned opposition to a politico-religious doctrine. We need to come up with better terms. Maybe Islamoscepticism?

    In any case, here are some of my further arguments against the burqa or niqab:

    1. These moving prisons are oppressive to women.

    2. They objectify the wearers.

    3. They are banned in many Muslim countries, such as Morocco. Egypt has tabled a ban, and Turkey has a limited ban. They are banned in several countries in Africa, including Muslim-majority ones like Chad, largely on security grounds, as well as some European countries to various extents.

    4. Husbands who force their wives to wear the burqa or niqab are likely to be extremists; the only question in my mind is whether they are violent or non-violent extremists. This is likely to be one of my more contentious arguments, but I would point to the fact that a husband is forcing his wife to be a non-person as prima facie evidence of extremism; if that is not extreme in your book, what is?

    5. It is not possible to tell if the wearer is male or female, which could be an issue in washrooms, locker rooms and other such places. The unisex washroom movement has not made this issue irrelevant as yet.

    6. Its use precludes assimilation (in fact, that is one of its purposes), and also prevents the wearer from many types of employment, if only for practical/safety reasons (teacher, nurse, bus driver, police officer, etc).

    7. Sight of women (or men) clad in these oppressive garments strikes fear in many people, especially children, elderly and most of all immigrants from Muslim countries, many of whom fled to Canada to escape exactly this kind of extremism. The Baha’i of Iran a re an excellent example of this.

    8. They are often extremely ill-suited to the climate, especially in summer, when women are made to walk around in thick black burqas, leading to heat exhaustion. These garments are also often very hard to walk around in safely, especially on buses or on the metro/subway.

    Some would make the argument that nuns also wear (or used to wear) religious garments that covered their head and partially obstructed their face, although not very much. This argument falls flat. Aside from the large difference in garments with respect to the face, nuns are not forced into the convent, nor are they forced into marriages to domineering, often violent men.

    Another argument is that the new law, especially the aspect enforcing uncovering the face when riding a bus, will force women who wear the niqab or burqa to stay at home, thus further isolating them. My response is to ask ‘how could they possibly be more secluded than carrying around their own prison everywhere they go? ‘ But I agree to an extent. Maybe what we should do is allow these ladies on the bus and ban their slaveowners (husbands) from getting on board. It’s not like they had buses in the 7th century anyway, so they will feel right at home walking or riding a donkey.
    Further, I feel that we should be looking at imprisonment or deportation for anyone convicted of humiliating another human being by forcing them to cover their face, as it is a from of kidnapping. Then the victim, whoever s/he may be, can remove their moving prison and live a free life.

    OK, time for some statistics:
    A poll done 2 weeks before the bill was passed showed that 87% of Quebecers support Bill 62, and 62% support it strongly.

    So, when Ontario Premier (for now) Kathleen Wynne says that Bill 62 ‘has no place in Canada’, what she is saying is that Quebec (or at least 87% of its people) has no place in Canada! Talk about ethnocentrism.

    Ontario PC leader Patrick Brown has tried to outflank Kathleen Wynne on this issue, calling Bill 62 ‘racist’ (since when is burqa a race?) and proposing Ontario try to stop it (which it cannot). I guess PC will stand for Politically Correct from now on.

    I would like to see the Prime Minister or any of the perpetual outrage machine that constitutes out pathetic, elite media at least say something like:
    ‘The niqab and the burqa are abhorrent holdovers from a medieval culture. However, I don’t think that this bill is the right way to go about things.’
    Instead, it’s just shrieks of indignation and shrill accusations of racism. I am sure that the people of Quebec would have preferred not to have had to resort to this approach, but some people refuse to show even basic respect to the culture that allowed them in, fed and clothed them, housed them, etc. I am all for immigration from Muslim countries, but come on! Would we go live in their countries and walk around dressed as we do here? We’d have another thing coming if we did.

    An analogy I like to use is the following: my religion tells me that I must walk around fully naked from the waist down. Any police officer who tries to stop me from going onto a bus or into a school with my genitals waving around for all the kiddies to see is infringing on my rights and is a hateful bigot representing the structural racism of our society. 😉

    Maybe a better way to approach the issue is to not approve immigration applications for the husbands of anyone who arrives at an immigration hearing at Canadian consulates abroad wearing these things. We should furthermore accept as refugees the wives coming in with the niqab or burqa. When she gets to Canada, without her chauvinist medieval husband, she will remove that cloth prison before she gets out of the airport. Two problems solved. This would also send a strong message that it is not about wanting to go after a group of people, but rather to limit the importation of extremism and oppression to Canada. Of course the social justice warriors will call this racism or some such silliness.
    The problem is not so much the burqa and niqab themselves, but rather the extremist and inflexible mindset that their forced use represents. I don’t know of any studies, but it would be interesting to see one about the frequency of violent extremist attitudes among the husband who force their wives to wear the niqab or burqa.

    I am not in any way opposed to these victimized Muslim women, but am ardently opposed to the people (their slave-owner husbands, as well as the non-Muslim Canadians who come to the defense of said slave-owners). I will close with one final thought, addressed to those who infer that those in favour of this law are afraid of innocent, harmless, defensive Muslim women and are seeking to oppress them:

    I am not afraid OF these Muslim women.
    I am afraid FOR them.
    (and for the cohesiveness of our society)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *