While I have reservations about this "religious neutrality" law as it infringes upon the common conception of religious freedom held by the majority of people in Canada, I take issue with the way this article frames the problem. The author sets up a false equivalency between religious iconography and the religious significance of clothing such as the burqa and the niqab which fully cover the face. The part which I take most issue with is:

Today, under the gaze of Jesus Christ suffering on the cross, Quebec's governing Liberals stood as one and voted into law a "religious neutrality" bill forbidding anyone granting or receiving government services — which includes riding a bus or subway — from wearing a face covering.

This grossly oversimplifies the issue and needlessly conflates the problem (i.e., denying people the right to dress in accordance with their beliefs) with the utilization of Christian iconography in the legislature. I would argue that these are two distinct problems, albeit related by the topic of religious significance.

It is my opinion that looking at the issue in terms of how Christianity is treated by comparison is not productive. It does not address the central question behind the law, which is: to what extent is it acceptable to project the practice of one's own religion into the public sphere? By extension, to what extent is it acceptable to potentially cause a disturbance in the application or rendering of public services in order to maintain one's religious practices? The presence of the cross in the legislature, while of religious significance, is not an example of religious practice in the same way as the kind of coverings discussed in the article. This law addresses what kind of accommodation is deemed reasonable concerning the provision of public services.

I'd like to close by reiterating that I don't agree with this kind of motion at all, and that I respect that the article is an opinion piece. With that being said, we must try out best to look at the problem in an objective way. It's easy to frame this issue in terms of ethnocentric ideals, but it's important to keep things somewhat objective and avoid the urge to sensationalize the topic.