" people who are against Bill 62 are actually standing up for a very important concept: freedom of choice."
Actually most of the people I see posting on these articles are (incorrectly) framing it as freedom of religion. I say incorrectly because it is not required by their religion - in other article comments people have supplied references for this.
"they are symbols of male oppression of women"
Ummm no. They are symbols of some women being oppressed by some males. The distinction is important.
"simply the flip side of being forced to wear them"
Ummm no. The argument is not symmetrical.
If you want to frame the discussion as one of the right of people in general not not to be observed by their government then that is fine - but in all the articles this week and the comments they generated nobody, including article authors, is doing that save for one comment I have seen.