WHAT’S WITH THE NIQAB?
The niqab has become a wedge issue in the Canadian federal election campaign. What is a wedge issue? It is essentially a lightning rod unexpectedly exploding in the middle of a campaign, with the potential to change the outcome of the election. I remember one of these vividly when, in 1985, about a week before a Provincial election in Ontario, there was an oil spill from a tanker on a highway in Northern Ontario. A Conservative M.P.P. quipped there was nothing to worry about because only a few Indians used that part of the highway. At that point in the election, Frank Miller was polling 54% of the vote. In a matter of days, this wedge issue resulted in such an erosion of support for the Conservatives that they barely held on to government and in fact were booted out of office by a pact between the Liberals and the New Democrats.
Interestingly enough, and contrary to some media reports, the wedge issue in our current federal election was not introduced by any of the political parties but rather by the Federal Court, who, in the middle of the campaign, ruled that it was lawful for women to wear the niqab when being sworn in as Canadian Citizens. I doubt if the matter would have been an election issue at all, had the ruling not come down when it did. But it did come down and a Compass Poll showed that 72% of Canadians were opposed to the wearing of the niqab during Citizenship Ceremonies and only 19% were in favour. Thus it became a huge election issue.
It is fair to ask why people across the country feel so strongly about this, since over the past decade only two women have insisted on wearing the niqab while being sworn in as Canadian Citizens. My sense is it is because the niqab issue has become a symbol for a much larger discussion that ranges from suppression and equality for women to security and national identity.
Raheel Raza is a Canadian, a Muslim, an author and an international activist for women’s rights. She has no specific political leanings. She writes that she is astonished to see Canada’s judiciary caving in to Islamists who have nothing but contempt for Canada’s values of gender equality. She states that covering the face is not a religious requirement for Muslim women and that the niqab and burqa have nothing to do with Islam but rather they are the political flags of the Muslim Brotherhood, ISIS, The Taliban, al Qaida and Saudi Arabia.
In my view, nothing speaks to freedom of choice less than women covering their faces because they live in a society where they are coerced into doing so. And make no mistake about it, such societies exist within Canada. If you think not, then cast your mind back to the pressure put on Premier Dalton McGuinty to allow Sharia Law in Ontario some years ago. His Government did not allow it but they did give it consideration. Nonetheless, some elements of Sharia Law, a barbaric Islamic doctrine at the centre of which, is the suppression of women, still exist here and now sadly, in most parts of the world. It was not that long ago, that young women were brutally murdered near Kingston, Ontario for what the murderers considered under Sharia law, to be an ‘Honour killing”.
I sense, that many Canadians are becoming concerned that traditional Canadian culture and values may become subordinate to multiculturalism demands. As an example, our society has evolved to a point where we no longer allow Christian prayer, or any other related activity in the public school system. That may be fair enough. Why then, is it fair for Islam to hold Friday Prayer meetings in some public schools in Toronto? There have also been attempts by the Islamic community to stop schools and restaurants that are open to all Canadians, from serving food that is forbidden to them under Islamic law.
I know that some would argue that the 72% of Canadians who believe women should uncover their face when being sworn in as Canadian Citizens are bigots. I do not. Instead I believe they see it as a symbol of creeping fundamentalism that has the potential to change who we are and what we stand for as Canadians, most especially as it relates to the equality of men and women and yes, ultimately, the safety of our nation.
While I may be wrong, I believe the reason that some (certainly not all) Muslim women in Canada wear the niqab or the burqa is not from genuine freedom of expression but rather from a culture of oppression and fear. If we really value our Canadian culture, surely that is something we would reject out of hand.
While I recognize that it is controversial, I believe that faces should not be covered in Canada anywhere there is a security risk, whether it be domestic or foreign. If I were to walk into a bank with my face covered, all hell would break loose. On the lighter side, a week or so ago, a male underage teenager, almost got away with buying alcohol in Vancouver because he was wearing a full burqa!
The comments by Raheel Razid, to the effect that the niqab and burqa are political flags for radical Islam and not required by the Muslim faith, should be taken seriously. The Qur’an simply calls for modesty in both men and women. There can be no doubt that the concept of radical Islamic terrorism is no longer confined to the Middle East and has found its way to the United States, Europe and, yes, Canada. If these ‘political flags’ are visible in our country, then surely we have a right to be concerned.
And so, I believe the issue is much greater than whether a niqab is worn at a Citizenship Ceremony and that is the real reason that Canadians are concerned and why the matter has become a wedge issue in our federal election. It will be interesting to see what effect it has.
Hugh Mackenzie
Photo credit: Flickr user fixersuk.
Some more so than others…
Brian, I hope you are not implying that the CBC, or any other network or newspaper, are part of ” the balanced news section”.
If you do a little research outside of what you are reading here you might be surprised. The lady who took the government to court and won has made a few clarifying statements which cover off the scare tactics we’re reading here. She personalized the argument and separated it from the current scare tactics that are now the popular election theme. Of particular interest are her comments after the ceremony. What is going on here? A local opinion is given without all the facts and people get out the broad brushes and stigmatize whole societies. It’s just a one sided opinion folks, nothing to get upset about.
Here’s the link to how the CBC covered the ceremony story and the other side of the issue:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/zunera-ishaq-niqab-ban-citizenship-oath-1.3257762
And for another opinion from a Hutterite woman go to this link:
http://www.polkadotpress.ca/#!My-Hutterite-perspective-on-the-Niqab/cyvb/5615521a0cf25fa7fe2c37e1
Keep in mind that this is the opinion section, not the balanced news section.
The idea that a Niqab wearer can reveal her face in private to a female official before taking the oath of citizenship is only one of many ways in which the Niqab complicates modern state life. What about the passport picture, the drivers licence picture, the health card picture, testifying in court, entering and doing business in any public office, identification for voting in an election, identifying oneself to a police officer, airport security, etc., etc., etc.?
In short, the Niqab inhibits the wearer’s ability to successfully integrate into western society. How can any political party that claims to be “progressive” support such a divisive, disruptive and troublesome practice? We must use our heart, but we must also use our head.
Yes, there is a person behind that veil.
Whether male or female and who rhey really are we don’t know as they are wearing a disguise. The person behind that veil has also chosen the sacred moment of high priveledge which should be observed in a spirit of humility and thanks to instead, declare her (or is it his? ) otherness and distain for Canada’s customs and tradition rather than declaring their wish to fit in and become one with Canadian tradition.
I believe it is this defiant attitude which is causing most Canadians to feel quite offended. The niquab IS NOT a religious necessity as she claims but a chosen custom.
It deserves no protection in law.
Canadians have every right to demand certain practices of courtesy at solemn events.
This is not a women’s issue as claimed elsewhere in this thread. It is simple issue of common sense.
Finally, I wonder who is paying this women’s legal costs?
With regards to this issue there is currently no law in Canada that says what can or cannot be worn in the citizenship ceremony. As I understand the judges ruling the court is preventing members of Parliament from unilaterally setting policies that would have the force of law.
With regards to this debate the court is not deciding what is lawful they are simply reaffirming what is already law.
Regardless of our personal feelings about the niqab we need to remember there is a person behind the veil.
Mayor of Montreal Denis Coderre is the one responsible for the sewage dump. Note, that’s former Liberal MP and Martin government minister Denis Coderre. Not Conservative…. Liberal. http://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/were-going-ahead-with-plan-to-dump-8-billion-litres-of-untreated-sewage-into-st-lawrence-river-coderre-says
I would hope the young woman from Syria would take the opportunity to speak to the woman wearing the niqab to compare their experiences. I would hope that in sharing their experiences they would come to further understand that Canadian women have the freedom to choose, to define their own choices, be it clothing or religion. I would hope that the young woman from Syria would come to know that as a Canadian woman she has rights that she might not have had in Syria and that Canadian laws are defined to protect her from being brutalized by any person or group. I would hope the young woman from Syria would come to know that Canadian society is peaceful, tolerant and compassionate. Most importantly, I personally hope Canadians will vote for political leadership that embraces peace, tolerance and compassion.
Did you see the interview on CTV news last night in which a young woman refugee from Syria with a small child said she had to leave Syria because ISIS was forcing women to wear the niqab and that made her feel like a prisoner? Can you Imagine her shock and disappointment if she came to swear the oath of citizenship in Canada beside a woman wearing the niqab?
Regards, Hugh Holland
Hugh
I wasn’t really commenting on the courts but that’s ok. Respectfully, as always, Gemma Grace
Gemma
Not a valid point. No official or court ever has or ever will sanction sports rioting. And I am quite sure that if anyone came to take the oath of citizenship or testify in court with a baseball hat on, they would be asked to remove it. It is a simple act that shows respect. If one wants respect they have to give respect.
Respectfully, Hugh Holland
Personally Hugh, I do not like our cultural penchant for wearing iconic baseball caps decorated with brand logo advertising. I also do not have much regard for sports fans gone wild rioting in the streets such as in Vancouver and Montreal. I would imagine the majority of the rioters wear baseball caps or even team jerseys. Riots in our streets over sports is a slippery slope leading to rampant disrespect for the civility of our city centres and the personal security of our urban citizens. Baseball caps and hockey jerseys (especially) are part of a package of extreme beliefs that are also likely carried by the wearer. You are right. Let’s not be so naive.
Will these women’s daughters and granddaughters completely cover their faces?
I doubt it…
In my grandmother’s era, Canadian women always wore a hat in public – often with a veil [for modesty?] – did anyone object to that custom?
Have we not learned that all creeping problems and revolutions start with “a few isolated examples”? WW2 started with a few isolated demonstrations. The revolutions in Egypt and Syria stared with a few isolated demonstrations and quickly morphed into much more. The niqab is part of a package of extreme beliefs that are also likely carried by the wearer. Would the federal court judge allow a person wearing the niqab to testify in his or her court? How can the court deny an extreme Mormon his religious belief in polygamy if all religious beliefs are to be allowed? Let’s not be so naive.
Thanks Joy! I chuckled as I read your post. Yes…I noodle around a bit with writing. :o) I’ll add my comment to yours…..I love Hugh too…and Doppler!
Val…you are a passionate woman! :o) Lots to get riled about in this election for sure! BTW…. I applaud you for all the work you are doing for your candidate: we donated (again) and put Ms. Cowie’s sign upon the front lawn – it’s a bit lonely in this neighbourhood but that’s okay – but it’s not like knocking on doors, as I well know!
Oh Dale, you said all the things that have been rattling around in my head all day. Were you a writer?? (I was an editor, so writing is torture.) Thank you, thank you, thank you. And Val Corbett, thank you too. But Hugh, we still love you 🙂
Thank you, Dale, for expressing all that I have spent the morning thinking about with respect to Hugh`s post. I prefer to call a wedge issue what it really is, a diversionary tactic!!! To move on, I watched Harper`s press conference a couple hrs ago. He ran on about how great this TPP {Trans Pacific Partnership} agreement is for Canada. Couple of thoughts on this. First and foremost, it is not an “agreement” until it is ratified by all partners , which he admitted could take 2 years. Secondly , if it is so great why is he hustling to arrange subsidies for losses to the agricultural sector and the automotive sector? I ask myself, why is Harper still out promoting some of this stuff. The answer I get is he actually believes it and in his eyes, he is never wrong.!!! Another looming disaster is the dumping of 80 BILLION LITRES of raw sewage into the St. Lawrence river, over a one week period later this month, to accommodate a construction project. Under the Dep`t of Fisheries act this is illegal if it effects fish and other water inhabitants. It will not dilute, as is claimed, and could pollute the river for decades. Oh, and apparently, Fed.cut backs to that Dep`t ensure no steps will be taken to hold anyone accountable!!! So, many more reasons why I could never support the Conservative/Reform Party! If I hear “let me be clear about this”” come from his mouth one more time, I may smash the TV set!!!
Proud of my white uncoloured hair Dale. I won’t mask it with any head ware !
My opinion mirrors that of Gemma Grace. I was not going to respond at all to your post Hugh because I think too much time/effort has been spent on this wedge issue already by a candidate that has clearly NOT demonstrated that women are his party’s priority so why the big deal on what Muslim women wear? But…here I am.
We have to look back 30 years for the first (and last) time major party leaders debated “women’s” issues during a national election! And we are still framing the conversation in vintage lingo that makes it sound like it’s 1950 all over again. Watching the 1984 debate, an event organized by the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, is like watching Groundhog Day, so little has changed. So, no I don’t support Mr. Harper’s niqab views since I feel that he is not a friend to women of any stripe.
While I respect Raheel Raza’s opinion as a Canadian Muslim woman it is just one Muslim opinion and it’s seems to be the only one trotted out by Conservatives ….maybe due to the scarcity.
Many educated and independent Muslim women in Canada have said they are tired of the niqab debate and want the party leaders to move toward things that matter ore…to them and all of us.
The Canadian Council of Muslim Women recently held an event in Toronto to hand out awards and discuss concerns in their communities. There was also an opportunity for debate between political parties on where they stand on issues affecting Muslim women in Canada. But the debate continued to focus on wedge issues rather than major themes affecting all Canadians.
That did not sit well with some Muslim women, who say the topic is “just a way to gain votes” ahead of the Oct. 19 election.” Right now, the federal government is talking about women and [the] niqab, which is not an issue, even for Muslims,” said Zarqa Nawaz, the creator of Little Mosque on the Prairie. “We’re in a recession, what is the plan to go forward? Those are the things I want to talk about. Not about women in [the] niqab and why she can’t sing the national anthem with her face covered. That’s just stupid.”
I don’t think the debate is stupid but I do think it is a cheap, diversionary tactic by a current government to deflect from those issues that really matter.
The study that Ms. Grace refers to is an attempt to provide a safe space for Canadian Muslim women who wear the niqab to speak for themselves. THAT is the opinion I want to hear – not that of the old, white powerful male elite. As the author of the study explains, “This study is not intended to dwell upon the religious or theological basis of the practice itself, but rather it is first and foremost about the lived experiences of the women and the diverse narratives that they have shared in their responses. The niqab itself is a complex issue and raises many questions for Muslim communities and the wider Canadian population itself.”
If immigrants are willing to take the Oath and willing to show their face to an official before the ceremony, shouldn’t that be sifficient? Does the oath not count for anything? We don’t ask people to shave their beards or remove the yarmulkes or take off their wigs before taking the oath and rightly so.
This may all be fodder for debate but in my humble opinion, it is not – nor should it be – an election issue.
Don’t know Gemma, but her thoughts mirror mine. We musn’t let the focus be on a few isolated cases. Will these women’s daughters and granddaughters completely cover the faces? Will their sons fall in love and marry based on whether their brides cover their faces? The scarf is a modesty thing….do we denigrate the Orthodox Jew because she wears a wig?? Do we refuse service to a Sikh because he refuses to take off his turban?
Hello Hugh,
I thought you might be interested in reading a study published by the Canadian Council of Muslim Women and authored by Dr. Lynda Clarke of Concordia University called “Women in Niqab Speak: A Study of the Niqab in Canada. It can be found here: http://goo.gl/JDegeR . I hope you find it as enlightening as I have.
Have you had the opportunity to interview any Canadian Muslim women who wear the Niqab to test your beliefs?
One last thought, if I may. There are many women in Canada who live in a “culture of oppression and fear” such as battered or abused wives, rape victims, the MMIW (Missing or Murdered Indigenous Women). I don’t think the majority of them were wearing Niqabs. Frankly, I find it highly offensive and reprehensible to use the Niqab as an election wedge issue when the leadership debate on the Status of Women was cancelled due to lack of interest on the part of Mr. Harper and Mr. Mulcair.
Enjoying the Doppler,
Gemma
Hugh – a candid, studied – most reasonable approach to a very sinister and appalling problem !
– for those of you, living in the slumbering suburbs of Huntsville, this insidious, creeping monster seems far away – probably only in Toronto –
– yet, every time it appears, it is a testimonial to a culture that refuses to become “Canadianized” – and wishes to place our “free” society back 2,ooo years –
– and their mandate in arriving here is NOT to integrate – but, to conquer – and revert us to their culture that – apparently, they have “left behind” – —- NOT !!!!
– the pontificating judge certainly has NO “street smarts” !!!! –
Gary
Hugh
I believe your analysis is correct.
Good for you to have the courage to state it.
We Canadians have worked hard for decades to develop a tolerant society with equality for women. Our citizens have died fighting in wars against totalitarianism. Our values must continue to be be defended.
Dave