Hugh Mackenzie
Huntsville Doppler
A Can of Worms
Last week, the Province of Quebec passed legislation that may well force a national debate about who we really are as Canadians. Are we a country of openness and diversity as so many, including our Prime Minister, claim? Or is a lack of tolerance and a thirst for populism slowly creeping into our national identity?
The legislation in question is Quebec’s Bill 62 which requires people in that province to uncover their faces if they provide or receive provincial or municipal services. That means if you work in the public service you cannot cover your face. If you want to ride a bus, take the subway, visit a library, attend college or even wind up in the hospital, you cannot cover your face. Technically, the legislation even declares war on sunglasses, but few are fooled about the real intent of this legislation and that is to ban the niqab and burka, face-covering veils worn by some Muslim women for cultural or religious reasons.
According to an article written by Chantel Hebert in the Toronto Star, this legislation is relatively mild compared to what Quebec opposition parties would legislate if any of them gain power in provincial elections next year. According to her, if either of Quebec’s two main opposition parties were elected to government next fall, they would replace the ban on face coverings with a wider one that would prohibit judges, crown attorneys, prison guards or police officers from wearing religious garments at work. One of these parties, she says, would also add school teachers to this list.
I assume that means that men of the Jewish faith could no longer wear a yarmulke (skull cap) in public and that Sikhs and Muslim men would be forbidden to wear a turban. Would nuns in Catholic schools, which are prominent in Quebec, be prohibited from wearing their habits? I also wonder what would happen to jewellery that depicts religious symbols such as the Star of David or a cross?
In relation to Bill 62, the debate has already begun across the country. In Ontario, all three political parties have denounced it. Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne, referring to Bill 62, said, “On this issue, we fundamentally do not agree (with Quebec).” In Alberta, Premier Rachel Notley called the passing of Bill 62 in Quebec, “a sad day for Canada.” Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has been much more cautious in his criticism and perhaps for good reason. He would know that any perceived federal interference in Quebec affairs, a province whose tolerance for minority religious and cultural rights has been less than stellar, could easily relight the flame of separatism that, in reality, has not been totally extinguished.
I have little doubt that Quebec’s Bill 62, banning face coverings where public services are provided, will eventually be thrown out. The Government’s argument that the legislation is not aimed at religious minorities is, at the least, specious. Freedom of religion is a basic tenet of our Canadian way of life and at some point the courts will enforce that.
However, because of Bill 62 in Quebec, the cat is now out of the bag. It has legitimized the debate about the cultural and religious rights of minorities in Canada. The issue, unfortunately, is not black or white and that is why it could get ugly.
There are those who would support the banning of burkas and niqabs, not for religious reasons but rather from a belief that they represent the demeaning and subjugation of women which should not be acceptable in Canada. Conversely, there are also those who believe it is nothing short of racism to dictate, especially to minorities, how they should dress. And sadly, there are those who are concerned about the growing cultural diversity in Canada who will seize the opportunity to espouse white supremacy viewpoints.
The banning or the acceptance of burkas or niqabs in certain circumstances may not be in itself an overwhelming issue, but it does open the door to a much broader debate. What is our definition of Canada’s cultural identity? When does our support of that culture become racist? How do we balance tolerance and diversity with traditional values in Canada?
To date, in our very Canadian way, we have avoided coming to grips with these and similar questions. With the passing of Bill 62 in Quebec, we may now be unable to avoid them.
They have, in my view, opened a can of worms.
Don’t miss out on Doppler! Sign up for our free newsletter here.
I JUST KNEW ALL THIS STUFF WAS GOING TO HAPPEN! IN THIS DAY OF SECURITY CAMERAS ALL AROUND US, WHAT HAPPENS IF A PREDATOR DRESSES UP IN A HEAD TO TOE BLACK WHATEVER AND TAKES A LITTLE KID AWAY FOR A WALK TO THE CANDY STORE? WHAT GOOD ARE THE CAMERAS THEN? WHAT ABOUT THE HEARING IMPAIRED WHO RELY ON LIP-READING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT SOMEONE IS SAYING? WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE A POLICE OFFICER WEARING A FACE COVERING YELLING AT YOU TO “STOP OR I’LL SHOOT” ? AND YOU CAN’T UNDERSTAND BECAUSE YOU NEED TO SEE THE LIPS FORM THE WORDS. WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE A COP TRYING TO CALM A MENTAL PATIENT DOWN WHILE WEARING A FACIAL COVERING, – OR A NURSE ? COMMUNICATION IS A GOOD PERCENTAGE FACIAL EXPRESSION EVEN IN ONE USING SIGN LANGUAGE. HUGH, I KNOW WHAT I’M TALKING ABOUT SINCE I WAS RECENTLY TOLD I FUNCTIONED ALL MY LIFE BY USING 80% LIP READING, 20% SOUND. WHERE ARE THE ADVOCATES FOR THE HANDICAPPED WHEN YOU NEED THEM?? BARE THE3 FACES ! PLEASE?
I agree with the ban on any and all face coverings. It could be a man under there. It is silly to compare full face covering to man’s turban or a Jewish man’s head covering or a nuns habit. In all of this you can still see the face. I’m all for religious beliefs but all the while our Christian religion is slowly being taken away. Next to change will be standing up for Canada. Immigrants and new Canadians coming to Canada should start learning our ways or why did they imigrate to Canada in the first place if just to live the same as the country they left? I welcome immigrants but they need to change a little to fit in the same way us Canadians have changed some of our ways to accommodate them.
Well, you know. Clearly the solution for a religion that tells women what they have to wear is laws that tell women what they have to wear. Yay, now they’re free!
.
Or, let’s do the empathy thing again. Imagine your religious laws tell you to do something and your secular laws tell you not to. Great–you’re either a sinner bound for religious punishment or a criminal bound for secular punishment, no escape. “Merci beaucoup, mon gouvernement.”
.
One more point, about the meaning of the word “populism.” The way you use it, Hugh, in this sentence — “Or is a lack of tolerance and a thirst for populism slowly creeping into our national identity?” in opposition to “Are we a country of openness and diversity” — seems to make populism synonymous with closedness, intolerance, etc. But the actual definition (per Google) is:
.
– support for the concerns of ordinary people.
(“it is clear that your populism identifies with the folks on the bottom of the ladder”)
– the quality of appealing to or being aimed at ordinary people.
(“art museums did not gain bigger audiences through a new populism”)
.
So if we rewrite your passage, substituting the primary definition for the word, it goes like this:
.
“Are we a country of openness and diversity… Or is a lack of tolerance and a thirst for support for the concerns of ordinary people slowly creeping into our national identity?”
.
Yikes! Can’t have that last part!
.
I know the problem here… the *Trumpian* definition of “populism” is slowly creeping into our national discourse. Two points about that: 1) if Trump genuinely supports the concerns of ordinary people, I’m Pipe Man, and 2) to equate populism with intolerance is an essentially elitist position, suggesting that ordinary people are racist hicks while only upper-class, educated types are refined enough to be tolerant. You know this is not true at all if you take a thorough look at American politics, especially right now. What is most effective for making people tolerant is not wealth or education, but being with and getting to know different kinds of people.
.
So as writers we have to be careful how we choose our words, so as not to mislead readers into, such errors as wrongly equating “intolerance” with “concerns of ordinary people” and thus perhaps losing sight of the genuine and legitimate concerns of ordinary people, and the worthiness of supporting them. I’ve seen much too much of this confusing use of “populism” in the American media.
Tough topic Hugh!
The Hijab , Niqab, Burka etc have been debated for decades in both western and Muslim countries.
The Burka is not a symbol of Islam. It is not written in the Quran that the face veil is mandatory.
Fewer and fewer women in the middle east are wearing them, partially in an effort to fit in. My gut tells me Muslim women should listen to the majority of Canadians who do agree with Quebec’s decision as well as other European countries.
I have many Muslim friends who agree that in a time of “islamaphobia” the Burka sure doesn’t help.
Not likely to convince those marching to close the borders, or modify citizens behaviour to the norm, but brilliant nevertheless.
“What could be more absurd than the
concept of an “all-Canadian” boy or girl? A society which emphasizes uniformity is
one which creates intolerance and hate. A society which eulogizes the average
citizen is one which breeds mediocrity. What the world should be seeking, and what in Canada we must continue to cherish, are not concepts of uniformity but human values: compassion, love, and understanding. ”
~ Pierre Elliott Trudeau,October 9, 1971
Quebec defining cultural norms is bound to end poorly. The very opposite of compassion, love and understanding.