 |
| Graeme Bowbrick |
By Graeme Bowbrick
The Conservative government’s announcement last week that it intends to ban niqabs at citizenship swearing-in ceremonies should serve to remind us of three things: first, the importance of freedom in a liberal democracy; second, that a basic litmus test for action by legislators should be whether there is a problem that needs fixing; and third, that for the Harper government politics so frequently trumps all else.
The Conservative government’s announcement last week that it intends to ban niqabs at citizenship swearing-in ceremonies should serve to remind us of three things: first, the importance of freedom in a liberal democracy; second, that a basic litmus test for action by legislators should be whether there is a problem that needs fixing; and third, that for the Harper government politics so frequently trumps all else.
A cornerstone of a liberal democracy is freedom, and particularly freedom from unjustified state intrusions into our private lives. Generally speaking, we expect that the state should have nothing to say about what we wear, apart from a general requirement that we refrain from wearing nothing at all (in public). Otherwise, we expect to be free to dress as we wish, for whatever reasons we wish.
The suggestion that a woman not be permitted to wear a niqab at a swearing-in ceremony offends against our general expectation of liberty. There will be some who may support this new requirement on the basis that it promotes another important value in a liberal democracy: equality (gender equality in particular). But do individual women really need the state to dictate what they wear in order to promote the equality of those same women? How do we achieve equality by chipping away at the autonomy of women in this respect?
And what of the idea that legislators should generally only legislate when something needs to be fixed? Has there been an epidemic of niqab-wearing women failing to recite their oaths of citizenship that we haven’t heard about? Have there even been one or two who have done this?
According to media reports, the government’s stated justification for this new policy is that if a citizenship judge can’t see a woman’s face, the judge can’t see if she is indeed reciting the oath. Indeed. And what shall we do about any lip-synchers in the group being sworn in? If the government is serious about ensuring that all new citizens actually recite their oaths, then perhaps it ought to move to an individual swearing-in model rather than group ceremonies. But they won’t do that – because verifying the taking of the oath isn’t what this is about at all.
And this brings us to what this is really about: politics. There isn’t a public policy justification for this niqab ban, but it sure is good Conservative politics. The government is stoking its conservative base, keeping them happy.
This government is clever, though (never underestimate those you disagree with). In the face of criticism that this new policy is less than generous, and has no place in a free society, watch for the government to cloak itself in the rhetoric of women’s equality (see above).
So we are left to decide for ourselves: good public policy aimed at a genuine problem and simultaneously striking a blow for women’s equality, or just base politics?
- Graeme Bowbrick, Q.C., is the Legal Studies program Coordinator at Douglas College and former Attorney General of British Columbia.
Posts
Hear hear! Very well said.
ReplyDeletei honestly think they should not be allowed to wear them at all here. They immigrated here for a reason, because their government gave women no respect, no rights, and no voice. You want to wear something that represents something so immorally repugnant, do it in your own home. I agree 100% that by not wearing it, it symbolizes what our country represents for women here, equality!
ReplyDeleteSee this is the problem. Canada does not know how to walk the line of logic between letting anyone do whatever (not to say that allowing women to wear face coverings is extreme in any way), and being ignorant and intolerant. I would argue that in many ways Canada has become too accommodating to other cultures in that we've begun to stifle our own (in terms of political correctness, and our fear of celebrating CHRISTMAS out and proud). I would also argue that asking women to remove their face coverings does not deny any Canadian values regarding freedom. I dislike that a request made for the purpose of clarity, transparency, and genuine honesty has been perceived as an attack on religious freedom. Not the case at all. Why do people ignore all the other ways in which Canada is more than open about different religious practices? Canada IS a place of religious freedom, this issue does not change that in my opinion. While I obviously can't speak for anyone other than myself, I would hope that there are no ill-willed intentions behind this, because I certainly have no negative thoughts of the niqab, other than my personal opinion that it is a symptom of a deeply sexist society, and poses a security risk. But that is the opinion of someone who has no direct personal experience, aside from discussing with friends who are Muslim. Anyways I think we need to buck up a bit and make some tough decisions. Nothing is perfect, but I think ANYONE wearing a face covering should not at all, purely for security reasons. (I'm sure some of you are thinking I'm assuming Muslim people are threats) Don't attach anything I'm saying as an attack on a person or a religion, as you shouldn't assume with the Supreme Court's decision.
ReplyDeleteLook at this on the grand scale of things, I'm sure any mature adult knows when they come to another country, not everything is going to stay the same. It's a reality, and they should respect Canadians enough to understand it is not an act of oppression.
"A cornerstone of a liberal democracy is freedom, and particularly freedom from unjustified state intrusions into our private lives." You are right when you say in our private lives. citizenship ceremony is not part of one's private life. It is a public ceremony held by our Government in order to give the immigrants the gift of becoming Canadian citizens. Thus, it is an offence not only towards the government but towards all those who become Canadian citizens that some of those who are about to become Canadian citizens to cover their faces. Do they have anything to hide? i think we are a free country and nobody should be afraid of anything and more than that we are supposed to be active participants in the Canadian society and embrace it. I am an immigrant who not long ago got the citizenship and I think that it is extremely inappropriate for someone to not show his/her face during such an important ceremony. I apologize for saying that but I think that Mr. Graeme Bowbrick has no respect for the Canadian citizenship and the huge majority of Canadian citizens. I am sure that he has no idea how important and honourable is the citizenship ceremony for a new Canadian citizen. Only those who go through this and those who have respect our values appreciate and consider the new legislation a step forward out of the darkness. Smarten up Mr. Graeme Bowbrick.Citizenship Ceremony is not private. Private is whatever happens inside of one's home. Once you step out of your home you are exposed to the public so whatever you do is not private anymore and you have to show respect to those around you and if that means that you have to show your face so everybody can see who you are than this should be the norm. Of somebody refuses to do so, then it needs to be enforced is needed. Only those who participated in the riot hid their faces.
ReplyDeleteNo-go zones across Europe. France had a huge niqab problem.
ReplyDeleteLook at the conclusion down at
http://www.wikiislam.net/wiki/Revelation_of_the_Hijab
Heck, even along sites like http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/12/islamophobia-in-the-uk-muslim-baby-removed-from-home-for-risk-of-islamic-honor-killing.html
Well done. I add that, if it's another ethnicity or cultral group who wear nigab, I am sure no one will dare to say a word, but since it's the targeted culture, so they won't leave any stone without turn to find the slightest means or way to ban any signs or symbols that originate from the targeted culture.
ReplyDeleteI agree as if we claim our proudness of the Canadian mosaic conflict with this ban, and the Canadian charter of right gives any individual the right tos chose what to dress specially if it is religious believe. Myself, I am against Niqab, but still can not ignor someone's else right to wear it and claim that the judge can not see the face. Sine when the judge is looking at faces since it is a group ceremony and not individual basis. This is what is called Harper agenda and the immigration minister who is far away from immigration and multiculturalism
ReplyDeleteMost of these women do not wear a niqab out of some sense of personal liberty to do as they please. They HAVE to wear it. It isn't about their "freedom" to wear what they want at all, and anyone who thinks it is is either naive or ignorant concerning culture. So the question is: who should have the greater authority in dictating what these women can or cannot wear? The Canadian government, or their husbands/families? They do not have the option to choose for themselves, unless they "choose for themselves" what one or the other has already chosen for them.
ReplyDeleteWell said above, but the fact that the government is banning the niqab shows that they supress Islamic practices, as it is clearly said in the Quran that a women is required to wear a veil. It upsets me that a vast majority of the Muslim community is not speaking out against this; many of them have no opinion about the niqab so they sit in silence and witness that the goverment is slowly deteriorating this beautiful religion.
ReplyDeleteAnother point of view is that a Niqab has no place in a free society.. Its an insult to the equality of women .
ReplyDeleteThey should they off their Niqab to show RESPECT for Canada as they are taking the Oath to becoming Canadian Citizens ! !
ReplyDeletei thought it was banned b/c during the ceremony they would like to verify it is the correct individual obtaining citizenship and not someone else under the veil???
ReplyDeleteIt's not like our government is saying that they aren't allowed to wear their niqab permanently.
ReplyDeleteI am offended and embarrassed that this article is on the SCHOOL website - more appropriate for a personal opinion blog.
ReplyDeleteI have live in BC for 20yr in those years I rarely saw such head dress,with the exception of a turban. Now all of a sudden the Niqab is everywhere. What happened to cause this change in dress habit? Is there such thing as a Canadian Identity and what is it if there is. I think these are things that need to be addressed firstly,before we start banning anything. Its a very interesting topic and I believe it will be more prevelent in the years to come. What do we want Canada to be and become?
ReplyDeleteyour assumptions are all based on freedom of choice for the woman to wear the niqab. It's outstanding on your part that you know they actually want to wear a piece of clothing that restricts individuality. There is no basis in religion for the Niqab to be a must wear option. The decree to wear a Niqab is based on a male dominated society where abuse of women is common place and accepted. The women have been forced to wear this bizarre uniform for generations and now accept it as normal. If they don't wear it they can be beaten and even killed. It's no wonder that over time these women and their offspring would accept this as proper attire because they have been brainwashed and bullied into wearing it.
ReplyDeleteI worked as a police officer for over thirty years and have dealt with battered women from abusive relationships. Many of them stay in these relationships through fear and loss of dignity. They come to a point where they honestly believe that they have done something wrong and deserve to be beaten. I personally went to a domestic dispute where a woman had been severely beaten by her husband and called the police. I tried arresting him and he was uncooperative so I ended up in a wrestling match with him. Next thing I know I'm being beaten with a frying pan by the victim. She was screaming at me "leave him alone, I love him". This is a perfect example of a woman who had lost hope, thought she was tied into this relationship and afraid of the consequences once the man of the house returned. Do some research on "Battered Women Syndrome" and you will see that women who are involved in relationships where they are told what to wear, when to go shopping, what they can watch on TV, what to cook etc;feel they have no choice and have lost hope.
Societies in which Niqabs are widely worn is not by women's choice but more so by men's choice because they control everything. What type of society would not allow women to go to school or work or even drive. Basically they are taking about 50% of their society with their intellectual ability out of the equation. Do you think that is freedom of choice?
Muslim women have been brainwashed to accept the Burqa and a diminished status.They need to be de-programmed and allowed to function as equals to men in society. It is our responsibility to ensure that they have a freedom of choice. Contrary to what you believe they don't have that now. They may say they do, they may think they do because that's what they've been programmed to say and do. Confront them with the truth and they will vehemently protest because that's what brain washed people do.
You are not protecting individual rights and freedom of choice. You are legitimizing abuse.
Liberal democracy has a limit. How can the author say the government has the right to prevent people from wearing nothing and at the same time say the government has no right in how people should wear? A liberal democratic government is elected by the people of this country and reflect the norms and wishes of the citizens of the country. The government do have a right to dictate what is acceptable to wear in public, if there is contention than it could be taken to court. Canada is not some religious state in the Middle East where no oversight or recourse is permitted.
ReplyDeleteThe niqab does not represent or is compatible with Canadian norms. The niqab represents a traditionalist (there is a difference between “conservative” and “traditionalist”) belief of a male centric society in where women are purely a property item. The danger of our society turning a blind eye to this situation is fuelled by our fear of stepping on other’s cultural norms or “cultural sensitivity”. Do we sacrifice our norms to include negative behaviour of others in the name of being more inclusive, more liberal democratic or say there is a limit of what can we accept?
Government decision of banning the niqab for the swearing in ceremony is a step forward in sending a message to others that the majority of Canadians do not condone this kind of behaviour. The government should further the ban of niqab nationwide. Will the government make this into a political issue and “cloak itself in the rhetoric of women’s equality”? Certainly that is what politicians do.
To end off I am not a whole sales supporter of Harper’s Conservative government. Furthermore I do not hate religion, it does have some positive qualities. The strength of liberal democracy is that the seat of power can change and laws can be voted on by representatives elected by the people. Harper’s Conservative government was voted into power by citizens who have voted. In layman terms if Harper “screws up”, he won’t be in power for long and laws can be reviewed and struck down. The niqab is a symbol of a bygone age where women are not even considered second class citizens but are like treated like animals. People from dose cultures must understand Canada is different and we will not stand for it in this country. Citizenship is not a right, it is earned through particpation and adhering in society wishes.
It's outstanding on your part that you know "women have been brainwashed to accept the burqa and diminished status". "They need to be de-programmed"?!? The niqab is an important part of many Muslims' culture, that warrants a little more sensitivity and tact than ham-handedly calling it an indication of an abusive relationship. If our government is starting a campaign to "liberate" Muslim women, wouldn't a little transparency be more effective than hiding behind the obvious smokescreen of a judge needing to verify the oath of citizenship?
ReplyDeleteWho are you to tell Muslim women what they should wear? Did you actually go to every individual Muslim woman and ask her opinion? When I hear people like you rambling on about "women's rights" or "equalities" or other crack like that, I always wonder: did you bother to speak to even one Muslim woman and find out what's HER perspective on the burqa?
ReplyDeleteWhen people like you begin to dictate YOUR values and beliefs to people who do not share them, it rings alarm bells. What's next? Are you, perhaps, going to advocate the ban of the turbans worn by Sikhs? Or, maybe, the ban of the crusifixes worn by Christians? Religious freedom is something you either allow or don't allow - there's no middle-ground on this issue.
P.S. I am not a Muslim
We should read their holy book Quran and see why they have to wear niqab instead of acusing the male being dominent of house or female's being forced to wear it...
ReplyDeleteone of the reason why female wear is that hijab is a way of treating oneself as somebody who is precious and special, like a treasure that is kept hidden until it is uncovered and the treasurer is ment to be by the person they are legally married to, hijab is worn by Muslim women in front of men who are not a direct relative in order to protect themselves from indecent thoughts and acts. It is believed that this ‘lessens the chance of them having bad thoughts about them, this includes sexual desires and other bad things. They believe that the external part of a person is not important but what it inside. If people would judge you on the way you look, then they are not people worth wasting your time with. Those people only appreciate physical beauty and not your internal one.
WE ALL ARE MADE UP OF MUD
Our races and beliefs might differ, but everyone is entitled to be respected. No matter who or what they are, for we are all equals in the eye of God.
The niqab ban is not the real issue at all; it is why these people are even considered eligible for citizenship in the first place.
ReplyDeleteAll this talk about 'a niqab ban is a threat to our liberal democracy and freedom' is complete nonsense. Allowing women to wear the niqab goes against what the majority of Canadians feels on the subject, and therefore would contradict a majority stance and not be a very democratic policy. People don't like the niqab because it is not a mere fashion statement as it is made out to be in this article; it represents a culture and lifestyle that is very un-Canadian in every possible way.
Women that wear niqabs would not even want to move to Canada if it wasn't for the fact that our government will pay them to pump out one child after the next all at the expense of the Canadian taxpayer, while they contribute almost nothing in return, meanwhile typical Canadians are too busy paying bills and arguing about things like 'gender equality' to even consider settling down and having kids of their own.
And what's up with the phony picture of a blue-eyed White girl in a veil, why not just use a picture of a real woman from Saudi Arabia or somewhere else that is actually representative of the women who wear veils like that...
Hi John,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comment. We have started to post opinion pieces on the blog as we thought they'd be of interest to both the Douglas College and larger communities. Please know, as stated in our disclaimer at the bottom, that "Opinions expressed in this story are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Douglas College."
Thanks!
We can't ignore human rights by claiming the majority doesn't support them. Human rights laws, by nature, protect those in the minority.
ReplyDeleteWow, this is for all the individuals who commented against wearing the veil and how we "Muslims" come to Canada because our governments back home don't give us enough freedom, first of all, please go and educate yourselves a bit.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, your Bible is also telling you to wear a veil!! Paul Paul Paul is telling you, that the woman must cover her head. That the woman who does not cover her head you must shave off her hair. Your bible says that!!
Thirdly, we will leave your countries as long as you promise to leave ours alone.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHW6gCzpd1k
ReplyDeletelet me put it this way. i will take a 2 by 2 feet cloth and put it around my neck. should we also ban that.
ReplyDeletepeople need to stop thinking with their emotion and start realizing the political agenda going on here
well, we've definitely ruled out that you are a racist and ignorant since in saudi arabia, there will never be a girl with blue eyes.
ReplyDeleteI personally disagree with what he said, why? In fact the roots of the problem come from Cnadian government and immigration.It's obvious that Canada is a free country, but Canadian government has to clarified that immigrants are allowed to share their customs, not force their beliefs on canadian rules or society. Based on my knowledge that I have about Islam, Nigab is not in the Islamic text, it's a culture things which is invated by the Islamice extremism of Wahabi Muslims in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. For instance in 2004, in Canda, they were trying to establish The Sharia Law Court, which fortunately were not successful to implement it. I think religion should be a private affair and practice in home or mosque, not in public or institution. To make this subject wider, I think if the Western countries stop supporting Islam in the Middle East, the scenario of that cicumstances would be diffrent than now.
ReplyDeleteWhy can not these women make their own choice. Are they not capable of thinking for themselves?
ReplyDeleteits a step to that direction.
ReplyDeleteNo person of a race that is not a least partially of European descent can ever have or produce offspring with blue eyes, so yes, there never will be a naturally occuring blue eyed woman from Saudi Arabia or any such third world hellhole that is a result of the native population. That is a fact, not racism, and using a White woman's picture to draw people's attention to an issue that never has been and still isn't an issue amongst in any White nation is actually a form of racism, since it is only relevant to races that dwell in Africa and the middle East where the muslim religion thrives.
ReplyDeleteAnd only an "ignorant" person such as yourself would willingly adopt policies and allow in immigrants by 250 000 + per year without any skills or education with poor living standards that will cause our nation to become a similar third world slum.
Well said. The religion tells women to wear Niqab in order to pay full respect to their husbands. Why don’t the husbands start wearing it too to pay respect to their wives. Until that happens, don’t tell me that niqab is degrading to women’s rights. These poor women are really just brainwashed by stories told by their brainwashed ancestors. If you tell a story long enough, it will become truth.
ReplyDeleteWhat I would like to know is, who here is the one with the political agenda? From reading this article, I don't sense the author's compassion, I don't sense a concern for Muslim women's rights or freedom, but just another reason to bash on the Conservative government. I find that rather appalling.
ReplyDeleteWow, your views are worrisome, and the worst part is I am sure many people share your narrow-minded, Eurocentric views
ReplyDelete