 |
| Michelangelo's Pieta |
It makes me feel sad and
disappointed.
After the recent leaders' debate in
which the wearing or not wearing of the niqab during citizenship
ceremonies was strenuously argued between Trudeau and Harper
particularly, the fortunes of the Conservative Party of Canada have
seen a sudden bump-up in their favour in the polls. And why wouldn't
they? Polls asking whether or not a person should be allowed to cover
his/her face during the swearing-in indicate that some 74% of
Canadians favour what amounts to denying a niqab-wearing person
citizenship unless she removes her face covering.
Although lower courts have already
ruled that such a requirement is not possible without denying rights
to the person under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Harper is
plowing ahead, saying the government will appeal the decision to the
Supreme Court of Canada. One assumes that the Conservative base and
many others would agree that that should be done, some to such a
degree that they're contemplating changing their voting intentions.
It's being presented as a question of
identification and, most recently, as a matter of loyalty to one's
adoptive country. In reality, it's neither. Persons identify
themselves before the swearing-in ceremony to the satisfaction of
officials and clothing styles have never predicted loyalty, otherwise
Sikhs, Hindus and even conservative Mennonites would all be suspect
as regards their unique dress.
It makes me wonder if the majority of
Canadians have made their decision about this question without
knowledge of two important bodies of information: 1) what does the
Charter of Rights and Freedoms actually say about cultural and
religious tolerance? and 2) what is the history of the niqab and why
is it important to some women to wear it in public?
Regarding the guarantee of rights and
freedoms in Section 2 of the Charter, click here
to read the summary. You'll note that the Charter very clearly names
freedoms of belief, thought and the right to live according to one's
conscience. More importantly, the Charter allows governments to limit
these rights only in the case of identifiable harm to others, as in
the case of restricting freedom of speech when it is pornographic or
hate-inducing.
The Supreme Court will undoubtedly
reject the Harper appeal on this subject. Unless restricting niqab
wearing during the citizenship ceremony can be shown to do harm, it
has to fail.
On the second item—the place of the
niqab itself—it's noteworthy that it actually predates Islam (see
here). There's
considerable debate about whether or not the niqab is a religious or
cultural holdover, but women covering their faces in public for
various reasons was happening long before the prophet Mohammad. (See,
for instance, Genesis 38:14 and Genesis 24:65) The Quran is not clear
about the wearing of face covering, but the following verse is
sometimes cited as a Muslim directive: "O
Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters, and the believing women,
to draw their cloaks (veils) over their bodies. That will be better
that they should be known (as respectable women) so as not to be
annoyed. And Allah is Ever Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.”
That it is not a Canadian-Muslim
requirement is obvious: women of my acquaintance go bare-headed or
wear a hijab
which is basically a scarf that covers their hair. They tell me that
the wearing of even that covering is optional. In sculptures and
paintings of the Pieta
(Mother Mary and Jesus), Mary is virtually always wearing a
hijab.
As has the Christian religion, Islam
has fractured and permanently divided itself many times and into many
factions. Obviously the tendency to see Christians as “all the
same” must be a reality for them, as seeing Islam as a monolith is
for us. Only two women have asked not to remove the niqab during the
citizenship ceremony; thousands of Muslim women have been through
that ceremony. Their individual cultural/religious backgrounds must
dictate whether or not covering is comfortable, or vital, or
irrelevant.
If so many Canadians are supportive of
a ban (Quebec is the most anti-niqab province) that it could swing an
election, what does that say about us? Is the Conservative Party of
Canada banking on the apparent ignorance of a segment of voters to
retain power? Harper is an educated Canadian; he obviously knows that
what he's proposing won't be allowed by the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms we proudly enacted in “the other Trudeau” years.
There is grave danger in the nourishing
of cross-cultural phobias and prejudices. In this case, a spurious,
emotional non-issue has been placed on our plates by the Conservative
Party of Canada in hopes that our prejudices can be massaged into
votes.
All the opposition parties have
denounced this effort as they should. I hope we remember this when we
go into the voting booth. Even if 90% of Canadians should conclude
that persons should be denied citizenship unless their face is
uncovered during the swearing-in ceremony, that still would not make
it right. In political parlance, that would be called the “tyranny
of the majority.”
In Canada, that would not make it
lawful either.
No comments:
Post a Comment