Québec’s “Niqab” Bill and YOU
I’ve been following the on-going debate in this province over what it calls “reasonable accommodation” for immigrants. You should too. Here’s why. (For those needing background, here’s one story and one opinion piece to help you out.)
More than a year ago, a small village in this province passed a by-law making it illegal, among other things, to stone women. The by-law was ridiculous but had its supporters. They made clear that their Québecois religious and cultural values would not tolerate those of immigrants — especially Muslim immigrants. The by-laws supporters were condemned — especially outside Québec — as anti-Muslim, anti-immigration, and xenophobic small town bigotry. Critics slammed the by-law itself as institutional racism.
The Liberal Government of Jean Charest saw a chance to snatch the issue from its right-wing political opposition by appointing a panel to hold a series of provincial hearings on “reasonable accommodation.” In short, the panel would travel to big cities and small towns to allow people to vent, and to define how tolerant of immigrants their Québec society was prepared to be.
A few weeks ago, an Egyptian woman, an immigrant, was kicked out of her French classes after she refused to remove her niqab. The teacher said the head and face covering, with only the eyes revealed, interfered with her ability to read emotion and therefore to teach the immigrant student. School officials backed up the teacher. The school board did as well. The issue hit the headlines and sparked an avalanche of newspaper ink and call-in radio screech. This week, the Liberal Government stepped in, tabling a bill — Bill 94 — that would, among other things, require everyone working for or seeking provincial government services to have their faces exposed. Once more, it smelled of political pandering to the reactionary right in order to undermine the opposition.
First, as one emailer explained to the host of a national radio program, listeners have no problem hearing emotion when one doesn’t see a speaker’s face — on the radio — so why would it prevent a teacher from doing so in the classroom?
Second, there are less than 100 women in all of Quebec that wear the niqab, so this is hardly a matter of widespread concern or worry. So people are wondering why the government was so quick with its “niqab” bill? (a name the government hates, btw)
Third, as a lot of people in Québec have noted, the Quebec Legislature, every town and city in the province, many of its institutions, are replete with Catholic symbols. Although the majority of Québecois might identify themselves as “Catholic,” most are not practising. While the Church may have lost much of its influence in daily life, it still pulls a lot of influence over ruling governments. Thus speculation that the provincial government is more interested in using religious bigotry and less in striving for religious and gender equality.
Of course, it doesn’t affect me directly. Not personally, anyway. Like the vast majority of people in Quebec, I’m not muslim. The “niqab” bill doesn’t apply to me. Live and let live. Or can this bill — if made into law and picked up by other provinces as Quebec’s justice minister said she hopes it would — be used to impinge upon Indigenous rights?
I’ve always heard that if you put some bit of power into the hands of a bureaucrat, that bureaucrat will find some way to use it. So I wondered whether this bill — what Québec calls an “open secular” bill — could be used to, say, allow prison guards to violate the medicine bundles of Indigenous elders? Or to deny my ceremonies, such as “smudging,’ in the name of “open secularism”?
Could Québec’s “niqab” bill be twisted to impinge upon or undermine other rights, religious or otherwise?
Anyone?
While I see your point about how banning the niqab, one kind of cultural/religious symbol, could lead to the banning of others, such a medicine bundles, the wearing of the niqab is a very thorny issue.
While I don't agree with the ban in Quebec, I can't stand the niqab. Women fought for a long time to have the right to personhood in Canada and in other countries where women have equal legal and constitutional rights, and the niqab symbolizes the denial of this personhood. Showing your face, and having an identity – being recognized as a person – is fundamental to freedom. So over the long term, the niqab is not workable in a society like Canada's.
Eventually, either the women veiling themselves, or their daughters or granddaughters, will have to abandon the niqab in order to participate in society. I also question whether all the women wearing the niqab in Canada are actually doing so willingly, or if some of them are pressured to wear it by their families.
A great many Muslim people oppose the niqab, and it is forbidden at the grand mosque in Mecca, the Ka'aba, where Muslims have prayed for 1400 years.
The question of which religious and cultural practices to ban will always be fraught. But there is really no way out of tackling the issue, because some practices are inhumane – female “circumcision” being an obvious one. Religious and cultural practices that truly benefit men, women and children should of course never be banned. Which are beneficial and which are not will sometimes be difficult to discern. But the questions about practices that could exploit people, especially the vulnerable, cannnot be left to the private realm because that is where harmful practices flourish.
Aboriginal people in Canada have every reason to mistrust the decision-making processes of the government and many other Canadian institutions. When it comes to FN cultures, the society's ignorance is probably as great as it is regarding Muslim culture, and the prejudices against Indigenous peoples are far more entrenched, built into the structure of Canadian society.
There is no reason for Aboriginal people to trust Canada's institutions to protect their cultural and religious practices. But there still needs to be a way for people within Indigenous societies to question practices if they feel the need to do so.
I think this whole issue is a thorny one, for all societies.
While I see your point about how banning the niqab, one kind of cultural/religious symbol, could lead to the banning of others, such a medicine bundles, the wearing of the niqab is a very thorny issue.
While I don't agree with the ban in Quebec, I can't stand the niqab. Women fought for a long time to have the right to personhood in Canada and in other countries where women have equal legal and constitutional rights, and the niqab symbolizes the denial of this personhood. Showing your face, and having an identity – being recognized as a person – is fundamental to freedom. So over the long term, the niqab is not workable in a society like Canada's.
Eventually, either the women veiling themselves, or their daughters or granddaughters, will have to abandon the niqab in order to participate in society. I also question whether all the women wearing the niqab in Canada are actually doing so willingly, or if some of them are pressured to wear it by their families.
A great many Muslim people oppose the niqab, and it is forbidden at the grand mosque in Mecca, the Ka'aba, where Muslims have prayed for 1400 years.
The question of which religious and cultural practices to ban will always be fraught. But there is really no way out of tackling the issue, because some practices are inhumane – female “circumcision” being an obvious one. Religious and cultural practices that truly benefit men, women and children should of course never be banned. Which are beneficial and which are not will sometimes be difficult to discern. But the questions about practices that could exploit people, especially the vulnerable, cannnot be left to the private realm because that is where harmful practices flourish.
Aboriginal people in Canada have every reason to mistrust the decision-making processes of the government and many other Canadian institutions. When it comes to FN cultures, the society's ignorance is probably as great as it is regarding Muslim culture, and the prejudices against Indigenous peoples are far more entrenched, built into the structure of Canadian society.
There is no reason for Aboriginal people to trust Canada's institutions to protect their cultural and religious practices. But there still needs to be a way for people within Indigenous societies to question practices if they feel the need to do so.
I think this whole issue is a thorny one, for all societies.