Tempest in a niqab

What Naema Ahmed’s expulsion from a French class really shows

by Philippe Gohier on Wednesday, March 24, 2010 12:16pm - 155 Comments
Tempest in a Niqab

Photograph by David Boily/ La Presse

UPDATE: The Quebec government tabled a bill Wednesday requiring faces to be in plain view when obtaining or delivering government services.

In August 2009, Naema Ahmed, a pharmacist, mother of three and an observant Muslim living in Montreal, began what is known in French as a cour de francisation—literally, a Frenchifying class—at CEGEP Saint-Laurent in the city’s north end. Apart from being taught the (often confounding) rules of French conjugation, students taking the 33-week, 1,000-hour class learn rhythm, intonation and the practical use of the language: how to shop for groceries and clothes, as well as how to ask for help if they get lost or confused. They also learn the basic workings of Quebec society: that it is French-speaking, secular and considers men and women as equals. In other words, the class teaches integration nearly as much as it does the French language.

At the behest of a school official, Ahmed lifted her niqab—a garment worn by certain observant Muslim women that covers the whole face except the eyes—when registering for the course. When she showed up for class, however, Ahmed refused to remove her veil in the presence of the three male students in attendance in the class of 19. The following 11 weeks, according to a government source, “were one step forward, two steps back”; the teacher often had to halt oral exercises between students to accommodate Ahmed—she didn’t want to speak unveiled to the men of the class. Moreover, the source said, Ahmed at first agreed to remove her niqab for certain exercises, then changed her mind as the classes wore on. “There was no will on her part to compromise,” said the source. (Ahmed was contacted by Maclean’s for this story, but she declined an interview.)

Midway through the second 11-week block of classes, the teacher had had enough. She went to the director of the school, Paul-Émile Bourque. School officials further attempted to have Ahmed remove the veil, which failed; Bourque then called the province’s Immigration Ministry, which runs the classes. (The $4,000-program is entirely subsidized by the Quebec government.) With the consent of Yolande James, Quebec’s minister of immigration, Ahmed was asked to leave the class. It was likely the first time in the program’s 40-year history that a student was turned away on account of a few square centimetres of black cloth.

Ahmed has now become the centrepiece of the ensuing media storm; another school asked her to leave when her name hit the headlines across the country, after she refused yet again to remove her niqab. She has since filed a complaint with Quebec’s human rights tribunal. It is the latest salvo in the continuing debate over so-called “reasonable accommodations,” pitting the Quebec model of integration against the religious convictions of a handful of recent arrivals—and, some say, the rest-of-Canada model that exists outside Quebec’s borders.

Welcoming—and fretting about—immigration has been something of a national pastime since well before the federal government enshrined multiculturalism as its official policy in 1971. From outrage at the spectre of pork-free cabanes à sucre in Quebec to a backlash against religious schools in Ontario and beyond, the country as a whole has experienced certain growing pains as it has come to depend on immigrants to buoy its flagging number of old-stock Canadians.

But what Ahmed’s case shows, more than any intolerance in Quebec, may be how the country remains divided along linguistic lines. “It was a decision that needed to be made,” James told Maclean’s recently, of her decision to become personally involved in the case. “We have a responsibility to defend the individual rights and freedoms, but I also believe that one person’s rights must take into account the individual rights of others.” And the vast majority of Quebecers agreed with the government’s decision to ask Ahmed to leave.

But reaction outside Quebec was swift and righteously outraged. “Quebec…is proving to be unreasonable,” opined the Globe and Mail in an editorial, suggesting that the removal of Ahmed from the class was akin to “empowering state agents to enforce dress codes”—something usually reserved for “Arab and West Asian countries, such as the former Taliban regime.” “Quebec…is fast becoming the most hostile province in Canada for anyone of a minority culture or religion,” wrote Calgary Herald columnist Naomi Lakritz. “In Quebec they don’t like the burka,” wrote CBC business columnist and anchor Amanda Lang on her Twitter account. “[A]nd they’re funding in vitro with tax dollars…anyone see a pattern here?” (Lang, who didn’t respond to requests to elaborate, apparently confused the niqab with the burka, the far more constraining garment worn primarily in Afghanistan and Pakistan.)

This sentiment doesn’t necessarily stand up to the facts. In the past 10 years, Quebec has seen a 50 per cent increase in the number of permanent residents living within its borders. Yet, says Université de Montréal professor Marie McAndrew, the province is still seen as intolerant and backward. At the same time, many Quebecers believe the rest of Canada is a cabal of “ghettoized communities where no one speaks to each other.” A recent Environics poll suggests that while Canadians feel discrimination on the whole is on the wane, they make an exception when it comes to English-French relations: each group feels persecuted by the other in roughly the same measures as five years ago, when the poll was last conducted.

Bookmark and Share
  • Guest

    Anyone with a little common sense can see very well she is manipulating the system and has a political agenda that is ill willed. Canada has to exercise far greater standards with regards to it's immigration system. It's later than you think. Look at Europe!!!

    • Julie

      Agreed! Some good videos on You Tube on how Muslims seem to have an overly inflated sense of entitlement & self-importance. Not to mention – they like protest marches. Reminds me of the late '60s hippies!

      • ASB

        "Muslims seem to have an overly inflated sense of entitlement & self-importance." kind of like Candians eh?

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/jackatsura jackatsura

    The great majority of Canadians have no issue with Religious Islam, but have grave concerns with Political Islam with its dream of a world Caliphate, death to all Infidels (anyone not Muslim) and violent behaviour through terrorism, beheadings and suicide bombings. We also have serious reservations about Social Islam with its misogyny and treatment of women as chattel, its homophobia, racism and intolerance , its pedophilia (forced marriages between children and dirty old men), Sharia, polygamy, violence and segregation. Islam is condemned to the values of the 7th century and is incapable of evolving as western religions did ( we must remember that Judaism and Christianity were very violent and regressive initially as well but evolved painfully through the centuries to the values our society treasure today). Muslims are forbidden to evolve as the "word of Allah" is unquestionable and cannot be adapted to modern realities. It is truly a Clash of Civilizations and we must insist that our values be respected and celebrated, at least in our country. We can thank Mr. Trudeau for imposing his utopian multiculturalism on all of us in the Canadian Constitution. We are now seeing some of the negative fallout. We don't require or expect new Canadians to assimilate, but at least to integrate and respect our equalitarian, secular values that were gained at great cost by previous generations. The niqab is an affront to these values, and good on Quebec for finally facing the issue.

    • Keith in Brampton

      BINGO!!!

    • ASB

      Please please dont think that all islamic nations dream a world of Caliphate and death to anyone not muslim. countries like Indonesia, the most populous muslim nation in the world, hate terrorists and exert a considerable amount of resources to curtail it. If a terrorist is found in Indonesia, expect the arrest, the trial and the execution to be completed on the same day. These radicals are a miniscule minority

  • Michelle

    I am extremely tired of all the political "correctness" over these matters. I think Canada, and Canadians in general should be tolerate. But there are LIMITS to that tolerance. And those limits should be clear when the rights of other individuals are impacted by attempts to be "politically correct".

    This is Canada and in Canada we do not have a history of concealing our faces, we have never had a cultural preference to do so and it has never been accepted as a social norm. It is my personal opinion that it is a public security issue to have people allowed to walk around with their faces covered. I feel that whether you are taking a class, using public transportation or in the grocery store you have a right to be able to assess your surroundings and be aware of who is near you. If you are in a room with a group of people who all have their faces covered than who's rights are more important in that case? The groups or yours?

    I agree with the Quebec government 100% on this issue. I see absolutely no reason why the men in the class had to be inconvenienced in order to abide by the preferences of this woman. What about THEIR right to a proper education?

    Human rights mean nothing if people can justify actions based on their "human right" when that "human right" impacts the rights and welfare of other individuals. It seems fairly clear to me that this woman has an agenda and I don't respect her agenda.

    Decisions should be made for the greater good. And in this case, I think we should exercise common sense instead of rushing to appear politically correct all the time.

    If anything, it appears obvious in the article that attempts to accommodate this woman were made. It's not as if the school asked her to leave immediately without attempting to make some sort of reasonable concession.

    • Julie

      Agree with you fully.

      Note, the classes were free – paid for by government, she probably was getting subsidized childcare, she gets free medical.And how did she plan to work in a pharmacy in Canada, where both men & women are served? What would she have done if a man came in & asked for Viagra?

      This wasn't a religious protest, it was an attempt to generate a lawsuit so she could live off Canadian taxpayers. She seems like a parasite..

      • guest

        tsk tsk tsk

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/frenchie101 frenchie101

    WTG Quebec, I am with you on this 100%.

  • Noburqa

    And how is Ms. Ahmed supposed to 'make ends meet'? What kind of a job can she get? How can she apply for a job, let alone get one, if nobody can see her face and she is forbidden to interact with half of the population?

    Sorry, but a domestic animal is less isolated.

    After the government, private institutions will go the same path. It is a matter of time until a bank denies them entry, or a store or a commerce. After all, their security cameras have to have a purpose.

    This is beyond archaic. It is even beyond prehistoric. It has no place here. Even an Amish community wouldn't tolerate it.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/luisse12 luisse12

      i have to say, that i totally disagree with your last statement, i live in an Amish community (being Mennonite myself). it would be tolerated and also accepted.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Lantzvillain Lantzvillain

    My objection is this: In our exceptionally free and open society, NO facial disguise ought to be permissible. We need to be able to identify any person who breaks the law or threatens us. When did wearing a mask or disguise of any type get to be a "Canadian Value" – except in a hockey game or behind home plate on the baseball diamond, or maybe a performance of Phantom of the Opera?

    • Keith in Brampton

      In Newfoundland, we have a tradition of mummering (or jannying), originating in Britain, which involves dressing up in disguise at Christmas and going door to door. If invited in, the hosts then try to guess who is wearing the disguise. It is dying out because some took advantage of the disguises to get up to some less than savoury activities. Mummers now risk charges under the Criminal code for wearing a disguise. The Niqab's purpose is much the same: to render the person anonymous and unrecognizable. Why is it treated differently under the law? Alternately, if mummers declare themselves an offshoot of Christianity, would their right to wear the disguises then be protected under law?

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/adb215 adb215

    I am personally more concerned with immigrants who refuse to learn one of our official languages. And now this woman can't. I also don't really think that the state should be telling me how to dress. All of you agree with Quebec because it isn't the government coming after you. Try thinking outside the box. What about if they disallow any visible crosses, eg) necklaces? THEN would you be so supportive? Same rationale applies: separation of Church and state – so no visible religious garb in any public place, just like in France. Think about that for awhile before you disagree. How would your Grandparents feel if they were told they couldn't wear their religious symbols out of their house? That might destroy mine. For the record, I'd rather all religious symbols/garb be banned in public as I am atheist. Doesn't affect me.

    • Ryan

      A necklace doesn't cover anyone's face.

    • wlpc

      Culturally and historically, Canada's heritage is Judeo/Christian/Catholic and its laws and mores are based on those beliefs. As long as the majority of folks share that common ancestry, one will live as a Canadian in Canada. If one does not share in those beliefs, and doesn't make the effort to learn about their host's customs, one will still be tolerated and treated with respect, but only in so far as the newbie doesn't infringe/impede on the long established local customs, laws and mores of the natives. When in Rome …, etc.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Viva_Vivian Viva_Vivian

      Apples and oranges. A necklace around the next does not protect a woman from being raped, which is the TRUE significance of these garments. She's not wearing it out of some religious divinity — burkas, et al, are relatively new on the Islamic scene. As an athiest and a human, I do care about others' subjugation and false piety, and I will stand up and declare that it be stopped.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/adb215 adb215

        But who are you to tell others how to interpret their religion? Some people think the bible tells them they can't use birth control. Other don't. Do you dictate to them? I think ALL religion is lunacy but I don't go around telling people how to dress. It's none of my damn business.

  • Mike

    I guess the Quebecois have more sense than the rest of Canada and the US. Whether it is 5 years or 50 years from now those who disagree with Quebec right now will eventually wish they had followed their lead, or our children and grand children will wish we had.

  • http://meccaneck.wordpress.com/ Van Grungy

    If both men and women are covered by the 'face cover' ban, I have zero problem…

    The important issue to remember is the resistance against blanket monitoring…

    Don't become England… Don't become "Reality Show Hell"…

    Always remember… Hell is a purely human construct…

  • A Canadian

    I have lived in other countries before and when choosing where to live I took into consideration the laws and culture of that country. Never did I go somewhere expecting for their laws to be changed or adapted to suit myself better. I have now settled in Canada I accept the laws and cultures of Canada and Canadians. Yes there are practises, beliefs that do not agree with my own religion, but I came here because it offers a better, more promising future. All immigrants need to recognise, respect and follow the Canadian customs and laws that are in place here or else Canada will no longer be the better country which we all left our own countries to be a part of.

  • hosertohoosier

    To me it seems like there are two separate issues. If this woman was not participating in the class, then she should probably fail it (rather than being banned from taking it, or any similar class – how does that help anybody?). The other issue is the Niqab, which should have no bearing on this debate. We are not, and shouldn't be in the business of refusing access to government services on the basis of people's clothing choices.

    To those that view a niqab as un-Canadian, I disagree. The point of Canada, and of Canada's commitment to women's rights isn't that all women should have jobs and wear pant-suits, or whatever. The point is that women should have a choice. Naema Ahmed does have a choice – if she wants to take her Niqab off she can because she lives in a free country. Freedom also means she should have the ability to put the Niqab on, unless it somehow interferes with somebody else.

    To be honest, I'm pretty flabbergasted by the reaction I've seen on the comment boards here, and hope it is not indicative of Canadian opinion as a whole.

    • http://intensedebate.com/profiles/vangrungy vangrungy

      hosertohoosier,

      Canadians should speak out against female abuse by niqab everywhere the niqab appears… Otherwise, Canadian will be equated with Hypocritical…

      • hosertohoosier

        Where is the abuse? The only person I see being abused is the one being refused government services to which she is due.

        If your argument is that women that don't want to wear the Niqab may be ostracized by their communities if they don't, I have a few responses.
        1. If that is true, rather than 'liberating' women, you are avoiding the root problem (that there is some community that oppresses women) and adding to the woes of such women by refusing them government services. That is especially bad because it means their husbands will learn English/French and they won't.
        2. There are probably at least some women that do want to wear a Niqab (quite possible a majority within the community). Why don't their preferences count as women's rights? Why is the imposition of a ban by the government upon them not female abuse?
        3. Frankly, it is the right of people to ostracize others if they don't like them or their behavior. The flipside of that is that in Canada you can always ignore or abandon a community of which you are a member (of course it is always easier to do that if you have the opportunity to say, learn French, etc).

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/Viva_Vivian Viva_Vivian

          Please educate yourself about Islam. I would recommend Ayaan Hirsi Ali's memoir "Infidel" to start. If you think Islam is like Christianity, or that there is some informed, educated, freedom of choice decision about covering yourself head to toe in black in the works here, you are sorely, sorely mistaken. Wasn't it only a month ago a girl was discovered in Turkey on the side of the road, her lungs filled with dirt, buried alive because she had dishonored her father by talking to a boy? These things don't matter to you?

          • ASB

            Generalizations are real easy vivian..

            "The most authentic ruling according to the majority of scholars is that it is not necessary and, unlike hijab, there is no sin if it is not worn. Some of these scholars state that wearing the niqab as an act of extra piety, provided they do not believe it is an obligation, will be rewarded."

            - http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/bel…

            It is a choice of hers making it a womans right, her right. BTW i do agree with Quebec's decision but don't think her religion is hindering her freedom of choice.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/adb215 adb215

        You want to talk about female abuse? How about our culture that engages in blaming rape victims for being raped (eg. she shouldn't walk down the street at night alone; she shouldn't dress like that, etc). How about the media, which tells women they aren't beautiful unless they are thin and wear makeup. But the makeup can't look like makeup or like it took a long time to apply. Let's talk about THAT abuse. How these images are driving young girls to anorexia and bulimia at an alarming rate. How about we focus on real abuse and not a piece of f*cking cloth.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/luisse12 luisse12

      it is so refreshing to hear someone talk about freedom, all we have heard about are rules, but Canada is the land of freedom. i also agree with your last statement i realy hope this does not reflect on the Canadian opinion as a whole.

  • Martin

    I agree with the Quebec decision. This is a not a religious matter but a tradition according to Sheikh Mohammed Tantawi, regarded by many as Egypt's Imam and Sunni Islam's foremost spiritual authority. Why would she insist on wearing it here in school while it is banned in schools in her homeland Egypt is beyond me?

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Viva_Vivian Viva_Vivian

      It's not banned. I don't know where people are getting that idea from.

  • Canadian Minority

    Way to go Quebec !! this is a breath of fresh air , Canadians are slowly loosing who we are to immigration!

    Tired of loosing my Canadian Identity

    • real

      If incidents like this make you fear for your Can. identity, I'd suggest that you have already lost your Canadian identity

    • AB1

      I thought the French left their homeland and landed on Canada , I didn't know it was the other way around. Strange

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/One2work One2work

    Bravo Quebec!! If I go to Egypt or KSA, I have to cover my arms & legs. If she comes here, she has to uncover her face; she is a 'person' here – unlike where she comes from. We read people's faces for reaction, interest, attitude. If she came here looking for a job I would not bother to interview her. Most employers would feel the same way. Hence, she will remain unemployed, a drain on the taxpayers of our great country. If she doesn't like it, she can always go back to Egypt. Most Muslims are making a positive contribution and like the rest of us, you cannot tell where we worship by our attire.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/adb215 adb215

      When you go to those countries, you cover up because you'd be breaking the law otherwise. Do you really want to equate Canada with places like Egypt?

    • Ab1

      How is she treated as a person here? She's treated as less than human if she can't get interviewed because of what she's wearing. The same logic used to go those who were hardly wearing anything. Don't know if Islamophobia will change that attitude too.

  • Lyle Henderson

    Brockville, Ontario – Quebec has come up with a very reasonable accomodation. A Niqab is not acceptable in Schools or Government service offices where facial recognition and facial expressions are important. If you want to wear it at home, on the street or any place else where it is acceptable, please feel free.
    People forget that this is only from certain sects, not from the Quran which only calls for "modesty". Quite a long stretch from that to any head covering let alone a Niqab, but that's up to to those who want to wear it.

  • R. Daley

    I personally agree with Quebec!!

  • Marushka

    Ban the niqab, burka and hijab in Canada! Or ban the people who insist on wearing them. Though the argument is that we need immigration to bolster up an ageing and child-lite country, we don't need these particular immigrants. There are lots of other countries to choose from.
    There are a few Muslim women in Vancouver who wear niquabs (I've only seen one in an Afghani burka), but most don't cover their faces, and the ones that work in places like 7-Eleven, just wear a headscarf. I can't imagine that Ms. Ahmed realistically expects to get a job in Canada if she insists on covering her face and not tolerating men in her presence. Would you want to get your prescriptions from a masked pharmacist?

    • AB1

      What about a masked doctor taking care of you? Scarey

  • marusha

    Well I never thought I'd agree with the Quebec government but they've got it right on. Too bad the federal government doesn't operate like this. I think if you want to immigrate to Canada then be a Canadian. We waste too much money on multiculturism. If they want to keep their old ways why come here? My parents came here from Europe, learned the language, worked hard, and were proud to be Canadian. They didn't expect any special treatment like the immigrants nowdays.

  • george

    We should not make kind face on bullshit…If it is bullshit we have to make expression of nonconfirmance with all this face maskarade in the name of faux attitude of a global tolerance of international customs.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/jblackbear jblackbear

    Rarely agree with Quebecers but they are bang on in with this one. No one should have to cover there face in public unless they are hiding something. The rest of the provinces should support Quebec on this and if immigrants don't like it they can go home.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/adb215 adb215

      Just the sort of Canadian tolerance that we're known for. Blend in or get the f*ck out. You sound like an American.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/luisse12 luisse12

    Are all of you stupid?????!!!!! we live in canada, the free country,"our true north strong and free", the land of promise, the place people come for reffuge. if all christians were baned from wearing crosses, what would we say? these people are comming here to get a new life, a life where we are alowed to live, talk, play and yes, DRESS like we would like. there is as much defiance in wearing a niqabs as there is in wearing a dress, yes, times have changed, but we still have the freedom to wear what we want. freedom is the key in our country and if we take that away, we die. canadians are the frendly country, but from what i have read we are no better than the idiots who control these countries. is our need for every one to be the same so strong that we are willing to take away all chance that these people had at a new life by kicking them out of school.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/freedom4peace freedom4peace

    i completly agree with luisse i think we should be allowed to dress as we like. cmon people we do not want the war to come to us and screw us over because you idiots are stirring up the already weak relationship we have with the muslims and i'm not even sure what canada is now because you idiots are ripping on people just like this.

    • Michael

      we dont want the war to come to us ? should we all convert to islam?

      This country has been built by a lot of different people with different nationalities however not one of them expected the country to bend over backwards for them. If she wants to wear her religions garment wear it at home or in a private school, if you want to get government funding to learn the language then respect our policies.

      Sometimes I wonder who screens the immigration application forms, and if it's really hard to figure out who will assimilate better in this country and who wont because I'm sure there are lots of other women and men who would love to have the opportunity to come here and start over.

      • FREEDOM

        well it is your choice if you want to you can can do you think he care? not really. so just go put your tail between your legs and go away!

  • Orwell, 1984

    >> a student was turned away on account of a few square centimetres of black cloth.

    well, I come in the class naked shall I be turned away or admitted? Following you – it is the same "few square centimetres of black cloth"…

    The issue is – it is not!

    It is about cultural norms of a particular society in particular time and place, and is not about freedoms of expression or religion as some try to portray. For those I can suggest to study!!

  • Alphamel

    Just what is Naema Ahmed doing in a secular non- believer society in the first place? Part of a vanguard to overpopulate then convert Canada to a true Believer Islamic Theocracy perhaps? Are Muslim countries too restrictive for her?

    • AB1

      I didn't know humans had a choice of their family, heritage, or where they were born. Does that exist by itself or does it require time travel?

  • JWB

    "Empowering state agents to enforce dress codes", like Arab and West Asian countries and the Taliban regime?
    Come on Globe and Mail you sicken me!
    This is Canada! Not a Muslim country!
    There has to be line drawn between what protects the individual freedoms of immigrated Canadians and the Canadians that already live here allowing Canada to be the free nation that it is.
    I would be very surprised to learn that the majority of Canadians are sympathetic to those Muslims who wear the Niqab. It is a symbol of Muslim oppression to women. Its use in our country states that Canadians do not condone it.
    This nation was not founded by extremists and backward religions, if it was no one would want to immigrate here.
    Canadians need to start putting the foot down and protecting our values. Please stop the left wing ninny human tribunal committees sympathizing with every little backward idea from centuries past that certain immigrants tend to bring with them.
    If you don't like it then immigrate somewhere else.
    To my humbled surprise I make the following statement: Thank you Quebec!

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Iccyh Iccyh

    The big question is outlined in the second to last paragraph:

    What is Naema Ahmed supposed to do now? How is she supposed to be integrated into society, niqab or no, when she's being denied the opportunity to learn the language and she's going to have a horrible time finding a job? She's got a family to support. It is kind of cruel to force someone to choose between their religious beliefs and being able to support their family.

    She might be Muslim and she might have different beliefs, but she's still just another human trying to do their best for their family and somehow make ends meet.

  • Offended Canadian

    She isn't trying to integrate into Canadian society. If she desires the dress of a repressive POLITICAL society then the woman should relocate back to that country. This dress code has nothing to do with religion, it has all to do with the politics designed to control women.

    These dress codes that hide women's bodies and faces should be outlawed.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Funny_guy Funny_guy

    If she isn't happy, she should leave! She can go and be a **pharmacist** somewhere else. You should have seen her video interview. She came here with a political agenda to create problems. It SCREAMS spin doctor.

  • Marion

    She can hire a private teacher. Then she can learn French on her terms.

    I think in the end it comes down to the fact that her behavior was disrupting the class and hindering not only her own progress, but that of her classmates.

    By hiring her own teacher, she can make sure it's a female and learn the language at her pace.

  • Ralph

    Seeing ones facial expression goes a long way to understanding a foreign language. They teach us deaf people to read lips as a helpful exercize in understanding a speaker. Hard to do that seeing only eyes!!

  • Darden Cavalcade

    Is Ahmed really "trying to do [her] best"? If she had wanted to observe the social customs of her native land, why not stay in her native land?

    All these costumes worn by Muslim women have nothing to do with the requirements of Islam. They are cultural artifacts required by social custom in the Middle East-NorthAfrica.

  • Feministkaren

    Wearing the niquab is not a religious belief. It is not in the Koran that a woman must cover her face. The dress is a cultural choice and one that indicates that women are so sexually enticing to men that men cannot control themselves and it is the woman's job to control men's desire by covering up. It is indicative of a culture that puts men above women in value and is ashamed of women's bodies. It is important that we all learn what other cultures are about – that way no one can accuse you of being intolerant of another's religion. Our culture is about freedom of choice but not being ashamed of our human bodies – including our faces. And hopefully it is about common sense.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/RunningGag RunningGag

    While I'm still not sure how I feel about this issue, I had read that she was offered online instruction and declined it.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/One2work One2work

    What is she supposed to do now? Take the frigging thing off and integrate!!!! She doesn't have to wear it and she knows that. She might learn to speak French or English better and get a job! That's how it works.

  • D Piche

    Oh please. I was born and raised in this country and had to choose between my religion and supporting my family several times a year when I couldn't get time off work for Sundays, Christmas, or any other Catholic holiday. I chose to support my family. If I have to make that choice here in my own native country, why should immigrants have the luxury of using their religion for special treatment in any ways whatsoever?

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Iccyh Iccyh

    So, you think she should take herself and her kids back to what is possibly a repressive society, rather than staying here and giving her kids a better opportunity?

    That doesn't strike me as a particularly nice or compassionate thing to say, you know? Personally, I don't care if she's Muslim or no, she's still human.

  • webster

    Brava. Do you know how many people — the media included — refer to the niqab/burka/hijab as a "religious garment"? All of these so-called representations of religious belief are sprung from political oppression. The burka, et al, did not even exist in Iran (for example) until the Islamc Revolution. Furthermore, the Quran states nothing, nada, zip about a woman covering herself from head to toe in obeisance to Allah. It does not exist. What exists is the psychology of the garment — a woman's body is a shameful, sexually arousing thing to behold and Naema knows this. This is what she has been taught. You cover yourself or risk rape. THAT is the attitudes of the Nations of Islam.

    Ignorance is powerful, terrifying thing.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/MyOpinion67 MyOpinion67

    The covering of women has no religious basis and therefore she SHOULD have no recourse to involve any Human Rights Commission. Her actions in the classroom displayed HER intolerance of our rules. Stop with the drivel on religious rights.
    The cover is a symbol of oppression and exhudes an air of subservancy. In Canada and other Countries we have worked tirelessly to treat women as equals. In this culture women are used in child bearing, household duties and to provide sex when demanded. Imagine being a woman and you are not authorized to leave the house without being escorted by a man. Imagine not being valued enough to have an education. Imagine that your life can be ended at anytime by your male owner if he so choses to.
    Canadians do not hide our faces unless the windchill dictates it.
    By following this cultural oppression you are supporting the subservancy of women, something women in our country have worked so hard to reverse.

  • webster

    You are ignoring the issue. When you decide to immigrate to another country, you are making a vow to respect the laws and insitutions that exist in that host country. Quebec is standing up and saying "We value women. Women are equal to men." They understand what the detestable "Muslim" garments represent and they do not welcome it. And neither do I, because I do not look at mysogyny and say okay just because it immigrated from another country.

  • webster

    Right. The program is subsidized by Quebec taxpayers. She's learning for free and thumbing her nose at a simple request. I think it shows an incredible amount of entitlement.

  • Darden Cavalcade

    Excellent point.

  • a language teacher

    Politics, religion and dress aside, it is difficult to teach someone to speak a new language if that person's voice is muffled by covering and one cannot see how the sounds are being formed by the speaker. Without evident facial expressions, the speaker has handicapped herself in giving clues to her meaning. Moreover, in test situations, the nigab etc can hide earphones and other technology used to cheat.

    Further, she has not been prevented from learning the official language or finding a job; there are other venues in which she could get language training, such as non-profit immigrant agencies where her cultural needs might be better accommodated. Similarly for finding a job, she is going to need to find a place of employment that would accept her niqab.

  • AB1

    Why is Mary covered for ? Mother Theresa?

From Macleans