About Face

A bill banning the niqab—supported by a majority of Canadians: how did our multicultural, tolerant nation get here?

by Martin Patriquin and Charlie Gillis on Wednesday, April 7, 2010 8:30am - 174 Comments
About Face

Photograph by Peter Mccabe

Shama Naz, a mother of two young girls who lives in the Montreal suburb of Kirkland, visited the emergency room of the Lakeshore General Hospital last Sunday after her eldest daughter accidentally poked her left eye with a pencil. A native of Pakistan, Naz wears a niqab, a garment worn by some Islamic women that covers the entire face save for the eyes. A few days before, the Quebec government had announced legislation that would force her to remove her niqab to receive any government service; though it isn’t yet law, she wondered half-jokingly whether she would be turned away at the hospital.

She wasn’t. Her niqab stayed in place until she was able to see a doctor; then, as she has done countless times while writing exams, taking passport pictures and going across international borders, she took it off—without the prompting of the doctor, who happened to be a man. “Law or no law, it’s just about common sense,” Naz says. “For me, it’s never been an issue.”

Soon enough, Naz will be compelled by law, not only common sense, to doff her niqab whenever she visits the hospital, goes to school, has her licence renewed, or avails herself of any other service provided or funded by the provincial government. Introduced last week, Bill 94 is the first legislation in North America to place a de facto ban on any religious face coverings in any government building—including within the walls of every government-subsidized high school, CEGEP and university in Quebec.

Quebecers have risen in support of the bill, and in a rare show of national unity rivalling even that seen during the recent Olympics, the rest of the country is largely behind them, according to a recent Angus Reid poll, which found that 95 per cent of Quebecers, and three out of four of non-Quebecers, approved of Bill 94. The issue has brought together the governing Conservatives and the Liberals, both of which were quick to endorse the bill, while even the Bloc Québécois (no friend of the current Quebec government) agreed with certain aspects of the law, albeit tepidly. Even certain Muslim groups praised Bill 94 as an example of moderation.

“Two words: uncovered face,” said Quebec Premier Jean Charest last week, after tabling Bill 94. “The principle is clear.” His national assembly colleagues were even more unequivocal. Cabinet minister Christine St-Pierre called religious face coverings “ambulatory prisons,” while Parti Québécois immigration critic Louise Beaudoin said any religious head coverings, not just the niqab or the more restrictive burka, are examples of “submission of women, of regression, and a subjugation of all our freedoms.” Bill 94, Beaudoin says, is “anemic.” Translation: the bill doesn’t go nearly far enough.

Beyond all the rhetoric is an enduring and familiar narrative playing out across much of the Western world: to what extent religion is to be accommodated by the governments of secular societies. In France, the Sarkozy government is attempting to ban the niqab and burka outright, though the spectre of court challenges will likely cause it to back off somewhat. In November, Switzerland voted to ban the construction of new minarets, the turrets that typically adorn the roofs of mosques—a policy several right-wing parties are considering for the entire EU.

In contrast to these radical measures, Weil says, Quebec’s bill is a “common sense piece of legislation”—a happy medium between what she calls the “pur et dur secularism of France and the Parti Québécois” and carte blanche for every religious whim and practice in state institutions. The bill doesn’t actually mention the niqab or the burka; rather, it mandates that in government institutions, people must, for reasons of “security, communication and identification,” show their face during the delivery of services.

In practice, however, there is little doubt whom this bill targets: the handful of Islamic women in Quebec who wear face coverings as a demonstration of modesty, piety and subservience to God—the only religion in which some practitioners still do so. Many Quebec Muslims feel targeted by the Quebec government, and say the scope of the proposed law is disproportionate to the small number of niqab wearers (estimated to be between 24 and 90 in all of Quebec).

Bookmark and Share
  • http://intensedebate.com/people/A_READER_ A_READER_

    This is about making women submit in a visual and public way through a manner of restricted dress/attire, whether the actual woman covered recognizes it for what it really is or not, the rest of us sure do.

    Also in our culture we expect to be able to read the faces of the people in our daily lives, it's how we've operated for centuries. In fact, covering of the face to us, means you 're a criminal. Not that we think all covered woman are criminals, but that's our way of thinking about the whole "hide your face" issue, it's a long standing traditional trust on face value custom here, and we're still big on it.
    (An old joke about a higher than expected bill – here that high bill might be accompanied by a comment to the effect of: "Gee, they should have a mask on when they take my money for this!")

    I am impressed with the co-operation between all parties and governing bodies to get this accomplished, nice to see that on something this vital for our nation, they did stand together.
    Well done all.

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

    Of course, the tribal mentality also has the individual in mind (the two are interwoven there as well) but since reason can only find its way through the individual, an enhanced well-being of the collective comes about by the individual being reasonable. Reason is directly linked to responsibility. Without reason one could not come to understand the meaning of responsibilty. Yet, rights, and individual rights in particular (although all rights are ultmately individual in nature) can only be granted by the collective.

    Rights and responsibilities belong together within a closed cirlce. They together form the closed circle, just like the individual and the collective together form a closed circle. They are together or they are not!

    (continued)

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

    The granting of rights indicates that the collective places itself within an indirect understanding of itself. Namely by receiving a stronger sense of the collective in return by means of reason. Since reason cannot let itself be known through the collective (how could it?), reason must travel through the individual and by means of responsibility is the collective served purposefully. Out of such enhanced collective will the individual appear stronger, hence the truly progressive cycle in action.

    (continued)

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

      Gaulinon quotes:

      "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

      Very important quote, actually. But Gaulinon makes one mistake, however, and the mistake is this:

      By being human does the "Creator" reveal itself specifically. I am trying to look up a quote by Carl Jung in that respect but I cannot find it right now. I will post it a.s.a. I have found it. I didn't want to loose the sequence of these postings.

      Untill then…………..

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

        Found the quote by Jung:

        ""Now the remarkable thing here is that it is not Hiawatha who passes through death and emerge reborn, as might be excpected, but the god. It is not man who is transformed imto a god, but the god who undergoes transformation in and through man."

        In other words, the frist phrase of the US declaration of independence does not fall out of the sky, but is as possibility by reasonable people.

        The so-called "right" is not dictated upon by religion but is by recognition, through reason, of what religion entails (or teaches, reveals) in its "unspoiled" form.

        I don't believe the so-called "left' truly unnderstands this, and that would be an important difference to point out.

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

          And so back to the burka:

          the wearing of the burka points back to a demishment of "self'.

          Furthermore, the wearing of the burka indicates an regressive understanding of unity between male and female (in regards to understanding the wider scope of unity, the understanding of unity between male and female is of utmost importance)

          furthermore, the wearing of the burka eliminates a large part of our emotional readings when interacting. Since human emotions are as longing to unite, this not being able to read emotions fully, will hamper our progress

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

            the wearing of the burka points back to a deminishment of "self'. (and possibility of reason deminished likewise)

            You may think so, and I suspect likewise, but the link is tenuous, and I'm not convinced the ban can be warranted on that basis.

            furthermore, the wearing of the burka eliminates a large part of our emotional readings when interacting. Since human emotions are as longing to unite, this not being able to read emotions fully, will hamper our progress

            Again, you may think so, and again I suspect you are correct. But does a group of individuals really have the right to prevent people from hiding their emotions if they want to do that?

          • FVerhoeven

            ok, there is a law againt appearing nude in public. Has that law ever been struck down? Of course not.

            We would not allow 20 to 90 persons in any city to walk around nude and allow it because it would only be a few doing it.

            The law against appearing nude in public is based on common sense, a rational human sense. Simply put, it would not serve the collective to have people woeling around in the nude.

            And so, a law against being totally covered, face and all, could proceed under the same common sense philosophy. One would hope, of course, that the courts have some reasonable understanding left of what goes for common sense. That then would become the ultimate question.

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

            Yeah….I follow your analogy….but still, for reasons I'm not able to get on paper, I somehow see them as not completely equivalent. So I can support the anti-nudity laws and still be uncomfortable imposing a ban against face coverings.

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

            "But does a group of individuals really have the right to prevent people from hiding their emotions if they want to do that? "

            But must we (as a collective) automatically grant the right upon individuals to not be emotional readable when such individuals enjoy all the benefits that our society has gathered as a result of being open and accessible? I am not sure we automatically must grant them such rights.

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

            Absolutely agree that granting rights should not be automatic…..it should absolutely be (well) reasoned.

            I'll get my parents to translate, and get back to you on "Voor wat, hoort wat!"

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

          The so-called "right" is not dictated upon by religion but is by recognition, through reason, of what religion entails (or teaches, reveals) in its "unspoiled" form.

          That strikes me as a very charitable interpretation.

          • FVerhoeven

            Look, we have to distinguish between spoiled forms of religion and unspoiled forms of religion.

            The drafters of the US declaration of independence did not believe that such independence was granted directly from above. Those drafters were much too rational to believe in anything so superstitious.

            Religion is not all bad. Religion is complicated. Our modern times has condemned religion much too fast. It is simply unreasonable to dismiss reilgion outright.

            BTW, I am not a religious person, but I am interested in religion, in the meaning of it in human terms. There is a lot we do not fully understand, including religion. But to say, as Gaulion does, that the "right" receives orders directly from above, is not well thought out. He is referring to the believers who take religion literally. I am not one of those, but I do believe religion has something to teach, regardless of how the modern world stands opposed to it.

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

            I would like to mention something else, and this may appear to be unrelated but it is not. The circle of individual versus collective, or rights versus responsibilities is also misunderstood wtihin our financial markets mis-management of late.

            You see, when rights are granted, withing the financial world, there, too, a responsibility must stand in counter to balance those rights. But when banks (and other institutions) are bailed out because they are an institution where no one particular individual is held responsible, we, on the other hand are confused when big bonuses are given out to individuals operating within the very same institutions. You see, some things are out of whack: somehow there is no individual responsibility when blame is being sought, yet, in the case of bonuses suddenly the individuals are easily indentified.

            It cannot work like that. The fundamental thinking on this has gone haywire. Same with free speech, tolerance etc. The fundamentals are not being considered, and that's all I am trying to get at.

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

            Wrt financial institutions…the disconnect that you point out is both humourous and galling at the same time.;-)

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

            I like your distinction between unspoiled and spoiled forms of religion.

            I also like your assessment of the rationality of the drafters of the US constitution. I'm not 100% sure that they were completely un-religious, although I am sure that they intended to be substantially less religious than the average US citizen assumes they were.

            Wrt religion in general, I agree that in theory it has a lot to offer (if we all actaully followed "love thy neighbour"….). However, at some point, even if a founding ideal is absolutely wonderful, but the practical implementation falls well short of that ideal, it might be time to abandon that ideal and start all over again.

  • Betty A.

    I would just like to know why the respect of others religions only seems to go one way. You don't hear Merry Christmas any more, it is now Seasons Greetings or Happy Holidays. What happen to our religious rights.

  • Joanne

    My view on this subject are coloured by an experience my daughter and I encountered in a shopping mall. An imposing figure in full Muslim female covering, with only the eyes showing, blocked our way, holding out both palms for money. Her look was so intimidating we gave her some. Afterwards, and even now, years later, I remember thinking "That's no female. The eyes are those of a male, and angry." Have I made my point?

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/scottie41 scottie41

    The real issue here is integration. If muslim women wish to progress in Canada, they will need to meet and socialize with non Muslims as well as Muslims. How does a non Muslim socialize, make friends with or trust someone whose face they have never seen?

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

    The problem is that Canada does not have the population necessary to utilize the resources we have. That is why we need immigration. With higher population we also have more people buying and selling goods, more people to serve in restaurants, pubs, buying cars, houses and the gamut of commodities. Also, we currently charge a pretty high premium for people legally immigrating to Canada so that Doctor from India has to pay a good sum of money for the right to move here as well as prove that they will not be a burden to our welfare system. Please do not confuse legal immigration with refugee status.

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

      Well that's the theory. But in actuality, there's no evidence whatsoever that the kind of immigration we've allowed in the past two decades has been an economic net gain for Canada or anywhere in the West. Everyone assumes it is, because why would we do something so counter-productive? Often figures from decades ago are used to mislead about the benefits of immigration.

      There are many reasons why immigration does not profit Canada but immigrants. One is family reunification policies that allow elderly parents here who have not paid a penny of taxes at a time in life when they will be drawing on state resources most heavily, especially health care. If a young couple brings in both sets of retired parents, they and their one or two kids will never pay in taxes what the upkeep of those non-productive geriatric Canadian citizens will cost. Don't bother mentioning sponsorship requirements. No one really pays up. Even people on Welfare were allowed to sponsor as many as 18 relatives as one publicized case in Quebec demonstrated. Another problem is that bringing in illiterates in their own language and trying to teach them English or French is a very expensive deal. Again, they will in most cases never generate enough taxes to pay for their education. And so on it goes.

  • Freedom of choice

    If these women cannot adapt to the Canadian way of life they should go back to their own country. If a Canadian woman went to their country she would have to abide by their rules. I would have no problem with that if I chose to live in their country. If they choose to live in my country they should abide by our rules.
    RCMP and police officers should all wear the hats that belong to their uniform. If you choose to ride a motorcycle you must wear a helmut.
    Swords, whether ceremonial or not are still weapons and as such no one should be allowed in public with one.
    We have laws in this country to protect the majority of it's people and if a small minority cannot abide the laws of the country they should not be allowed to remain.

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

    In a Toronto plaza where Muslims congregate, women in niquabs are a common sight, clutching the hands of little girls with shining faces that will at puberty be walled up like their mothers. It's like seeing dinosaurs lumbering about. There is a limit to what is tolerable under religious freedom. As we would not countenance human or even animal sacrifice anymore to someone's Aztec god, we do not accept medieval treatment of women and defenseless girls (e.g. clitorectomy). Those Muslims who insist on full veiling have 57 countries to choose from in which to live. Here in the West we show our faces to each other and do not imply that our men are rapists who need to have all temptation removed to behave.

    Canadians perhaps recall that the women in the infamous Khadr family and consorts of the Toronto bomb plotters who hissed their contempt at Canada all wore the niquab. It correlates with the most radical and therefore dangerous element of Islam followers.

    No less an authority than bin Laden's second in command, al-Zawahiri named veiled Muslim women soldiers in Islam's army and so they are. Some of the more honest ones have even admitted that they are out to "provoke" the host society. With their veiling they make the same hostile statement toward non-Muslims that one can see spelled out on placards they hoist in various demos of Islamic anger in Western countries, expressing hate toward Jews, calling for a second holocaust etc.

  • willy

    You are really a bunch of a–h–e
    Your not intelligent enough to learn french

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

      What does leaning to speak French have to do with intelligence or anything about this issue?

  • Rob H

    Islam is incompatible with the Canadian Constitution and our way of life. The face covering is only a symptom of the rejection of equal rights for women, of the rule of Canadian law over religious sharia law and of the backward beliefs of a religion that has always used violence and war to expand its territory and impose Islam on others. From murdering cartoonists to authors, from imposing death sentences on gays and apostates it has shown itself to be a danger to the world. Over 30 countries now have violent Islamic terrorists killing, threatening and imposing Sharia. How long will Canadians buy this lie of the "religion of peace". When has Islam ever been peaceful other than when they are a minority in a country. As they grow in numbers they have always, for the past 1200 years and up to today, demanded expansion of Islam in a society. Separate swimming days, and covered faces are only the first stages. Ban them from immigrating to Canada.

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

    Canadians were naive enough to believe multiculturalism only meant people would wear funny clothes, eat strange food and play weird music. They didn't think it meant setting up a version of the society people just left. Politicians used it to get the "community leaders" of these immigrants to load up buses on election day with instructions on how to vote and in return got "multicultural grants". It continues to this day at every level from city politics to federal. Multiculturalism should be abandoned as a policy and integration demanded of all immigrants. They have nothing to teach us about freedom, individual rights or democracy.

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

    Muslim women choose the veil? Well they are certainly encouraged to do so. This week in Melbourne, Australia an Afghan was found guilty of killing his wife by using her veil to strangle her in their Melbourne home. He did so in the belief he was entitled to dominate her, a Supreme Court judge has found. He had complained to Ms Rahimi's sister in the days prior to her killing that his wife was becoming "too Australian", meaning "she was not a docile and good wife". The couple, who had five children now aged from 14 to 2, came to Australia in 2005 after fleeing Afghanistan and spending seven years in refugee camps in Iran. So I guess he was one of the "moderate" Muslims trying to escape to freedom?

    Stop Muslim immigration now!

  • Wargasm

    Canadians are always lecturing Canadians about how to behave in Canada.

    Pity we don't extend the same courtesy to *new* Canadians.

    Canadian culture is presumably worthy of the same sensitivity and tolerance that other cultures are. Canadian culture does not approve of the niqab. Ergo, Muslim immigrants to Canada such should simply respect our proud and colourful traditions regarding this issue. Problem solved.

    Funny how leftist doctrine always breaks down once simple logic is applied…

  • JOHNNY,,ONTARIO

    REMOVE YOUR FACE MASK,OR GO BACK HOME,,NOT A PROBLEM

  • Chris

    From my perspective, this (the banning of the niqab in government facilities) is a simple matter of security and identification. Until the days of retinal scans to confirm identity (assuming that the eyes are not obscurred as well), what we have is facial recognition. Would anyone here want to have someone in a niqab show up at YOUR daycare or the local hospital and walk out with YOUR child? Paper documents can be forged. It is much more difficult to change your face (but not if you have it covered, and nobody can see it).

    On top of the security aspect: As another poster stated: Facial expression is as much a form of communication as spoken language, and is nessessary for true communication. I'm sorry to the bleeding hearts, but I think that this is a good idea, and step towards making use all MORE equal. One book, one set of rules, one standard for everyone, regardless of religion.

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

    Canada is NOT rejecting multiculturalism.

    Hinduism, Bufddhism, Judaism, Sikhism, etc are flourishing there.

    Canada is rejecting Islamism, which it correctly recognises as a force for inculcating a mentality of violent alienation.

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

    This article (and the law) is about the Niqab and yet the "illustrative" photos all show women with their faces uncovered… Why?

  • Bill Kontz

    We should just not let in any more muslims to Canada and boot out the ones who are already here. Problem solved.

  • Princezz7

    How is shutting the door on immigration good for anyones sake??? First of all if it wasnt for immigration there wouldnt be half the businesses right now. Jus cuz u feel like there rnt enough jobs that's ur problem. I think there r plenty. And ur talking bout that immigrants dont have any special skills or talents r u joking…seriously. These Immigrants ur talkin about r geniuses in math and business mayb u should visit such a country and see how far they have come. I think things rnt improving because of u ppl who have no culture and no flavour…wasting ur money on smoking and such things. If u look around u will see that wen an immigrant comes here within six months they have a huge house and have a set secure future…i cant say the same for u. Y dont u take another look especially at urself and compare it to an immigrant who is willing to work in a rotten working condition to make a future and actually achieve a awsome future. Bet u they still have better life than u and im pretty sure ur just jealous :)

  • Pwincezz7

    I think this law is the most ridiculous thing i have ever heard…How does a muslim woman wearing a niqab effect anyone??? I dont get it… Its part of her religion to wear it and no one should have a say in it. I mean next thing u know the government will tell the east indians men cant wear a turban or the east indian women cant cover their heads. As far as security goes jus have a woman security officer or a female doctor have the muslim woman remove her niqab in private and that will effect no one. I jus dont know y the government is being so extreme about it. Its jus plain ridiculous. SHould they be making laws against far more important matters than this. Quebec is jus downgrading its respect…i thought Canada was better than this.

  • old landed immigrant

    At the credit union where i do my banking, customers are asked to remove sunglasses and caps (for identification purposes). Makes sence to me! I try to be open minded about other people's customs, but quite frankly seeing someone covered from head to toe, with only the eyes peering out creeps me out. On the one hand i agree that women should be free to cover themselves up, but on the other hand i have seen young women in low cut, tight-fitting t-shirts and hip hugging jeans, showing off all their "nooks and crannies", while at the same time wearing the headscarf covering their hair and ears and neck. (i find this somewhat contradictory and also get the impression that some of them hold themselves above the rest of us Canadian, imparting a sort of religious/moral superiority.) Too bad women who feel compelled to cover their hair or bodies don't want to embrace the 21st Century. I also wonder about the security aspect of allowing people to hide their identity.

  • Pepperoni

    How come when we go into their countries they force us to wear the headwear and cover. So what is good for the goose should be good for the gander. When they come here they should adapt to our culture and way of living. Wish Canada could be more like France. Show some gumption. Besides it is not even religious based. If they want to keep their hijabs they might as well stay in their countries and give those, who are ready to adopt our style of living, an opportunity to come and make positive contribution to the society.

  • Emiy z

    This entire issue reminds me entirely of the whole abortion issue, when people kept telling women what they should do. The answer is absoulutley simple. Choice! The freedom of choice is the ellixer of life in Canada. Let these women choose how to dress. The root of misogyny has been men controlling the appereance of women from banning embellihments to encouraging harmful corsettes. By determining the legal valuee of these womens appearence you are stripping them of the fundamental right of individuality. Imagine the next law banning makeup or imposing a skirt law. That would be ludicrous.

  • Emily Z

    So putting aside our societies christian undertone of contempt for the middle east rooting from the failed crusades let these women choose how they want to live. Personally I would like to show them freedom from these restrictive head pieces in an act of liberation but forcing them to remove it is uncontituitional. If we continue we are on the road to becoming a culturally totalitarian government hiding behind the idea of multicultuaralism. Leave the religion aspect out of this argument and let these women deciede their apparel for themselves. Women get patted down by women at the airport. What is the harm of having these womens pictures taken by members of the same gender. I think we owe it to them as a common courtesy of social justice

From Macleans