
Margaret Wente wrote precisely the kind of column I would have liked to write, making to the same kind of arguments, and ultimately the same conclusion. We shouldn’t impose a ban on the burqa. It goes against my natural instinct, perhaps even against my cognitive rationalizing, but there it is. A year ago, or even farther back, I think there is no question that I would oppose the wearing of the burqa in Canada. But that doesn’t mean that I accept the fundamental problems associated with the symbol of political Islam.
The history of the burqa, also transliterated from Arabic as burkha, burka, or burqua [which is why you see so many variations on the spelling of other Arabic words in the media], is somewhat varied based upon which source you read. A completely enveloping outer garment, the covering is worn over normal clothing and removed inside the household. The burqa is a combination of the hijab, or head-scarf, with the niqab, or face-veil. The hijab, for instance, is frequently worn by many Muslims in Canada, and is a scarcely noticeable part of their attire, most probably because of the European, and particularly Eastern European tradition that also involves head-scarves. The face-veil portion of the burqa is called the purdah, a Persian word that rather appropriately means “curtain”.
Many westerners are puzzled as to why Muslim women would want to wear symbols of Islamic oppression in western society. There are, perhaps, arguments to be made based upon the religion itself. Those raised in Islamic societies believe in the hadith, a collection of edicts by the Prophet Muhammad, one of which is to teach men and women to dress modestly in public. While most Islamic societies have interpreted this as the reason for wearing the burqa, there is no specific mention of the garment in the Holy Qu’ran whatsoever.
For an explanation of the origins of the burqa in modern Islam, muslim writer Tarek Fatah explains:
There is no requirement in Islam for Muslim women to cover their face. Rather, the practice reflects a mode of male control over women. Its association with Islam originates in Saudi Arabia, which seeks to export the practice of veiling — along with other elements of its austere Wahhabist brand of Islam — to Muslim communities around the world.
[...]
Most of Canada’s growth in niqabi women can be traced to 2004, when a radical Pakistani female scholar by the name of Farhat Hashmi came to this country on a visitor’s visa. After arrival, she was twice denied a work permit. But that didn’t stop her from establishing a Muslim school in Mississauga, Ont. that prosletyzed Wahhabist norms — including the wearing of the niqab, leaving the workforce and embracing polygamy.
In Irshad Manji’s film “Faith without Fear”, there is a somewhat humourous scene when she is in Yemen, trying on burqa’s to see what it feels like to wear one. She asks for the most popular, most liberal style from the shopkeeper. The man nods and shows her a full array of garments, every single one a deep navy blue or a midnight black. There is something a little dehumanizing in not only the “modesty” inflicted upon women in the muslim world, but the lack of colour as well.
The fact is that Nicholas Sarkozy had quite a different reason for speaking about the burqa than might a Canadian. France is host to an estimated 5.5 million Muslims, although admittedly such numbers are difficult to confirm owing to the clandestine nature of North African refugees. Their presence in that country, therefore, is far more pronounced, and entrenched. In Canada few such neighbourhoods exists, and it is safe to say that many Canadians are far more likely to see your average “goth” girl in full black and white makeup, or a British-style “punk” rocker replete with 1983 mohawk, than they are to see a woman shopping in her burqa. Full disclosure here: I’ve never seen a woman in a burqa in Canada, and only quite recently saw a woman in a niqab walking out of the Vancouver convention centre.
But the truth is that we can’t ban the burqa. Not in a nation where we proclaim the fundamental value of our society is the freedom of the individual and the choice that comes with it. Just as we tolerate all other sorts of choices which we consider less than appealing, we have to accept the personal choices that comes with the freedom of a liberal society. The moment we start dictating what women can wear, or in this case can’t wear, we aren’t much different than the countries we criticize. I believe there is also a certain appeal, a natural rebellious instinct among many people, to do something simply because it is forbidden. It would be the ultimate irony to have women “rebel” by wearing a symbol of conformity because it is banned here.
As Margaret Wente says, we have to allow it. That doesn’t mean we have to like it.
















June 25, 2009 at 9:17 pm
You’re right Raph, we shouldn’t ban the burqa. But at the same time people should have the right to speak up in regard to what they think about it. People should be allowed to ‘react’ to it, in a natural way, without worrying the HRC police are coming to get them. I would think it would be perfectly normal, for people to stare at them, to refuse certain commercial transactions, to demand ID and to see the person’s face. This is all part of western culture, and we shouldn’t have to apologize if our culture finds the Burqa odd, dangerous, belittling but legal.
June 25, 2009 at 9:23 pm
Well put Joe. The first part of being able to speak about the burqa is to have certain sanctions on free speech lifted, such as those that exist in the Canadian Human Rights Commission. I also believe the burqa does deserve to be banned in certain circumstances, such as public service. But again, and as I say, I’ve never actually seen Muslims in Canada wearing the full veil. I’m sure if we prepare now for such an eventuality of growing numbers, we can avoid the kind of backlash present in countries like Holland and France.
June 25, 2009 at 11:10 pm
“But the truth is that we can’t ban the burqa. Not in a nation where we proclaim the fundamental value of our society is the freedom of the individual and the choice that comes with it.”
Thats what I have been saying all along. If we pride ourselves as being a free country, then we must grant women the freedom to wear a burqa, even if we don’t agree with what it symbolizes.
That is the peril of freedom.
June 25, 2009 at 11:26 pm
“I would think it would be perfectly normal, for people to stare at them, to refuse certain commercial transactions, to demand ID and to see the person’s face”
The only situation where the burqa might interfere with Canadian society is in instances where someone’s identification is confirmed by checking photo ID. If photo ID is not required then there is no real purpose to at forcing someone to lift their burqa.
June 26, 2009 at 1:53 am
[...]
It remains to be seen how women, particularly after the days of violence, will demonstrate their dissatisfaction with the regime, especially if its headed by a man whose earlier actions were seen as limiting their rights.
Under Ahmadinejad’s first term, rules were set in place that made it difficult for women to work late or take on extra hours, and pushing many into part-time jobs. Last year, his government proposed a law that would have made it easier for men to take additional wives – a practice allowed under Islam but generally frowned upon in Iran. More than 60 women activists who took part in the signature campaign were arrested, some of whom are still in jail, said Nayereh Tohidi, a professor at California State University, Northridge.
Then, there is the issue of clothes. Under Ahmadinejad the rules are being tightly enforced, women are required to cover their hair and wear loose and long garments over pants. They face arrest if their fashion is deemed too risque – a qualification that has even included pants tucked into boots during the winter.
“It is the biggest insult to a woman that somebody can tell her what she should wear,” said the 34-year-old Tehran woman active in the protests. “Nowadays many people can see the world easily, how they live peacefully in their countries without any enforcement, so we know our basic rights as a human and especially as a woman.”
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/090624/world/ml_iran_women_at_the_front
June 26, 2009 at 2:35 am
I haven’t seen the burqa worn in Canada. I have seen women wear the niqab–a burqa type outfit that only exposes the eyes. I would not ban the burqa. However, I do find that women who wear the burqa or niqab lose their human qualities. I did have the opportunity to speak to a couple of women in niqabs. I felt like I was using voice activated emails when speaking with them. I could understand their words; I could not understand their emotions or feelings.
June 26, 2009 at 3:55 am
I agree as well, while I find the burka odious it cannot be banned.
BTW, where do you all live? I assume nowhere near Toronto……I see full clad, ninja’d up burka’d women often. I’ve see two driving cars. I live in Barrie, a small city an hour north of Toronto, there are a number of women (I assume women, who can tell?) wearing the full screened burka. My young daughter was freaked out by them one time, it was a mom with a daughter (teenaged? Again who can tell?) and a little boy, for whom it was ok to be wearing shorts…….
June 26, 2009 at 8:09 am
The other side of the argument is that this is Canada, these people have come here by choice, and yet they feel no need to try to assimilate into our society. Whether it’s the men who don’t want their women displayed, or whether it’s the women who want to remain covered I don’t know. I agree that you can’t ban the burqua, although that begs the question, what would these people do ? Go back where they came from ? I don’t think so.
But I do think that in cases where regular people have to show their faces, ie for a driving license photo, there should simply be the same requirement for for women wearing a burka. No face = no photo = no license.
The longer each individual group is permitted to maintain its culture, with no reference to Canadian culture, the longer we will continue to be a balkanized society, where one group is permitted to do one thing and another group is permitted to have other special rights. I’m not talking here about celebrating individual groups’ cultures as for instance the Scots, or the Chinese, or the Italians do. I’m talking about people coming here, expecting special treatment and making no attempt to be part of twenty-first century North America .
June 26, 2009 at 9:38 am
The longer each individual group is permitted to maintain its culture, with no reference to Canadian culture, the longer we will continue to be a balkanized society, where one group is permitted to do one thing and another group is permitted to have other special rights.
And this is the hidden danger of multiculturalism, and why I think we have to move away from multiculti and towards a multiethnic Canada. A country where we are tolerant of different cultures but not a country that fetishizes the institutionalization of cultural difference, paid for by Canadian taxpayers, for the historical reason of creating Liberal Party of Canada voting ghettos.
June 26, 2009 at 1:44 pm
I believe Raphael is correct, we can’t follow France’s lead and ban the burqa, it’s not in our traditions and constitutional precedents. Unlike the French Republic, the end product of multiple revolutions with “official secularism” constitutionally enshrined, we are the end product of counter-revolution with ensuing constitutional compromise, the constitutional recognition of denominational schools and so forth.
This does not signify that modern democracies cannot legislate on issues such as banning certain forms of apparel in the public service, in parliament etc. If we take Turkey to be a modern democracy, seeking to promote secularist policies, this issue of banning certain forms of apparel, this cultural battle, has been waged since 1924 and is still an issue before their constitutional courts. Some modern democracies have found constitutional arguments to promote such a ban.
We may be required to be tolerant of such cultural expression, but this does not mean we have no discretion when selecting immigrants to choose those whose values better match the societal values we seek to defend and promote. If we are selecting, let’s say, prospective immigrants from Turkey, should we give preference to those prepared to embrace Western values as opposed to those whose cultural preferences and social views stand out in contrast to the mainstream of their society.
June 27, 2009 at 11:19 am
“should we give preference to those prepared to embrace Western values as opposed to those whose cultural preferences and social views stand out in contrast to the mainstream of their society.”
Oh goody. A political test of prospective immigrants. Now we can have another three or four decades of importing blocks of votes, except this time by the cons.
June 27, 2009 at 11:42 am
Dan,
Your caveat appears not to be shared by Elections Canada, which quietly dropped the ban on the veil for women voting in elections.
June 27, 2009 at 11:45 am
SD,
That’s because humans are very expressive creatures in their faces, particularly the way our eyes flash and our lips curl and purse and smile. The way we communicate is almost at least equal to the manner in which we express ourselves. You’ve heard the expression said, it’s not what you say, but how you say it. The burqa dehumanizes women by removing that uniqueness to them, by making them uniformly the same, and hence equal in absolute irrelevance.
June 27, 2009 at 11:49 am
Jad,
It’s certainly confusing to me why some Muslims would come to Canada, a place renowned for liberal tastes, and then decide not to integrate or assimilate in any way. But I’ve been thinking about this a lot, and the best way to counter this is to not make a big deal of it. Cultural influence always takes the dominant influence and transforms the weaker one. In this case, those women who are being coerced by their parents to wear Islamic clothing will more likely have a stronger pull from their peers who will wear western clothing. The only instance in which this is different is in the Canadian neighbourhoods that are ghettoized and for all intents and purposes, turned into something like the world they came from. No chance is possible in a bubble.
And as you touch on the requirement for photo id, as I wrote above to Dan, even that is falling by the wayside to accommodate Muslims.
June 27, 2009 at 8:55 pm
“Your caveat appears not to be shared by Elections Canada”
Does one need photo ID to vote or will a voter card and a SIN card (or other form of non-picture ID) work? I honestly don’t know because I always just show my drivers licence. If a picture ID is necessary then an argument can be made that burqa wearing women should show their faces.
But it isn’t that simple, as as far as I know absentee ballots don’t require photo ID, which if true (and it may not be) makes the whole voter security argument quite week. And given the few women who this would apply too it may be a fight not worth having… at least while the problem is small enough to be negligable.
June 29, 2009 at 5:33 pm
There are too many holes in voting rules to make it a requirement, since people can absentee ballot and now even online voting is being considered. I suppose that if one can access EI and tax information online with proper information, the niqab/burqa is no different.
June 29, 2009 at 9:45 pm
Well that pretty much tosses the whole voter security aspect out the window. The online voting consideration is especially troubling (even if Estonia does it:)
So I say let them vote without showing their face… at least until voter security issues become an issue and we are prepared to seriously address them.