The hypocrisy and fallacy behind Canada’s new niqab rule

The Canadian government recently announced that from now on Muslim women must take off or lift their veil when taking the oath of citizenship. According to Immigration Minister Jason Kenney, it’s a matter of principle. Whose principle, I’m not quite sure…

The new rule is based on nothing concrete; nothing but unfounded fears and anecdotal evidence. It’s a discriminatory solution to a problem that doesn’t even exist. It immediately brought to mind the recent introduction of a “code of conduct” for newcomers put together by the City of Gatineau, which left a bitter taste in my mouth and was justifiably lambasted by La Presse columnist Pierre Foglia. It was Hérouxville all over again…

According to Salam Elmenyawi, head of the Muslim Council of Montreal, there are only a few hundred women who wear face coverings in the entire country. A few hundred women… In an interview accorded to journalist Margaret Hartmann, Elmenyawi stated that by forcing Muslim women to choose between their religious beliefs and their desire to be Canadian citizens, the government is, « sending a message that we’re watching you and we’re going to tell you which parts of your religion are acceptable and which are not. »

Few issues have managed to stump me over the years as much as the presence of the niqab in Western society and how governments seek to limit or ban it completely. As a woman, I, too, sometimes have a knee-jerk reaction to it. Face coverings are problematic because of what they represent, not because of what they are. They don’t exist in a cultural vacuum; they’re usually associated with the subjugation of women and many things that run counter to a liberal society.

However, as someone who – at the very least – aspires to be a critical thinker, I loathe relying solely on my knee-jerk reactions because they, too, are nothing more than a reflection of my own cultural references.

I have a real problem believing the arguments presented, least of all the two main principles the Canadian government seems to pretend the ban will defend: gender equality and secular public institutions.

What bothers me about our perceptions dictating legislation is that Canada is chauvinistically claiming that we, as a country, have already achieved gender equality and now seek to enforce it with immigrants coming here. With, you know… the ones who “don’t know any better.”

To say that reeks of paternalism is an understatement. Gender-based violence and poverty are still real issues here. We live in a world where leaking a sex tape and faking a marriage lands you and your family on Barbara Walter’s Most Fascinating People of 2011. We’re nowhere close to having achieved gender parity, and preventing a handful of women from becoming Canadian citizens because they choose to wear a niqab does nothing to rectify that reality. It may feel like a victory, but it’s a hollow one.

As for our staunch commitment to secularism, it’s inconsistent and hypocritical to say the least. One can hardly demand visible symbols of one’s faith are limited and/or purged from public places, while protecting others the majority deems acceptable. If we want to preach secularism, it should be all or nothing.

More importantly, whether some see the niqab as a blatant practice of gender inequality (as many unequivocally believe) or a mere exercise of choice, it doesn’t really matter. The real question we should ask ourselves is the following: Is the niqab really a security issue (like Minister Kenney insists, and I see no evidence of such assertion) or does it simply offend our Western sensibilities? And if it isn’t a security issue, are we comfortable with laws that simply allow us to navigate uncomfortable issues the way we would a cafeteria; picking and choosing what we want, ignoring what we don’t?

Hermann Hesse said: “It is not our purpose to become each other; it is to recognize each other, to learn to see the other and honour him for what he is.” It’s not always an easy thing to do, but it’s a necessary thing to do.