I knew it would come to this eventually. Today I'm not writing about an article or podcast, but about a friend's facebook status. She wrote:
JW is thinking about words: burqa, niqab, sharia, Europe, dhimmi, submission, identity, public security, social inclusion, choice, public/private dichotomy... and wondering whether it is possible to come to agreement on what these words mean.
It got me to thinkin'.
I have read a bunch of books about the Muslim world and the veil and face-covering issues just never go away. For women in the west, we've grown up hearing (if not always experiencing) that women and men deserve to participate equally in public life. Canadian society is increasingly one in which women earn as much money or more than their partners, fathers take paternity leave or even stay at home with children, and the view that women belong in the kitchen, or are the property of their husbands and fathers is long since passed. Thank goodness.
Of all the words in her status list, I think choice is the most important. Whether burqas are banned or not, either way you still have men (either Islamic fundamentalists or western lawmakers) telling women what is okay to wear. They don't have a choice in the matter - their dress is dictated by someone else.
I find this debate very difficult - Canada is supposed to be a nation of religious freedom. But when religious freedom means one gender oppresses the other it's a hard pill to swallow. The sad part is, most Muslim women don't even have any way to voice their opinions on the matter. They are mostly shut out from public participation. That's what bugs me the most.
So then you have to ask yourself whether passing a law banning female face coverings will actually enhance quality of life for these women or further contribute to their seclusion. Looking at the examples of Muslim men murdering their wives or daughters for becoming "too westernized" you have to wonder if banning face coverings could mean putting a vulnerable group even more at risk. It could mean they will never be able to leave their houses. Then you will have an entire sector of the population effectively under house arrest.
The other part of the debate that bothers me is that the law is aimed at Muslims. I don't see anyone taking on the oppression of women within extreme Christian sects - and they do exist, in places where 14-year old girls are married off to old men who already have multiple wives. And let's not forget that some religions don't allow women to wear pants or cut their hair. So it seems a bit hypocritical to me for western parliaments to point their fingers at Muslims only when religious "oppression" (if that's what you want to call it) exists in many forms. So to me the "human rights" argument feels a bit sanctimonious.
I don't believe a ban is the way to go. I believe it will do more harm than good. If we really wanted to do well for Muslim women, I think there are other things we could be doing, like education and job training. Women will take off their veils when they have adequate social resources to do so. When they can stand on their own feet economically and make their own choices financially and in terms of marriage then they will have a choice on how to clothe themselves, either at home or in public.
2 comments:
I was going to write a brief comment, but I wasn't able to stop and suddenly realised that if I posted it I'd be dominating your blog space, so I think I will write a Facebook note instead. ;-) A line is crossed when a person covers the face. My objection to a woman who covers her face is about the same as my objection to a man in a balaclava. In certain situations and places it is intolerable (and I use the word intentionally). In a bank, or a courthouse, or a school, for example. This is very delicate, and having grown up in a religious cult I understand religious fundamentalism in a deeply personal and profound way. But there must be some point where common sense and public security wins. In our society, carrying a gun or a knife around isn't allowed anymore (oops.... unless it is part of your religion...) Are we taking away men's right to express their masculinity, or are we simply exercising ordinary and due caution? What makes religious people exempt from laws that are there to protect all of us?
I see your point about a line being crossed with the covering of a face. Is it illegal to cover the face with masks regardless of whether it is religiously motivated? I would be curious to know if there are laws on the books.
However, I don't see this as a public safety issue. I believe that women should show their face to vote and testify in court but I don't personally feel that Islamic face coverings are a threat to public security in Canada.
I guess where we differ is I don't feel personally offended when I see a women with her face covered. I think that forcing conformity on a designated religious group is more likely to harm women and inflame extremism. I don't think you can legislate away gender discrimination within a religion.
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees freedom of conscience and religion. It does not say that religion is banished from public life. It does not say that we all have to agree on this issue. So I guess, to answer your question, this is what makes religous people exempt from laws that are there for public protection.
There have been a lot of cases related to this before the Supreme Court - for example, whether Jehovah's witnesses children can be forced to receive life-saving blood transfusions. I think minor children can be forced, but adults cannot. Feel free to post away, this is a very interesting subject.
Post a Comment