Saturday, March 24, 2007
Muslim voters required to remove face coverings
(article)

It was announced that in this Monday's election in Quebec, Muslim women who were a niqab (full headscarf that only shows the eyes) will have to come in showing their faces or will not be permitted to vote. Election officials tried to compromise by saying they could come with I.D. and someone who will vouch for their identity, but protests came from others that they will all show up in masks if this was done.

I've had a mixed reaction with this. While I understand the purpose of the niqab, as well as the frustration that others feel with rule changes, I think there's another way around this. Women wearing the niqab could possibly request a female employee from Elections Canada to be present while she presents her ID without the niqab behind a curtain of some sort, rather than just show up niqab-less. People have a difficult time accepting change, and as increasing issues arise with the mix of religion/culture with laws in Toronto, and globally for that matter, there will be more disputes.

On the one hand you have people worrying that all these 'disruptions' in the voting process are unfair to those who are not practicing Muslims because it may slow up the voting and inconvenience them. They also think that too much is being done in terms of leniency of rules to allow for people of different faiths to be included in activities. It's a "follow along or leave" attitude, which I don't agree with, but understand all the same. For these people, one exception will lead to another and another until it feels like the entire system of rules is bending over backwards to make room for the few people who need exceptions.

On the other hand, this is Canada. Back in the 70s the gates of immigration were opened and people flooded into the country, bringing with them a host of beliefs and traditions. You may not like it, but you have to at least accept it. Canada needs the population. Just recently Statistics Canada released a report that two-thirds of Canada's population growth over the past five years was fuelled by immigrant newcomers. The population has increased about 5.4% (highest of the G8 countries) while Canadians themselves continue to have a low fertility rate. This means that Canadians aren't have enough children to support the economy in the future.

Cue the immigrants, please. So - when it comes down to it, immigrants are a necessary part of a countries growth, Canadian or not. But it's foolish to accept that people will convert to Canadianism completely once they step off the plane (though I still think they should be handed a cup of Tim Horton's as they land, as part of the initiation). There will be many part of their faith/culture, something that is a part of them, that they inevitably will bring with them.

Exceptions to rules are hard because someone has to draw that chalk line somewhere. Whether it being elevators that stop at every floor in hospitals on Saturdays for the Jewish day of Sabbath or serving certain types of meals on an airline to accomodate travellers with special diets we need to make room to show respect.

These women who wear niqab may very well be born and raised Canadian citizens as well as immigrants who later earned citizenship, and to deny them practice of their faith is a violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They have a right to vote as well as to wear the niqab and to deny either is unlawful leave alone immoral - these women are being asked to choose between their religious beliefs and their political and democratic beliefs. They are involuntarily being subjected to a Catch 22 situation: if you want to vote, remove the niqab; remove the niqab then you violate your beliefs.

It comes down to whether the election officials now want to help the situation or back away as briskly and calmly as possible. They are being threatened that if they allow and exception, other people will show up in Halloween style masks. But this hard-headed and misguided thinking is just what stems discrimination. If they met with some sort of compormise to allow women to wear their niqab but not "disrupt" the voting process, there should be no issues. Voters would come and go as they expected to without even knowing that a woman in a niqab was even in the room. But again, it's all a matter of wanting to help or being forced to.

What's your take on this?
13 Comments:
Blogger En said...
How ironic. Here we are in a country where all are supposed to be equal and now we have this!

I like your idea of just having a female employee checking the idea.

Blogger AKA said...
Enyur - That's just the thing. Equality is conditional in some cases, here and everywhere. I understand that it is difficult to achieve and not everyone will automatically be for it, but it's something that our politicians should be considerate of, given that it's a provincial election.

Anonymous Thank you very much for that link - what a great resource and interactive way to understand the CCRF. Appreciate you dropping by.

Blogger BanikaB said...
Hmmm, see, I love you...I really really do, but I think that may be an optimsitic look at what the Charter actually grants its citizens. It grants religous freedoms within reasonable limits. By giving its citizens' rights, Canada does not remove any right of its own to limit those rights, with reason.

Do I think they have reason to require women who wear niqab to enter voting areas with their faces uncovered? No. You propose a very easy alternative (Though I don't really think a curtain is necessary). Many of my niqabi friends are more than willing to remove their niqabs for identification purposes.

It is an unsettling trend in Canada that the if immigration were to stop, the population would decrease. Currently in Canada the population with the fastest growing population is (no, not bunnies) but First Nations people. And this population is largely treated as third class citizens, or "a group that needs to be dealt with".

You speak of a level of respect, but this level of respect taht needs to be shown...when does it stop? Does it stop after women with niwabs are able to vote? Or does it stop when homosexual couples are granted the same survivor benefits as heteresexual couples? Or how about when First Nations people finally receive a settlement for their discrimination suits against the government?

I don't know where I stand on most of these issues because it seems the more I learn the less I can understand them, but I do know this: Wearing niqab is a choice for women in Canada and they are granted that choice through their right to freedom of religion. With that freedom also comes responsibility. It's fair to cry Foul! when you're not able to exercise your rights the way you want to. That's what comes with living in a country where we have rights, as opposed to...hmmm, somewhere that doesn't.

Blogger AKA said...
Anika - I do realize what exactly the purpose of the Charter is without needing an explanation for it. Though I know there are many women who would be willing to remove their niqab for identification purposes, there are obviously those who oppose this, otherwise there would be no need to have this debate or cause all this disturbance.

It is simple to say "reasonable" but more difficult to define that term when it comes to the law. Pretty much all of the arguments in a case of law surround this idea of 'reasonableness'. Even in law school you're told that "when in doubt, use the reasonable rule". I only proposed the idea of a curtain because it is in fact an easy solution for those who are niqabi and are either against removing their veil or are readily willing to do so.

And though it may be true about the population trend within the First Nations people, I don't necessarily think that it is enough to sustain the entire country when in some year ahead we're struggling to meet the upkeep of social programs include OAS and CPP.

Respect, like the word reasonable, isn't easily defined. But with all the issues you mentioned I think that respect is warranted in each case. But with the amount of time it takes to get issues like this into Parliament and then passed as laws causes most to cast a pessimistic view on the level or respect shown to these people.

Choosing to exercise a certain freedom as well as being the one who grants that freedom both carry the same degree of responsibility. For a women who wears a niqab, or for anyone else exercising their beliefs, they have a duty and right to speak out when they see their freedoms being challenged. For the one who grants the freedom, it is their duty to see that disputes are handled with respect and a fair resolution. The solution provided here, however, does not seem fair to those who are unwilling to remove their niqab because of their beliefs. They either have to show their face or they will not be allowed to vote.

The government does retain the right to restrict or limit our rights but how is it reasonable to impose such a limitation in this case? There is no special benefit being awarded to a women in a niqab - she doesn't get to jump the queue on voting day, her ballot isn't cast in a seperate way and she isn't asking to have the ID requirement to be waived. She is only asking that her religious beliefs be respected in such a way that she will be able to exercise both her right to religion and vote without having to compromise either one.

Blogger youngMuslimah said...
Aka, I like the idea of having female employees. We have them in Saudi Arabia at the airports, customs..
It makes me wonder though why women can't lift their niqab for identification issues? Niqab isnt obligatory, but an option..more like a Sunnah since the Prophet(saws)'s wives wore them.
The unique quality of Islam is that it doesn't force you to do anything if it's inflicting harm upon yourself.
I cant think of anythingmore to write now..if I do will get back.

Blogger BanikaB said...
* I apologize if this is incoherent. I have typed this up during spare moments at work.

I think there may have been a few misunderstandins from my post. That most likely it my fault, cause I was writing it quickly last night before I went to bed.

The issue is not that women oppose removing their niqabs for identification purposes. Most women understand that is it a requirement to exercise the right to vote. The issue arises from the erquirement that women ENTER the voting area (that means the room in which the voting is taking place, not the polling booth). This means that women must go with their faces uncovered for a longer period of time than would be required if they simply had to lift their niqabs prior to entering the polling booth. This is what in my opinion was unnecessary. Lifting the niqab prior to entering the polling booths should be sufficient for identification purposes. (even vouching for someone's identity seems a little shady)

The case I raised about First Nations people (and it's not something that may be true, it IS true), was just to corroborate your point about the vital role immigrants do play in keeping Canada alive. Litereally. First Nations people are the only "truly domestic" population that is still on the rise. They are, like immigrants, considered a minority, and like immigrants, are often labelled unfairly.
(On a side note, it's true that the Governments - Federal and Provincial - are having difficulty maintaining OAS and CPP. This is partially due to the fact that both of these programs were introduced as supplementary income and in recent years there has become a shift where it becomes the primary incomes for those who are retired)

Coming to the issue of reason and respect. I agree taht it is difficult to define it. But are either of the two terms defined in day to day life? Respect is nothing something defined, it's shown. And it's shown through the treatment of individuals. I understand that for the purposes of creating, implementing and upholding the law it needs to be defined, but in this case is respect being shown? I think not. I think it's disrespectful to force women to remove their niqabs when a less harsh alternative is available. Is it reasonable? That's where it does become difficult to say. The threats from groups, individuals and organizations to the elections officials and the entire election process were serious. Elections are not a cheap thing to run. It's not easy enough to just have a re-vote. It IS reasonable to say that some action was required in this case.

In this case, it wouldn't even need to be passed as law. Simply a regulation amendment, which would require a cabinet minute in order for it to be considered. And it could all be done internally. Scary isn't it?

In all honesty, I think it's just a ploy from the politicians to stay away the from the real issues affecting the province, and instead shift the focus onto a few dozen women.

Blogger AKA said...
Anika - hon please do forgive me because I realized how stupid and rude I came off in my last comment. One of my dad's oldest and closest friend's just passed away yesterday morning and I'm just upset about that. Combined with a huge amount of paperwork for my upcoming trip, I just became frustrated. Didn't mean for it to come out that way at all. You're very right in the points you made and I appreciate your input. Again, I'm truly very sorry for it. Love you.

Blogger BanikaB said...
Hey love, no worries. I like debate! I wasn't offended, I just didn't want you to think you could bully me wit hyour wise law school ways.

Tell your family I said Salaams and I pray that they're doing well. Give your dad an extra hug from me.

Blogger youngMuslimah said...
looks like my comment was skipped again:-((

Blogger AKA said...
Frenchita - I didnt intentionally skip your comment; I was just upset over something else and just hastily replied to Anika.

You're right though - the beauty of Islam is that there is no forced belief or way to practice. A lot is based on intention (but of course, with certain necessary action). Niqab isn't obligatory but it is adopted by many women, though not by me. THanks for your comment.

Blogger youngMuslimah said...
Aka, I'm so sorry about your dad's friend...innalillahi wa innailaihi rajioon ( To Allah we belong and to Him we return)

Blogger BanikaB said...
I wanna reply to Frenchita too!!!

First of all, when you mentioned the women who do that for customs in Saudi, it made me laugh. When I was there, I felt so bad for those women! When we went in to get checked, those women were having a hard time staying awake cause they were so bored! =P

BUT, in response to Islam not forcing anyone its' completely true. But what of people who make things compuklsory upon themselves? For instance, in the Hanafi madhab/fiqh/school of thought (whatever you like to refer to it as), niqab is fardh upon women. These women, and sometimes their husband, view is as a necessary part of fulfilling their religion.

Further in cases of women who don't even wear niqab, but wear hijab, it's the responsibility of the individual who is wearing hijab to ensure that women she reveals herself to will not spread that information to others. Can that be guaranteed with government employees, if women were required to show their faces? That's not to say that if there were female government employees, taht after each niqabi who voted they would gossip about what they looked like under it, but it is a consideration some women may have to make.

Blogger youngMuslimah said...
Anika, thanks for the comment.

I too feel bad for those women. Once while we were at the customs (Saudi-Bahrain) border, no one would open the door. We had to knock and finally bang before they answered. Don't blame them though, it was late and they were catching up on some sleep!

Regarding the niqab issue, well, the scholars who 'think' it's obligatory are a minority.I know women who wear niqab, (in Saudi it's become more like a tradition) and they go out wearing eye makeup and not-the-loose--Islamic-requirement-jilbab. Doesn't make a difference does it?

When the hijab verse was revealed, (the word in the Qur'an is the 'khumur' which translates a head covering)the Prophet (saws) asked the women to extend their head coverings so as to cover the ears, neck, and the bosoms. What could have possibly stopped him from including face veil if it was fardh?

Can that be guaranteed with government employees, if women were required to show their faces? ---> No, but what if they can uncover their faces for just like, 2-3 seconds? That shouldn't pose a problem IMO.

And this is so ridiculous. There are women out there who claim hijab is not obligatory!