I listened to more discussion of Prime Minister Harper's comments about certain Muslim women wanting to wear the niqab to be sworn in as citizens of Canada and his opposition to this, despite a Supreme Court ruling. A niqab is the facial covering, the burka covers the entire body, and the hijab is the head covering which often extends to the chest -- go all that?
I must admit that I have mixed feeling about this. I also wonder about Mr. Harper's motives.
I strongly believe in religious freedom, but I have listened to Muslim women argue eloquently that the niqab is a cultural practice, not a religious requirement. Others agree that it is not a requirement but women should have the freedom of choice.
There is a woman in our congregation who married a Muslim man who insisted that she wear certain clothing, and she eventually realized that this was an issue of control, not religion. I just can't accept this. At the same time, some Muslim women embrace what many of us might consider oppressive clothing and we allow it in our society. If it is not against the law to dress this way in public in Canada, why would we insist that a woman cannot wear this garb when she becomes a citizen?
As for Mr. Harper, why is he making such an issue of this as Prime Minister, addressing the issue himself rather than through a minister? Is this a political ploy, one designed to appeal to our growing fears about extremist Muslims?
When I drive up Bathurst St. in Toronto on a Saturday morning I see some Jewish men heading to synagogue wearing yarmulkes and others wearing the severe and even strange looking (to me) clothing of Orthodox Judaism. That is their right in this country. There are Sikhs who are members of parliament who wear turbans and beards. Sikhs are allowed to wear their turbans in the RCMP.
I am getting a kick out of those on Twitter who are mocking the PM's style advice. One dad asks whether he needs to consult Harper's office when his daughter covers her face.
My gut feeling is that the niqab is not necessary and doesn't reflect the freedoms of our pluralistic society. But my "sober second thought" response is, let it go Prime Minister Harper.
Your thoughts?
3 comments:
I guess my concern is my perception of the burka or niqab as being a form of control by men over their women.
It is no surprise to anyone that women are very much second class citizens in so many countries in the Middle East, Africa and Asia, and I hate the thought of these women being forced into this here in Canada. Of course there are women who want to wear these coverings, but I guess I never really thought about it that way.
Change can be difficult. I remember early in my policing career the heated debates that arose from the first Mountie to wear a turban. However, other than some of the old school types, my opinion is that it really isn't a big issue for most officers on the Force. More importantly is how they do the job and their ethics and professionalism.
I think we have a right to expect uncovered faces in legal situations where identification is required - beyond that, if a woman opts to accept the covered aspect of dress, it is her right to do so (and I had to wonder if a Roman Catholic nun had appeared, with the old style "habit" on, would the same complaints be made - just as much coverage as the woman in question had ... and Roger's comments about control by men are appropriate in that religious body, too...and don't get me started on Harper....my cool, calm exterior might disappear, never to return !
I can accept that, both legitimate security concerns and social concerns surrounding patriarchy, could be identified and inform this debate. Just not by the bunch of renegades currently in power in Ottawa. I don't trust'em as far as I could throw'em!
Post a Comment