The niqab contradiction
[adrotate banner="13"]
[feather_share show="twitter, google_plus, facebook, reddit, tumblr" hide="pinterest, linkedin, mail"]
By: Jenan Nasser
Prime Minister Stephen Harper has expressed his dissatisfaction and clear prejudice on not only the matter of the niqab but also on the faith of Islam.
As he explained on March 10, “it’s very easy to understand… why would Canadians, contrary to our own values, embrace a practice at that time that is not transparent, that is not open and, frankly, is rooted in a culture that is anti-women?”
In this speech, the PM is referring to the niqab being worn by women during their Canadian citizenship ceremony, a day in which Canada is supposed to welcome new citizens into its jurisdiction and accept them as a part of society. Not only is Harper belittling Canadian values, but he is also reinforcing the false stereotypes and discrimination that religious minorities, particularly those of Islamic faith, have been undergoing.
Unfortunately it is not clear what Harper is specifically referring to when he mentions “Canadian values.” However, contrary to his position, the values that are currently entrenched in our constitution provide Canadians with the right to religion, expression, and equal protection under the law without discrimination, to name a few.
When a woman who wears a niqab has identified herself prior to the proceedings of the citizenship ceremony, there is no need for her to expose her face during the ceremony if this act is against her personal religious or spiritual values, and these are the values that our country provides each citizen.
During the citizenship ceremony, each participant must sign and accept their duties to the country and the Queen. These duties include abiding by the laws set by the Canadian government and respecting Canadian society as a whole, amongst other things. It seems then that this promise should bind the government as it does the citizen.
New Canadian citizens agree upon this contract not only to obey the duties and responsibilities set forth by Canada, but also to enjoy the freedom and protection promised to them by Canadian law. If the question remains about security, other forms of identification may be used; a female examiner may request the removal of the niqab prior to the ceremony, and these would be minor measures taken to protect the right and dignity of that new Canadian citizen.
The citizenship ceremony should be the beginning of a journey filled with hope and promise. It is unjustifiable to begin this journey by subjecting women, whose values center around modesty, to forcefully assimilate in order to meet Canadian norms.
The rights of Canadians should begin when welcoming them into our country to share our values of acceptance and freedom. To deny these rights to any women is the definition of being anti-women.
Harper also continues to amplify the Islamophobic mirage that has been on a constant incline in recent years by addressing Islamic symbols, such as the niqab, as being “rooted in a culture that is anti-women.”
The Prime Minister’s judgement to pinpoint covering up a women’s face as the main indication of female oppression when we live in a hyper-sexualized Western society is intolerable. If dealing with female oppression is Harper’s true goal, then a great starting point would be allowing women to cover up or dress down their bodies as they please.
If this judgment was inverted, and Canadian women were told to wear more clothing or given a standard uniform, it would not stand, because the government is not in place to tell women what to wear but to protect their right to wear what they want.
Although there are regulations about dressing appropriately in courtrooms and other settings, the niqab is in no way indecent and should be honored. The only thing anti-women in this situation is a man dictating how much of her body a woman is permitted to conceal.
[feather_share show="twitter, google_plus, facebook, reddit, tumblr" hide="pinterest, linkedin, mail"]
[adrotate banner="12"]
