If the Taliban has accomplished anything, it has been to make “burqa” a household word. The burqa of course refers to the full-body covering donned by some Muslim women, which does not allow the woman to be viewed by others but includes a gauze net at the eye level to permit her to see outside. The burqa is similar to the niqab, which also covers the head and body but leaves the woman’s eyes exposed.
Under the Taliban Afghan women were legally forced to wear the burqa if they ventured from their homes. Now a Muslim group in Canada is taking the opposite tactic. The Muslim Canadian Congress is urging the Canadian federal government to forbid the wearing of the burqa, and the niqab, in public.* According to the Congress, as an instrument of women’s oppression the burqa has no place in a country like Canada that prides itself on its gender equality. Furthermore, the burqa poses a security risk, as an individual – male or female – could put it on to rob a bank or other establishment without fear of being identified. Finally, the Muslim Canadian Congress says the burqa is not mandated by Islam or even mentioned in the Koran. It is instead a Middle Eastern cultural tradition that was co-opted by Muslims in the region.
Not everyone concurs with the Muslim Canadian Congress’ demand. The Canadian Islamic Congress for instance believes that banning the burqa would violate the freedom of religion and conscience of Muslim women who chose to wear it. To that the Muslim Canadian Congress replies that for many, even most, women the burqa is not a choice but something imposed on them by their husbands and other family members. The group’s president Farzana Hassan stated as well in an interview on CBC Radio that religious freedom is not absolute.
The question of whether or not to ban the burqa presents a dilemma for many Canadians regardless of their religion. In Canada , women’s rights and freedom of religion are two principles most of us take seriously. But what happens when they appear to collide?
I believe the idea of the burqa as a security threat deserves to be discussed. The Muslim Canadian Congress’ Tarek Fatah described at least one incident in Canada in which an individual – a man, actually – robbed a bank while wearing a burqa. Is this a reason to prohibit the burqa in public? Perhaps – though one could argue that in that case ski masks, which have probably been used for more robberies than the burqa has, should be banned as well. It doesn’t seem unreasonable to require that women show their faces in situations where identification is advisable in order to prevent fraud, when voting or taking out money at a bank, for instance. But I suspect the burqa’s potential as a robbery facilitator may be a bit exaggerated by its opponents.
I’m also somewhat wary of the notion that the burqa should be forbidden in order to prevent women from being forced to wear it. This is one of the Muslim Canadian Congress’ main arguments for banning the garment. However, over the years a plethora of restrictive legislation of dubious benefit has been passed for the purpose of “protecting” women. For instance, when Ireland was debating whether to permit divorce (which it ultimately did in 1995) some people claimed that doing so would hurt women by freeing up men to abandon their wives and children. One Irish politician, Alice Glenn, made the now-famous comparison of a woman voting to legalize divorce to a “turkey voting for Christmas.” (Of course we in North America might say a turkey voting for Thanksgiving.) Glenn never mentioned that over half of divorces today are filed by wives rather than husbands. While most of these women do so not because of abuse and/or alcoholism on their spouses’ part but because of dissatisfaction with the marriage in general, it’s not hard to imagine that forbidding divorce does make it more difficult for a woman to be free of a man like Carlo Rizzi in The Godfather. Thus here we have an example of a law (the ban on divorce) ostensibly aimed at helping women which ends up potentially hurting them.
I don’t doubt the Muslim Canadian Congress’ call for a burqa ban stems from a genuine concern for women (though I suspect it’s also an attempt on the group’s part to spruce up Islam’s image in the eyes of non-Muslim Canadians, many of whom associate the religion with the subjugation of women). And the question of whether even in Canada women freely decide to wear the burqa deserves to be examined. Yet the idea of forbidding something that we personally might find oppressive strikes me as paternalistic at best and authoritarian at worst. An analogy might lie in the case of Michelle Duggar, the Arkansas woman with at last count eighteen children and one more on the way. (See my earlier essay about her at Cynics Unlimited) I’ve embarked on a completely different course in my reproductive life: I’ve chosen to give birth to only one child. Just as the Muslim Canadian Congress says the burqa is not part of the Islamic religion, my interpretation of Psalm 127:3-5, “happy is he who has his quiver full of (children),” does not tell me that I should necessarily have as many kids as my body can pump out. One commentator on my quiverfull essay claimed that the Duggars were “brainwashed.” Which may be true, but who am I or anyone else to tell Ms. Duggar that she should not have as many children as she can produce because it’s not something that I would ever do myself or that I consider a religious obligation?
Which brings up the role of religion in society. I agree with Farzana Hassan that freedom of religion is not absolute. For example, courts have – rightly – ordered medical treatment for the children of Christian Scientists. On the other hand, in the same way that political leaders shouldn’t be allowed to impose their religious beliefs about abortion, homosexuality, etcetera, on people who do not share them, perhaps other than in extreme situations it is not the government’s job to decide how citizens should practise their religion. Rather than resort to the law, the Muslim Canadian Congress might consider trying to educate the Muslim community on why the burqa and niqab are not religious requirements.
Though in the end I don’t have any definite answer on whether or not the burqa should be legally forbidden in Canada , I tend to lean against a ban. The occasional conflict between women’s rights and religious freedom isn’t always easily resolved. In attempting to do so, we should be careful to strike a balance between the needs of individuals and the needs of the greater society.
* The Muslim Canadian Congress is not on the other hand calling for a ban on the hijab, or headscarf, which covers only the woman’s hair.
I think the burka should be banned, not becasue it is oppressive but because it is a form of attire that conceals the identity of the wearer. It is not required apparel by the Muslim religion. It is a garment of choice.
In other religious societies, they also have religious garments of choice, but because they do not conceal the identity of the wearer, they should not be banned.
For example orthodox jewish women wear wigs, the men wear yarmulke, or skull cap. Amish women wear long dresses. Sihk men wear turbans. There are many examples. Yet none conceal the identifing features of the wearer.
With a burka, we cannot tell if it is a man or woman, most or all of their facial features.
It is simply not acceptable to be part of the social community and be so hidden.
If another cultural group decided they wanted to cover themselves completly, and be accepted into mainstream society as such- would they be allowed?
An example cultural group such as teenaged boys?
Right now you can purchase “hoodie” type sweaters for youths that have a zipper built in to them that zip up right over the wearers face. There is a mesh area formed as eyepieces so that one can still see while wearing it.
How would you feel in a bank lineup, or shopping at a store, while standing next to a unknown facelsss person wearing such a garment? Knowing it’s a choice they make to seperate themselves from other members of society? I’m sure you would feel very uncomfortable.
It would never be allowed. Not because it oppresses the youth, but because it conceals the wearers identity.
This has nothing to do about laws and rules regarding the practicing of religion. It is about society being treated unequally. Having to live in a society where the concealment of one individual is held in higher regard than the rest of societies forced acceptance of it.
Dear Nikki,
Thanks so much for your feedback. I think if it became clear that the burqa was being used to commit crimes, a ban on it would be in my view worth discussing. As I see it now, though, the burqa doesn’t pose such a threat, so I don’t think there’s much legal basis for banning it. (I’ll say my opinion might change if it turns out bank robbers make liberal use of the burqa to disguise themselves.) With regard to the argument that the burqa prevents the women who wear it from becoming part of society, I agree that may be true – but I don’t see it as a reason to ban it. I would hesitate to live in a society where people would be legally forbidden to make choices that are out of the ordinary. For example, I used to have a cow-print skirt (white with black spots). My brother thought it was so strange that he “forbade” me to wear it if we ever went out for dinner together. But even if a cow-print skirt branded me as eccentric (other than my brother, I think everybody found it humorous more than anything), I would hate to be legally prohibited from wearing it.
Just the statement of this question I think is a problem. Us Westerners believe everything we have is “right” and “correct”. When we pose the question “should the burqa be banned” we are saying “Our western culture is superior and we should dismantle those things that make up other cultures”. If you agree with this then that makes Nikki’s comment all the more absurd. Simply because a garment covers someone is not grounds for banning it. If anything, I know a few westerners that could cover up and show a little less skin.
Dear Box Office,
Thank you for your response. I believe to some degree the call for the ban on the burka may have to do with Westerners’ belief in their own cultural superiority. On the other hand, I don’t think the issue can be entirely boiled down to that: i.e. the movement to ban the burka as an example of Western cultural arrogance. First, the main group advocating the ban (the Muslim Canadian Congress) consists of Muslims themselves, not your usual right-wing “West is Best” types like Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi (who right after 9/11 declared that the West was superior to Islam because the former was “based on freedom” whereas the latter had not changed for the last 1,400 years). Also, I’m not sure that even if the only ones calling for the ban were Western, it wouldn’t follow that the call stemmed from a desire to dismantle all things non-Western. For example, I’m not aware of any movement to ban the bindi (the red dot some Hindu women wear on their forehead). That’s because nobody seems to think that the bindi oppresses the women who wear it. So while the motives for advocating the outlawing of the burka may be mixed (as I said, I suspect the Muslim Canadian Congress wants to give Islam a more “respectable” image to non-Muslims), I still believe that the main motivation is the fear that the burka oppresses women. Not that I agree with the ban (at least not unless it can be shown to be a.) a security threat to the general public, b.) or something that women are forced to wear at gunpoint or believe it necessarily oppresses women, but I don’t think the ban necessarily stems from Western cultural arrogance.
If a woman is interviewing someone for a job here in Toronto and wears a burka she’s wasting her time- plain and simple. Especially, if I’m the recruiter.
If I’m a bank teller or a cashier and a customer comes to me wearing a burka, I’m reaching for the panic button.
If I’m on a TTC bus and a passenger wearing a burka sits next to me, I’ll move to another seat.
Am I prejudiced against Islamic women? No- just the idiotic ones who can’t think straight.
Dear Witchdoctor,
Thank you for the comment. Though at this point I don’t think a complete ban on the burqa is justified, I’m open to concede that it might be at some time in the future if, for instance, the burqa comes to be used frequently to commit robbery. However, to go over your points one by one:
I don’t think many employers here in Toronto would hire a woman wearing a burqa (other than hardcore Islamists). Then again, I doubt too many burqa-wearing women work outside the home. I know that a few years ago there was a controversy over some Muslim women working at warehouse who alleged they were discriminated against when their employer forbade them to wear long skrits because they presented a safety hazard. The women claimed the skirts were a necessary part of their religion. As I said in an earlier essay I wrote, an employer can only go so far in satisfying an employee’s religious desires. For example, if I’m a nurse, I don’t think it’s discrimination to forbid me to wear a cross if it might get caught in an IV line. And I don’t think a woman wearing a burqa should be able to allege discrimination if no one hires her for that reason.
I do think there’s a compelling case for requiring Muslim women to show their faces in instances where identification is crucial, such as at banks or in the voting booths. For private shops, I think forbidding or allowing burqas should, again, at least for now, be at the owner’s discretion.
About moving to another seat at the TTC if a woman in a burqa sat down beside you, I might not do the same thing, but I admit I’m always uncomfortable seeing them. A hijab is another story: I don’t really feel anything one way or another. But the burqa seems so oppressive. But maybe I’m talking from a Western-centric viewpoint.
Anyway, thank you again for responding.
This issue has resurfaced. In France, now.
I think that we are very lucky to live in such a culturally plural, tolerant, and accepting society that this is really just a legalistic and small “niche” debate for us.
Concerning the debate: If the wearing of the burqa infringes upon public safety or the inherent rights of the individual in question, there is a legal case against it. If these conditions don’t apply, we have no right to stop the practice.
Let us consider that, in the West, the lowest levels of “Islamic” female oppression occur in North America where there is so much more of an acceptance of cultural diversity than in Europe.
Bring on the Burqas! Let us show them how unnecessary they are.
Dear John,
Sorry to be responding so late; I only saw your comment now.
Yes, I believe if people, like the Muslim Canadian Congres, really want to eliminate the burqa, they should do so not by the force of law but perhaps discussion and education. If anything, banning the burqa might make some women even more intent on wearing it.
yes the burka should be banned it scars children in this country my children told me it scres them i work in retail and when the woman are wearing the burka i can ot hear them and i feel scared because i think they are going to rob me or something. France banned the burka completely and Italy is thinking about it and here in ontario they want to bann them at voting polls to show their identities and when they are getting there picture done for their licence if they do not remove the burka at voting polls or getting their licence then they should not be living here make the laws more tougher like the united states since 9/11 . I am all for it if they bann it and they should ban mosques to in fact i have one 5 minutes away from my home,Islam and Muslim is not a recognized religion here in Canada and it shhould not be if they want to dress that way and scare people that lived here all their lives then go back to your own country and scare your own people . Infact in Toronto a few years ago a young girl was murdered by her brother and father because she wanted to be Canadian and not wear the hijab both of them are in jail for life.I do not like pakastani people and i do not want them here and try to take over the country that is why they are moving here to take over the world. They already took the lords prayer out of the public schools totally wrong What is next If they come over here RESPECT OUR TRADITIONS AND LAWS WE DO NOT RECOGNIZE SHARIA LAW IF YOU ARE GOING TO FOLLW THIS LAW THEN GO BACK TO WHERE YOU CAME FROM if you read there laws the men get more rights than women and it also states stoning and murder if and cutting off hands as punishment by sharia law IN CANADIAN LAW YOU WILL BE JAILED FOR MURDER OR STONING OR CUTTING OFF HANDS YOU WILL BE JAILED FOR MOST OF YOU LIFE . SO DO NOT TRY TO CHANGE THESE LAWS .
Hello, rchl923. Thank you for your comment. You wrote a lot on this post, so I’ll try to answer you point-by-point as best I can. I will agree with 100% that sharia law should not be implemented in Canada. Actually, many Muslims openly spoke out against sharia law when the Ontario government was considering implementing it. So I don’t think sharia law is a real danger.
Second, I am not sure what you mean by “recognized religion.” I don’t know, for example, if a marriage performed in a mosque would be legally recognized in Canada. I presume it would be (after all, Jewish marriages are). But in a country like Canada, I don’t think we have the concept of recognized religions as some other countries do. Basically here you are free to practise whatever religion you like (as it should be).
About Pakistanis taking the Lord’s Prayer out of public school (if that is what you meant to say), you might clarify that for me, because as far as I know, the Pakistanis didn’t have anything to do with that. I don’t think the Pakistanis as a group have enough power to ban the Lord’s prayer if they wanted to. I also have to admit (and you might not agree with me) that I do not think mandatory prayer has any place in a public school. If I want my daughter to say the Lord’s prayer in school, I’ll enrol her in a religious school.
About the burqa, as you can note in my essay, I’m kind of conflicted. In some ways I do consider it an instrument of women’s oppression, but I’m also wary of passing legislation forbidding women to do something “for their own good.” On the other hand, I think that when voting (or for other identification purposes) everyone should show their face to confirm their identity. And I would support your right to require female customers wearing a burqa to uncover their faces if you felt unsafe with them in your store.
I’ll have to take a hard line against banning mosques. I might not be a Muslim and I might disagree with the teachings of some Islamic leaders, but I think banning a mosque goes against our ideals as a democracy and Western society. I shudder to think that if I had lived in the former Soviet Union, for example, I might have been legally prohibited (or severely penalized) for attending church. So I like to think we in Canada are better than that.
Anyway, I may not agree with most of your views, but thank you for responding to my article.