Canada: 10 reasons to ban the niqab – in the public sector

Barbara Kay: Ten reasons to ban the niqab — in the public service

Barbara Kay | September 30, 2015 10:52 AM ET
More from Barbara Kay | @BarbaraRKay

Allen McInnis/Postmedia News

Libertarians are committed to the principle that every individual has the right to live his life as he pleases, as long as he does no harm to others. But the meaning of “harm” isn’t always as identifiable as a physical assault or “fire” shouted in a crowded theatre. Nor is the phrase “to others.” Add up enough “others” and you have a community; add more, a culture.

The National Post editorial board takes a libertarian line on the niqab (‘The niqab? Really?’ Sept. 26). Saturday’s editorial expresses astonishment that the niqab has morphed from “an otherwise straightforward issue of religious accommodation” into “moral panic.” The editorial concludes that the niqab is not doing “actual harm to anyone” and that the leaders should all feel ashamed for exploiting it politically.

Yet there is nothing “straightforward” about face covering in a supposedly open society. It is corrosive to the social reciprocity on which neighbourhoods depend for spontaneous camaraderie. And culturally speaking, Canadians’ opposition to the niqab is commendable, since it means most of us feel we still have an actual culture to be harmed, which is no small triumph in an era dominated by the pernicious laissez-faireism of cultural relativism.

Here are 10 justifications for banning the niqab, not just in citizenship ceremonies, but, as Quebec is rightly proposing, in the public sector generally:

  1. The niqab is not a religious obligation, it is, according to many Islamic scholars, a regional custom. But even in Saudi Arabia, where it is considered a religious obligation, it is removed by women participating in the hajj. Why must Canada be more niqab-consistent than Saudi Arabia?
  2. The niqab is indecent. Beyond “offence,” which can be cognitively managed, decency standards go to the heart of our psychological well-being in society, and is beyond our cognitive control. Our sense of decency is what regulates our comfort zone amongst strangers. Decency standards are not imposed by a charter, but spring up organically in all societies under a variety of historical and cultural influences. Decency standards differ amongst societies and shift with time, but the when-in-Rome principle is universally accepted by reasonable people.
  3. Decency here resides in the perceived broad middle of a spectrum. Just as full nakedness provokes extreme discomfort in most Canadians, so does full cover. That full cover is almost invariably a Muslim custom is immaterial to those of us who find it indecent. (So enough, please, with the “Islamophobia” shtick.)
  4. Double standards: it is inconceivable that we would allow men to mask themselves in civic interaction, even if they considered it a religious obligation, because masked men are threatening to women (and other men). We should not permit to women what we would not permit to men.
  5. The only societies that mandate the niqab as a social norm are those in which women are considered sexual chattel with virtually no rights. Willed indifference to the niqab is more than tolerance; it is an endorsement of gender-rights relativism in our national home — equality for our women, inferior status for theirs.
  6. The editorial notes that “only a tiny minority of women” opt to wear the niqab. This is precisely why it should be regulated now, when it is enforceable, not when potentially thousands of women adopt it and it is unenforceable.
  7. Some women wearing the niqab have had it imposed on them against their will. What is the lesser evil: that all women should be forced to show us their faces while interacting with us in the public sector, or that we facilitate the lifelong misery of voiceless women? We should err on the side of support for vulnerable women yearning to fully integrate into Canadian life.
  8. The niqab is a gross insult to Canadian men, as it suggests they require a physical barrier to prevent lascivious thoughts or behaviour.
  9. The niqab is a gross insult to uncovered women, suggesting their “immodesty” invites sexual attention.
  10. In the West, the niqab is often a political statement, a proud sign of militant Islamist activism. “Put on your niqab!” cried Hezbollah supporter Yvonne Ridley at a Montreal Canadian Islamic Congress fundraiser in 2007. It wasn’t modesty she was encouraging, but participation in the stealth jihad.

The niqab differs from other fashion accessories that promote faith and modesty like the kippah or hijab, and to pretend otherwise is disingenuous. The arc of contemporary Islamism, still in its ascendancy, frightens us. Our alleged “moral panic” is actually moral revulsion. When a symbol comes with this much baggage, libertarian rigidity in its support looks less like principled idealism and more like cultural self-sabotage. No leader who grasps and uproots this nettle need feel ashamed. True patriot love demands nothing less.

National Post

Topics: , , , , 


Categories: Americas, Canada

5 replies

  1. Niqab is not a qur’anic order.covering the face totally is never Islamic.those who cover the face fully should not be entertained by anyone and at any place. If this world and it’s dwellers are so bad that she(the covered face) keeps herself abstained from them;she should be left to her isolation. Because this world and it’s society is too inferior to take care of her.

  2. Assalamu’alaikum wrwb

    Arab people feel so proud to uphold their tradition from one generation to the next generation.

    The Arabs were a nation that often had conflicts, hostility, kidnapping and civil-wars caused by different ethnicities and religious beliefs. They killed their children foolishly, due to their lack of knowledge QS 6;140. A man could marry women more than four QS.4:3, many women became slaves, and can be traded etc. QS.24:33. Therefore Prophet forbid women go outside without accompanied by her brother They were at the brink of a pit of Fire.QS 3;103.

    Imagine how Arab people made a house? They made house from skin of animal, It was not real house but just a tent, moveable, QS.16;80-81. They moved from one place to another place. During Muhammad’s (pbuh) time there was no paper to write, no police to guard people, there were no hospitals to go to when people got sick, also there was no hospitals for animals, no telephones, busses and electricity. It was very difficult to find water for bathing and washing dirty clothes. They lived in heat desert-the stormsand– ( 35-50 C ). When the strong winds come up in the desert, the heat sand or SANDSTORM can damage human skin, hair and eyes.

    Therefore Prophet Muhammad asked women to cover their entire body with a cloth. QS 33:59, QS 24:31.

    images (1).jpg


    So Burqa, Hijab, or Veil is not the Islamic dressing code, but the Arab traditional dress who live in desert at ancient times.

    There are two reasons why women wear burqa:

    1. In order women can not be abducted or be kidnapped by enemy for sex-slave.

    2.In order women can not be harmed by stormsand.

    Forbid women to go outside without her brother or husband is not Islamic teaching from God. as well as women are forbidden drive a car.

    Wassalamu’alikum wr wb

  3. Zia shah this is an Uncle Tom inferiority complex, and therefore I have lost all my respect for you … don’t tell women what she can or cannot wear

  4. The Freedom of Expression doesn’t mean that we stop respecting each other.Every one can hold their point of view in respectable way.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.