Canada's Niqab Debate
Another one of my rare political posts fueled by a seemingly unending stream of news on the topic and an equally unending wave of rants from the community a lot of which miss the point or just spews falsehoods.
For the uninformed the problem (as far as mass media attention is concerned) centers around a case where a woman who wished to wear a niqab (head/facial covering) during an initiation ceremony to accept her Canadian citizenship was told she had to remove it as [paraphrasing] it was important to identify yourself during the ceremony.
In the aftermath of this there have been a number of other things popping out of the woodworks, like a person wearing such a covering in a drivers license. I'll get to that as well.
The worst part is that this is getting such huge news coverage and making our election about policy which (while important in its own way) doesn't affect many Canadians. Certainly, those with an interest in this should be asking the various parties positions. But the average Canadian at present does not need to know the parties stance on this issue. And that just shelters the parties running from dealing with their many failures in the case of the current governing party and the weaknesses in the platforms for the others.
But enough of the generalities. Firstly, most people in favor of what the government did like to argue that these are our laws and customs and those coming here should respect those laws and customs. And, on a general basis, I agree with that. Not all of our laws make sense, the same can be said of any other country as well. And some of our customs are exclusionary and offensive to some. Again, the same is true everywhere. That isn't a justification. It is simply a matter of fact. As an immigrant, it IS your responsibility to know what you're signing yourself up for.
That doesn't mean that you or others shouldn't fight to change those things. You may win, you may lose. That is the nature of democracy. It also doesn't mean that I agree with all of the rules as they are. I am bound to them the same way every other Canadian is. Both the sensible, and the irrational ones. Both the tolerant ones and the ones that are, or could be perceived as, prejudiced. You don't shove your hand in the fire and then scream at it for burning you.
Those who retaliate against this group commonly like to make the argument that "you weren't the first in Canada either, and you didn't conform, so why should we?" Well, firstly, when the region was being colonized there was no Canada. The natives who lived here didn't see Canada as consisting of what it does today, nor did they see it as Canada at all, or even as a single nation. And while we like to lump the first nations people under that singular banner, they were NOT a singular entity. They didn't have a singular language or set of customs or beliefs. Anyone who tries to stand behind such arguments is clearly ignorant of the history they are trying to use as a shield.
And, those natives were largely semi-nomadic and wouldn't in most cases have even claimed to own the land settled by those colonies. Many of those colonies would have been in land not used by any group of first nations. So, within the colonies there is no parallel to be drawn. I would also point out that they didn't go there with foreknowledge that the land was populated or what the language, culture, religion and other aspects of those peoples were. These points alone are enough to defeat the argument.
The last nail in that coffin would of course be that when the colonies interacted with the natives, especially when on their land THEY DID conform when they were able to for the most part. There are PLENTY of historical journals and documents detailing this. They would use translators to converse in their language, they would follow their customs in their presence and, when not offensive for outsiders to do so, they would often dress alike and/or participate in their customs and traditions. In other words, once they were aware of those customs, they DID respect them.
Of course, all that means is that their defense is baseless nonsense. It says nothing really of the specific issues at hand. Because, after all, as a society we like to think we've grown since those times. If society didn't change over time, more than likely either the colonies or the natives would be killed or assimilated the others. That was the human way for millennia. So, even if their argument wouldn't have actually panned out in reality in the timeframe they like to reference, it doesn't mean it should play out the same way today.
So, moving onto our 2 examples, the immigration ceremony and the drivers licenses.
Honestly, I believe that the immigration ceremony thing was blown out of proportion. I imagine that if it went to the supreme court that they would see this ceremony as purely...well, ceremonial and symbolic. And in that respect if a woman identifies herself as a person who wears a niqab, that is part of her identity and should be permitted. Like a signature, if I'm forced to write it a certain way, it isn't MY signature. The only concession I'd make is where positive identification is required.
And that brings me the second case. With the system as it is today, a niqab should not be permitted for a drivers license. A primary function of the drivers license is as photo identification. Obfuscating the face defeats that purpose and thwarts authorities ability to use it as a means of positively identifying a person who is legally allowed to drive. And driving is a privilege and not a guaranteed right. I'm really not sure how someone ended up with one. It is a MASSIVE loophole that undermines the whole system and many other related systems as it is also used as proof of age so alcohol and cigarettes sales are hamstrung by this.
For the sake of illumination here. Here in Ontario if I sell you alcohol and you're underage and you get into an accident. Then I could be held legally responsible for your death. So, imagine I work at the LCBO and you came in wearing a niqab and I suspect you may be underage and you present a drivers license of a person wearing a niqab and refuse to remove your headdress. I have no recourse to determine if I can legally serve you. If I refuse service am I being discriminatory or reasonable?
The only upside is that these issues highlight something important. As a country we aren't equipped to handle all people equitably. And so I think we are compelled to come up with a better solution. For instance, allowing someone to instead be identified by some other equal or better means like voice print, finger print, iris scan or DNA. With the exception of DNA, these are all things we have technology today that could scan and validate just as quickly as a picture and wouldn't be prohibitively expensive to implement.
Now, that being said, the hard truth is such change would take years to get sufficient adoption and would still be quite expensive overall. If the government OK'd iris scans tomorrow as an alternative for instance the infrastructure would need to be updated to store an iris scan. Law enforcement would need approved iris scanners available. Business required by law to verify identity or age would need new equipment and software and a means of validating an identity that wouldn't compromise the personal data and security of the person being scanned.
At the end of the day, since we aren't equipped today, the reality is, even if we wanted to be fully accepting of the niqab, or hijab or other head coverings... we can't. There are places where the rules are applied in a way that makes no sense. But there are other places where (today) we cannot reconcile legitimate laws with the notion of permitting the face to be covered. None of these things cannot be overcome. But there is wrong on both sides and most arguments are willfully ignorant of that.
For the uninformed the problem (as far as mass media attention is concerned) centers around a case where a woman who wished to wear a niqab (head/facial covering) during an initiation ceremony to accept her Canadian citizenship was told she had to remove it as [paraphrasing] it was important to identify yourself during the ceremony.
In the aftermath of this there have been a number of other things popping out of the woodworks, like a person wearing such a covering in a drivers license. I'll get to that as well.
The worst part is that this is getting such huge news coverage and making our election about policy which (while important in its own way) doesn't affect many Canadians. Certainly, those with an interest in this should be asking the various parties positions. But the average Canadian at present does not need to know the parties stance on this issue. And that just shelters the parties running from dealing with their many failures in the case of the current governing party and the weaknesses in the platforms for the others.
But enough of the generalities. Firstly, most people in favor of what the government did like to argue that these are our laws and customs and those coming here should respect those laws and customs. And, on a general basis, I agree with that. Not all of our laws make sense, the same can be said of any other country as well. And some of our customs are exclusionary and offensive to some. Again, the same is true everywhere. That isn't a justification. It is simply a matter of fact. As an immigrant, it IS your responsibility to know what you're signing yourself up for.
That doesn't mean that you or others shouldn't fight to change those things. You may win, you may lose. That is the nature of democracy. It also doesn't mean that I agree with all of the rules as they are. I am bound to them the same way every other Canadian is. Both the sensible, and the irrational ones. Both the tolerant ones and the ones that are, or could be perceived as, prejudiced. You don't shove your hand in the fire and then scream at it for burning you.
Those who retaliate against this group commonly like to make the argument that "you weren't the first in Canada either, and you didn't conform, so why should we?" Well, firstly, when the region was being colonized there was no Canada. The natives who lived here didn't see Canada as consisting of what it does today, nor did they see it as Canada at all, or even as a single nation. And while we like to lump the first nations people under that singular banner, they were NOT a singular entity. They didn't have a singular language or set of customs or beliefs. Anyone who tries to stand behind such arguments is clearly ignorant of the history they are trying to use as a shield.
And, those natives were largely semi-nomadic and wouldn't in most cases have even claimed to own the land settled by those colonies. Many of those colonies would have been in land not used by any group of first nations. So, within the colonies there is no parallel to be drawn. I would also point out that they didn't go there with foreknowledge that the land was populated or what the language, culture, religion and other aspects of those peoples were. These points alone are enough to defeat the argument.
The last nail in that coffin would of course be that when the colonies interacted with the natives, especially when on their land THEY DID conform when they were able to for the most part. There are PLENTY of historical journals and documents detailing this. They would use translators to converse in their language, they would follow their customs in their presence and, when not offensive for outsiders to do so, they would often dress alike and/or participate in their customs and traditions. In other words, once they were aware of those customs, they DID respect them.
Of course, all that means is that their defense is baseless nonsense. It says nothing really of the specific issues at hand. Because, after all, as a society we like to think we've grown since those times. If society didn't change over time, more than likely either the colonies or the natives would be killed or assimilated the others. That was the human way for millennia. So, even if their argument wouldn't have actually panned out in reality in the timeframe they like to reference, it doesn't mean it should play out the same way today.
So, moving onto our 2 examples, the immigration ceremony and the drivers licenses.
Honestly, I believe that the immigration ceremony thing was blown out of proportion. I imagine that if it went to the supreme court that they would see this ceremony as purely...well, ceremonial and symbolic. And in that respect if a woman identifies herself as a person who wears a niqab, that is part of her identity and should be permitted. Like a signature, if I'm forced to write it a certain way, it isn't MY signature. The only concession I'd make is where positive identification is required.
And that brings me the second case. With the system as it is today, a niqab should not be permitted for a drivers license. A primary function of the drivers license is as photo identification. Obfuscating the face defeats that purpose and thwarts authorities ability to use it as a means of positively identifying a person who is legally allowed to drive. And driving is a privilege and not a guaranteed right. I'm really not sure how someone ended up with one. It is a MASSIVE loophole that undermines the whole system and many other related systems as it is also used as proof of age so alcohol and cigarettes sales are hamstrung by this.
For the sake of illumination here. Here in Ontario if I sell you alcohol and you're underage and you get into an accident. Then I could be held legally responsible for your death. So, imagine I work at the LCBO and you came in wearing a niqab and I suspect you may be underage and you present a drivers license of a person wearing a niqab and refuse to remove your headdress. I have no recourse to determine if I can legally serve you. If I refuse service am I being discriminatory or reasonable?
The only upside is that these issues highlight something important. As a country we aren't equipped to handle all people equitably. And so I think we are compelled to come up with a better solution. For instance, allowing someone to instead be identified by some other equal or better means like voice print, finger print, iris scan or DNA. With the exception of DNA, these are all things we have technology today that could scan and validate just as quickly as a picture and wouldn't be prohibitively expensive to implement.
Now, that being said, the hard truth is such change would take years to get sufficient adoption and would still be quite expensive overall. If the government OK'd iris scans tomorrow as an alternative for instance the infrastructure would need to be updated to store an iris scan. Law enforcement would need approved iris scanners available. Business required by law to verify identity or age would need new equipment and software and a means of validating an identity that wouldn't compromise the personal data and security of the person being scanned.
At the end of the day, since we aren't equipped today, the reality is, even if we wanted to be fully accepting of the niqab, or hijab or other head coverings... we can't. There are places where the rules are applied in a way that makes no sense. But there are other places where (today) we cannot reconcile legitimate laws with the notion of permitting the face to be covered. None of these things cannot be overcome. But there is wrong on both sides and most arguments are willfully ignorant of that.
Comments
Post a Comment