Thomas Jefferson said “the legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” In the same way that belief in twenty gods or none does no harm to others, so wearing special religious garb, whether that of Wahhabis or Sikhs or Hassid Jews harms none.
That said, the strict covering of women in head to foot garb such as the burqa comes as a shock to many Canadians. Certainly the burqa is way beyond what is usually seen or expected in Canada and poses a major challenge to the integration into Canadian society of women who wear the burqa. But the freedom to practice a religion that is consistent with majority beliefs is hardly a major freedom – the freedoms that must be protected are those that cause discomfort to majorities.
In that context, the Muslim Canadian Congress recently asked Prime Minister Harper’s government to ban face-covering veils such as the burqa because of concerns they oppress women and can compromise security. As a legal matter the request is absurd. There is no doubt that, regardless of whether wearing a burqa is an impediment to the assimilation of its wearer, there is a constitutional right to wear one.
In 2006 the Supreme Court of Canada considered the issue of a 12-year-old Sikh, Gurbaj Singh, who wanted to continue wearing a kirpan (a ceremonial dagger worn by Sikhs) to school. The Court found in favour of Gurbaj Singh and that decision would govern should any government attempt to try to ban burqas.
In Gurbaj Singh’s case the Court held that for a claim to freedom of religion to succeed, an individual should show a sincere belief a practice is connected to a religious obligation. The Court would not judge whether a religious obligation existed but rather would only look to the sincerity of belief. Despite arguments that the burqa is merely cultural, it is obvious that certain Islamic groups sincerely consider wearing the burqa to be a religious obligation. Next, the infringement of freedom of religion should be serious. Again, while not all (or indeed many) Muslims see the burqa as integral to their faith, some do consider the burqa a significant religious obligation. The wearing of a burqa as a part of religious freedom is clear.
That said, an infringement of freedom of religion can be upheld if there was a reasonable justification in a free and democratic society for the infringement. Here, the argument from security seems thin at best – while there are scattered reports of burqas being used to disguise (male) criminals during robberies such incidents are extremely rare. The argument as to gender equality has more strength, but would require some showing that the women wearing the burqa were doing so against their will or, perhaps, that the wearing of a burqa by a trivial number of women was impacting seriously on broader equality rights in Canada. Such a showing would be factually impossible.
Canada has assimilated groups in the past who wear special religious clothing; the Sikh Mountie is almost a Canadian icon. Amish and Hutterite dress raises no concerns anymore. The burqa may not survive long in Canada before it is replaced by a less restrictive headscarf or a headscarf and veil. Regardless, the right to wear a burqa is clear.
That said, the strict covering of women in head to foot garb such as the burqa comes as a shock to many Canadians. Certainly the burqa is way beyond what is usually seen or expected in Canada and poses a major challenge to the integration into Canadian society of women who wear the burqa. But the freedom to practice a religion that is consistent with majority beliefs is hardly a major freedom – the freedoms that must be protected are those that cause discomfort to majorities.
In that context, the Muslim Canadian Congress recently asked Prime Minister Harper’s government to ban face-covering veils such as the burqa because of concerns they oppress women and can compromise security. As a legal matter the request is absurd. There is no doubt that, regardless of whether wearing a burqa is an impediment to the assimilation of its wearer, there is a constitutional right to wear one.
In 2006 the Supreme Court of Canada considered the issue of a 12-year-old Sikh, Gurbaj Singh, who wanted to continue wearing a kirpan (a ceremonial dagger worn by Sikhs) to school. The Court found in favour of Gurbaj Singh and that decision would govern should any government attempt to try to ban burqas.
In Gurbaj Singh’s case the Court held that for a claim to freedom of religion to succeed, an individual should show a sincere belief a practice is connected to a religious obligation. The Court would not judge whether a religious obligation existed but rather would only look to the sincerity of belief. Despite arguments that the burqa is merely cultural, it is obvious that certain Islamic groups sincerely consider wearing the burqa to be a religious obligation. Next, the infringement of freedom of religion should be serious. Again, while not all (or indeed many) Muslims see the burqa as integral to their faith, some do consider the burqa a significant religious obligation. The wearing of a burqa as a part of religious freedom is clear.
That said, an infringement of freedom of religion can be upheld if there was a reasonable justification in a free and democratic society for the infringement. Here, the argument from security seems thin at best – while there are scattered reports of burqas being used to disguise (male) criminals during robberies such incidents are extremely rare. The argument as to gender equality has more strength, but would require some showing that the women wearing the burqa were doing so against their will or, perhaps, that the wearing of a burqa by a trivial number of women was impacting seriously on broader equality rights in Canada. Such a showing would be factually impossible.
Canada has assimilated groups in the past who wear special religious clothing; the Sikh Mountie is almost a Canadian icon. Amish and Hutterite dress raises no concerns anymore. The burqa may not survive long in Canada before it is replaced by a less restrictive headscarf or a headscarf and veil. Regardless, the right to wear a burqa is clear.
20 comments:
Morton, That's just stupid. Hiding women in plain sight is not Canadian. It's just wrong.
You do realize that the Burka's origins are in Palestine and it was a way to identify women to avoid killing them and also as a way for insurgents to hide in plain sight to go about their nasty business of murder. This garment has no basis in Islam just in Politics related to it.
I agree with you. The argument from security is slight. The support for freedom of religion is well enshrined. Religious dress has been common in Canada through history.
I don't think that a non-practicing Christian like myself should have to worry about the niceities of another religion to whit is the Burka according to Islam or not.
There are maybe 200 hundred women wearing Burkas in all the nation, and of any children they have, there will be none. Western Civ. is usually attractive enough that you don't have to ban an oppresive practive for people to abandon it naturally.
Besides, what I see here is: lets bring in a law meant to assimilate our Muslim population via hasseling their womenfolk. It seems cowardly to me.
Why not demand the men cut their beards?
YOu say there are only about 200 full burqa wearers in the entire country?
Where do YOU live?
I am in Edmonton and they are everywhere. There are even full burqa girls with faces hidden at the nearest high school.
If you want a head count on any given day go to a SuperStore or Walmart.
Marie,
I live in Halifax and they're common enough. It makes me sick to think of how my mother struggled to raise me to be a free and independent woman, to get out of the prejudices of the past, to see women literally locked up in fabric.
Jenn
Yes, we could have a long discussion on this but NOTE it is NOT mandated in the Koran that the Muslim women must wear burqas. Any version stating otherwise is a cultural spin.
I mean where will this stop? Did we not work arduously over the past century here, in Canada/US to give women some freedoms?! Indeed we did.
These people immigrate here. In North America we don't want to see foot bound or veiled women under some patriarchal guile that they're doing it because their religion mandates them to do it. It doesn't.
As a woman I stretched myself greatly in this regard but honestly teaching students I can't even see is beyond limits.
Daria S.
My thoughts:
1) The right to wear a particular article clothing for religious reasons clearly falls within the scope of section 2.
2) It is well established in Canadian law (as it should be) that the test for religious freedom is NOT the 'correct' teachings of a religion and NOT the 'dominant' view within people of the religion but rather the individuals subjective view of their religion. Thus all this discussion of whether or not Islam requires the Burqa is irrelevant.
3) Therefore to ban the burqa there must be some pressing and substantial objective.
4) I disagree that gender equality is a compelling rationale for banning the burqa. Somehow telling women what to do to guarantee their equality seems non-sensical to me.
5) I do think the security rationale would justify some time and place restrictions (i.e. airports, banks, schools, etc.). I thought the Kirpan ruling from the SCC was one of their worst in the past decade or so. Public security can trump religious freedom in certain circumstances.
It's time to stop this nonsense. Canada is built on certain values and hiding women in bags is not one of them. Immigrants coming to Canada must adapt or they should not be allowed. This multicultural crap is just that, crap
Honestly people. The reason you oppose burqas is because they scare you. It is the fear of the Other, and here that is combined with a fear of darkskinned foreigners taking over. It's the Yellow Peril all over again.
As a Christian, I have mixed feelings about the burqa. I can see that it is a garment that adheres to modesty, which is what the Koran expects women to be. This is good. And I can see that women who wear them would rarely be the first or second choices as victims for rapists in Western countries. This also has to be a plus for them.
Also I don't like being told what to do. I wouldn't react well if someone tried to stop me from wearing a cross to show my allegiance to Christianity either.
Yet there are obvious problems with the burqa outside Muslim countries. How do you socialize with non-Muslims, who can't have eye contact with you, can't see your face, and who hear only a muffled voice through the veil? They make women prisoners behind netting, who are “cut off from all social life.” It's hard to socialize with people who can't see you, can't hear you properly, and who regard you as being unwilling to fit in with their way of life.
Wow, a lot of comments -- I will admit that burqas make me uncomortable. I am not sure if that is mere bias or if it is the actual concern that the wearer is being dehumanized -- in a literal sense. But having said that, I don't think it is up to me to say what a person wears even if I don't like it. In a civil society we give everyone the space they need to find their own salvation -- whether through religion, culture or otherwise. Anyway, that's my thoughts!
Morton,
It's because culturaly we dont accept that people hide thier identity when they are talking to you. Wearing sunglasses or a balaclava indoors are taboo for us. I support a persons right to practice their religion, I find the law flawed when someones religion bends everything around them so they can be accomodated. If the argument holds even a half a glass of water that the burqa's origin was not religious then it should not be acceptable in a modern secular society.
I have seen the burqa worn in other countries and found it natural and understood it to be exactly what it is intended, a part of religious belief. By no means should the be banned in Canada.
These women make a choice. They aren't "locked up" as some commenting here are stating. Such emotion is more about the speaker than it is about the women who decide to wear the burqa in Canada.
The kirpan ruling and the current debate over the burka makes me uncomfortable because it affords privileges to some people but not others.
Can a non-Sikh carry a kirpan in the exact same fashion? What about an unloaded gun? A weapon is a weapon is it not?
Can a non-Muslim woman wear a mask or face covering and not have to remove it when otherwise requested?
Or to put it another way:
Can anyone claim the special rights/accomodations of a certain group even if they do not belong to that group?
If not, why not?
It's kind of creepy to think only dentists and physicians etc. have actually looked into the eyes of the woman wearing a burka, a fancy blanket over their heads. How stifling to Canadian sensibilities. We hood our horses for good reasons, but we don't hood our women. It's got nothing to do with religion people, you'll never convince me any women in the world would want to wear a blanket over her head, it's just plain control.
So the burqa is anti-Canadian and must be not allowed, and/or it is not truly part of the religion so must be banned?
Very dangerous arguments, people.
It's clear that Canada support equality for women. It's clear to many Christian religions that the Bible does not at all support a male-only priesthood.
So should we now pass law mandating that the Catholic Church must allow female priests?
Should we now pass a law requiring the Catholic Church to marry same-sex couples?
No!
Our values, and our Charter forbid us doing these things.
We are a free people, and must tolerate the burqa.
The government does have a role, however, in making sure services exists to help women trying to escape an oppressive life.
Canada's wacho left are making a mockery out of morality. Like a collection of cave men beating their chests, they brag about their moral superiority and even get so intoxicated they generate concepts such as R2P. Then when they implement the concept via Afghanistan, they run for cover like a collection of frightened mice.
The anti-Israel facade is another great conn job by the pious left. They would like you to believe that they care, that they are deeply trouble by Israeli aggression, and the marginalization of the Palestinians. But they don't care one iota and they know it.
The wacho left is virtually silent about human rights abuses in Iran,such as amputations, stoning,
or wrongly imprisoning political opponents. The left was silent when Russia invaded Georgia, used cluster bombs, killed and raped innocents and denied aid workers from entering the theater. And this pattern of silence goes on and on and on and on,except when Israel is involved.
The explanation for the hypocritical behavior is easy-at the core the left is staunchly anti-American and anti-corporation. But they know that American protectionism would be a bad thing for their addiction to material well being, so for the moment, they have gagged the Carolyn Parrish's of their society and channeled their venom towards Israel. It's simple domino's isn't it? Strike Israel, which in turn Stokes America which in turn strikes the Canadian right.
wow - hot topic!
Thanks for your honesty, James. I will agree with you on your points.
I will add that I am uncomfortable with a woman wearing a burqa or niqab because I don't know how to approach a woman wearing either one. This could mean saying "Hi" in an elevator, or asking for directions in a public place. Women wearing burqas or niqabs are to be ignored. They are both very visible and invisible at the same time. This is an oxymoron. I see a burqa but I don't see a person physically or emotionally. They or like those people in the movies who think they are living but don't realize that they are dead. Think of the Sixth Sense.
Post a Comment