Minister Kenney deserves our applause for taking a bold stand against one of ultra-orthodox Islam's most pernicious symbols: The face veil. He stated that:
"Starting [yesterday], any individual will have to show his or her face when taking the oath of citizenship. Recently I received complaints from members of the Parliament, citizenship judges, and even participants in citizenship ceremonies to the effect that it is difficult to ensure that the individuals whose faces are covered are really taking the oath.... But this is not a simple or technical measure, far from it, this is really a matter of pure principle which is at the very heart of our identity and our values with respect to openness and equality...
Indeed newcomers to Canada must embrace gender equality as a core Canadian value. In recognizing the patriarchy behind the veil, Kenny acknowledged that women must make choices freely in an atmosphere of equality and transparency. The face veil must be removed, not just to ensure the integrity of the oath-taking ceremony, but also to affirm the equality of the sexes. And despite what third-wave feminists and multiculturalists assert, the burka is both oppressive and anti-feminist, steeped in patriarchy and control.
It is nonetheless the muticulturalists' love affair with the "exotic" that prevents them from seeing the larger picture about the burka. Their view is obviously predicated on moral relativism that regards all cultures--even the horrendously patriarchal ones--as equal. Third- wave feminists, in particular, assert that women should be free to define their own femininity even if it includes donning the veil. But can a choice be deemed feminist if one adopts a practice that is clearly the result of patriarchal religious edicts?
Regrettably, contemporary feminists continue to support a woman's right to wear the burka. According to them, women have chosen this path of femininity for themselves. Their choices must be respected and any contradictions in their stance must be accepted. To deny a woman the right to wear the burka would mean imposing someone else's standards of equality and freedom.
And herein lies the fallacy. Women who purportedly choose practices that stem from patriarchal interpretations have in fact not defined their femininity. Burka adherents have most certainly taken their cues from chauvinistic and patriarchal religious interpretations and embraced them without question. That women must accept polygamy, that they must veil before strange men, that they must restrict themselves to domestic roles are the result of patriarchal conditioning, rather than women defining these roles for themselves. Paula Simons, a feminist columnist for the Edmonton Journal argues that, "I will grant Kenney this: In many countries and communities, the niqab is indeed an instrument and symbol of gender oppression. Some women are forced to wear it, or, at least, feel compelled to do so because of social pressure, not sincere religious conviction. In other cases, though, women don traditional dress freely, sometimes for reasons of deep personal faith, sometimes to make a political or social statement."
Simons is wrong. Women in fact cannot make choices freely as she contends, when control over their lives is as invasive and pernicious as it is. Muslim women are led to believe that they must accept their husbands as their imams in all matters. What Shariah law demands of them is complete subservience. Women must hence comply if their husbands require them to don the veil.
Such patriarchy is contrary to Canadian values based on gender equality. Minister Kenney has taken a step in the right direction by requiring veiled women to remove their face coverings during the oath taking ceremony. He must now go a step further to ban the face veil from all public spaces.
Follow Farzana Hassan on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@FarzanaHassan1
Tahir Gora: What Lies Under a Burka? Oppression.
Yes, the burka is a sign that men are controlling the women, and the women are conditioned to accept it. But to the women wearing it, it symbolizes much more, especially when the man really does care for the woman, they take it as a sign that her body, and her face, is for their husband only, not for random others to look at.
To finally be able to actually choose whether or not the veil is important, one should not be again subjected to another form of oppression or law. The veil is here, and whether it will survive is really of no importance, but what is important is the ability to choose, which is what the author of this article is professing.
This is just in the last two months. If Mr Kenny's changes or the Quebec town condescending book on how to fit into Canadian society saves one life, frees one oppressed wife. Then it is worth it.
I live and work in that world and see mentality of oppression every day .
When I was voting once I watched a veiled woman being asked to identify herself with her picture on her license. She did. No big deal.
Thanks Ms Hassan, maybe coming from you these feminists may take a second look at what they are saying,
So, ditch the veil being a symbol of oppression for everyone. It's just you.
Those who say that immigrants have to adapt to Canadian values to fit in may have tried too hard to erase their own culture, or they may resent the Sikhs who wear turbans in the RCMP and all those women in shalwar kameez here in Vancouver. My Father came here while anyone from Britain got a free pass to Canadian citizenship, but his experiences working a blue collar job learning from guys of all cultures taught me the difference between social immobility and multiculturalism. The day we become a Canadian melting pot where immigrants have to "fit in" beyond legal limits is the day we become Alabama instead of the land of Neil Young.
It's ok for the word 'Canadian Citizen' to mean certain concrete things. Dignity, equality, respect, to name a few. And for just a moment, we're asking these women to live and act as 'Canadian Citizens'. They can resume their regularly scheduled outmoded social behaviors on their own time.
There is a lot of divisiveness over the issue. Just yesterday, a young woman who had donned the burqa was explaining her decision on CNN. She was a phD student in Mechanical Engineering and was a convert to Islam. She was also single, and had no male Muslim relatives.
I think the key to understanding the issue is simply talking with the women who wear the burqa. You don't need to agree or disagree with their decision. But if you really are for equality, then they deserve to be heard.
That is the point and this must be stressed to Muslim's who decide to practice this hard line form of Islam it will not be accept here in Canada. If one wishes to practice their faith such as that then they must move to a country that shares there beliefs. The reason they do not move to Saudi Arabia or places that have such strict code because they will not have the rich health and social welfare system as they do in Canada.
Secondly, how many women who wear the niqab do you know? Do you know that a large majority of the Canadian women who wear the niqab are actually converts to Islam and university-educated?
It is truyl ignorance from people to presume that these women in Canada are somehow "forced" to wear this and are helpless creatures. I would strongly suggest you go and meet someone who wears the niqab... it will surprise you.
Here is the truth the Naqaid is not accepted here in Canada, our Country has fought hard against oppression, Women have rights to vote, they can drive a car , be Prime Minister etc. This Orthodoxx version of Islam is not welcome here in contradicts all the freedoms thatCanadianss believe in. As for the Charter I knew that would be brought up but does allowing aoppressivee version of faith a part of the Charter.
Again if one wants to practisece this version of Islam then do so in a country that will accept it, the truth is you will not leave Canada because of many benefitsts of living in a free society with a social welfare system,