It’s just a piece of cloth.
So why the commotion over the Conservative government placing a ban on the face-covering niqab at citizenship swearing-in ceremonies?
Some might even argue a token ban in one specific ceremony has little to no bearing on women wearing a niqab in public.
But the niqab carries tremendous political and social symbolism. This means judicious restriction on its use by the government can deliver a potent message about what it values.
This message is neither racist nor sexist.
On the contrary, it opposes the segregation and marginalization of Muslim women and the associated misogyny.
The niqab contradicts all that Canada stands for: equal opportunity for women of any cultural or ethnic origin.
While it is fitting for Tory MP Larry Miller to apologize for the abrasiveness of his remarks about the niqab, he is also correct in holding ground on the essence of his comment that, “anyone being sworn in as a new citizen of our country must uncover their faces.”
Those defending the niqab advance the individual freedoms argument.
Those advocating the ban are driven by universal and modernist values that envisage a society without restrictions on women — even self-imposed ones.
They see the banning of the niqab at citizenship ceremonies as a symbolic affirmation of progressive values.
However, the most refreshing new angles on this debate are being provided by Munir Pervaiz, president of the secular Muslim Canadian Congress.
(I am a current director and former president of the Congress.)
Pervaiz repudiates special privileges for niqabi women.
For example, he asks why a niqabi woman should wait for women police officers to process traffic infractions, in case she is stopped on a street.
Why must law enforcement wait till a woman police officer is found?
Would the niqabi woman be willing to wait in a police cruiser or cell till such arrangements are made?
Should she resist if she is taken into temporary custody and charged for interfering with the process?
Pervaiz also states that, “Courts have strict rules of attire. And the government … can make regulations to govern conduct in a court.”
Courts require people wear attire that shows respect for formality and tradition.
For example, the wearing of hats is discouraged in a courtroom, and no one would rationally complain that this restricts individual freedoms.
Why must niqabi women insist on the niqab at all times, in the face of established norms of attire?
The main objection of those advocating for a niqab ban is that it empowers Islamism by making special accommodations for women in deference to an agenda that is anti-women.
Even many niqabi women acknowledge the Qur’an does not mandate the niqab.
What is really happening here is an attempt to influence government institutions by imposing an extreme version of Islam on one aspect of it — dress codes.
Islamism’s pernicious agenda seeks to entrench what it deems are Islamic symbols.
It’s part of a strategy to assert its obscurantist values, to further its “us versus them” outlook.
On the other hand, shunning the niqab and burka asserts universal values.
Taking Canadian citizenship rightly requires all inductees to affirm Canadian notions of dignity and respect for all.
Doing so in a niqab is incongruous and disrespectful.
The government is right to appeal the lower court’s decision to allow it.