The Muslim Law Students Association presented a panel discussion on the recent banning of wearing face veils at Canadian citizenship ceremonies. There were two panelists. Farzana Hassan, a spokesperson for the Muslim Canadian Congress, supported the ban. Brenda Cossman, a law professor at U of T, opposed the ban.
Hassan is pushing for an outright ban of the niqab. She sees it a symbol of oppression and patriarchy. In responding to feminists who see the wearing of the niqab as a women’s right to choose Hassan questions whether the choice to wear one can be seen as feminist if it stems from a patriarchal system. The niqab is so at odds with gender equality that society and the state should not permit it. Foreign women who choose to become Canadians must reject the niqab in order to increase gender equality.
Cossman, who is white, has a very different view. She feels women should be permitted to make their own choices and that the ban in discussion is an attempt to control women. She considered the ban from a colonialist perspective. In the past, writers have justified colonization because of the barbaric practices that have been prohibited. One such practice was the burning of women alive on their husband’s funeral pyre so as to reduce the number of widows in some parts of India. However, Cossman stated that the prevalence of this practice before colonialist intervention was wildly exaggerated by those who used it as a justification for the subjugation by European powers. She stated that this was a misguided case of “white men saving brown women from brown men.”
Cossman went on to say that the current ban was yet another attempt of society and the state to control women’s bodies and sexuality. It should be no one else’s business whether a woman wanted to wear a niqab or fishnets.
I support the ban on the niqab at Canadian citizenship ceremonies, but my reasons for doing so are somewhat different than those of Hassan. I think that face to face contact is so fundamental to the functioning of Western society that it is entirely appropriate for Canada to require this in many contexts. While we zealously protect many freedoms, no freedom or right is absolute. No one can live in isolation and everyone must compromise if we are to establish harmony in our social order. While I am not religious, most of my family are. I come from a conservative Christian (Mennonite) heritage. Many of their beliefs are protected, but some are not. For example their belief against personal photos must yield to state requirements for photos on drivers licenses and passports.
In enacting the ban, Immigration and Citizenship Minister Jason Kenney stated “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.” The ability to see another’s face is fundamental to how we identify and communicate with each other. Many emotions are portrayed on the face, such as happiness, sadness, anger and deception. Therefore, it is not possible to truly understand someone if their face is covered. The more people do their business with their faces concealed, the greater the lack of understanding between people. This will inevitably lead to more problems and conflict within our society.
While I dislike excessive state involvement in our personal lives, some involvement is required for society to function efficiently. Some personal beliefs must yield in order for all of us to get along in harmony. I do not accept that the ban has anything to do with race or gender at a fundamental level. While the prohibition will disproportionately affect one gender, this is incidental. Many activities that are banned will affect some groups more than others. This is not inherently discriminatory if the ban applies to everyone. Men cannot (and should not) be able to hide their faces at an event as important as a citizenship ceremony and so it cannot be said that the current ban is discriminatory based on gender.
I strongly reject the notion that the niqab ban is about controlling women’s bodies and sexuality. The human face, including the woman’s face, is about so much more than one’s sexuality. It is a very important part of non-sexual interaction, and the inability to see another’s face can lead to lack of communication and understanding.
I also reject the notion that this has any relevant connection to colonialism. This is about people who choose to come to Canada. Canada is saying that in order to be accepted here, you must accept these standards. It is not about Canada arbitrarily imposing these standards on foreigners.
This article is not about the broader discussion on whether there should be a general ban on the niqab in all public spaces, as called for by Hassan. I think that the issues there are much more complicated than in the present case.
In short, I support the current niqab ban because face to face contact is such a intrinsic and fundamental part of our interpersonal interactions. Government should do what is necessary to promote a harmonious society. It will be a sad day when our government is put off from doing the right thing merely because white women are trying to save brown women from white men.
