A Maclean's Magazine article by Sadiya Ansari recently decried Islamophobia in light of Quebec's recent decision to ban full-face coverings in certain scenarios.
More specifically, the law is aimed at situations when it would be required for communication, identification or security reasons in public institutions, and the rule would apply equally to someone wearing for example a ski mask.
Ansari's arguments ó and those of others who have also been critical of the Quebec government ó boil down to claims religious freedoms are being infringed upon, as is the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
To be clear, I am a staunch believer in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms for all ó especially for vulnerable women who are indoctrinated from birth into a Dark Age mentality that forces them to "willfully" cover themselves up head-to-toe so weak-willed men are not tempted to violate them. Even the Qur'an, which espouses modesty, does not demand such extreme measures to completely cover up. So how can religious grounds even be claimed?
"But, in fact, we have no assurance that Muslim women put on the burqa or don the veil as a matter of their own choice. A huge amount of evidence goes the other way. Mothers, wives, and daughters have been threatened with acid in the face, or honour-killing, or vicious beating, if they do not adopt the humiliating outer clothing that is mandated by their menfolk," wrote the late Christopher Hitchens several years ago when France enacted similar religious neutrality legislation.
"This is why, in many Muslim societies, such as Tunisia and Turkey, the shrouded look is illegal in government buildings, schools, and universities. Why should Europeans and Americans, seeking perhaps to accommodate Muslim immigrants, adopt the standard only of the most backward and primitive Muslim states? (Ö) Even in Iran there is only a requirement for the covering of hair, and I defy anybody to find any authority in the Qur'an for the concealment of the face."
In summary, even some Muslim majority societies reject the regressive notion of a full-face cover, including Iran. Yet we, as a largely open and secular society, are expected to embrace with open arms burqas in public institutions?
On a side note, one garment that does unfortunately get erroneously mixed up with the full-face coverings is the hijab, essentially a scarf ó sometimes featuring fashionably colourful motifs ó which only covers a woman's head and neck. That's not really at the heart of this matter, as the headscarf does not cover the face.
What a person decides to wear at home or in private ó through willful deliberation or coerced submission ó is his or her own business. Of course if we are being honest, only women in this instance are being targeted by these archaic cultural traditions spawned by insecure, power-hungry men who without any shame conjured out of thin air a ruthlessly oppressive rule that is not even outlined anywhere in their sacred holy book.
But once we step out into public life, other Canadian citizens should not be made to feel guilty simply for expecting the common courtesy of being able to see the face of a public servant he or she is interacting with.
