If there is one aspect of Bill 62 that I dislike, it is the absurd hypocrisy in not calling a spade a spade. The law is indeed a ban on the Burqa and niqab and nothing more, with the language used, a ban on 'face coverings,' a sad device meant to deflect charges of religious intolerance and an effort to create a more defensible legal position.Those outraged by the ban are lining up with howls of religious intolerance and mounted feminist outrage at the egregious attack on religious freedom. It is to be expected by the alt.liberals who believe that personal freedom always trumps society's collective rights.
Those who say that the ban is an attack on religious freedom are probably right, though it isn't clear if the niqab and the burka are religious accoutrements as they aren't directly made mention in the Koran and aren't obligatory for Muslim women, according to Muslim scholars. There is mention in the Koran of women dressing modestly to please Allah, so I guess the argument can be made one way or the other.
But no matter....
A religious requirement or just a social more, the niqab and burqa are de rigueur in shithole misogynist countries like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Iran, to name a few, where women are treated like chattel and rules for 'modest dress' an overt signal that women are second-class citizens.
As for the religious freedom argument, let us remember that those freedoms, like free speech, are not absolute and unbounded.
You cannot scream "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre without good cause and you cannot make overt unbridled physical threats of any kind. Free speech is constrained by what we consider good sense, as it should be.
The same goes for religion, where the freedom to marry off underage children is barred as well as female circumcision and a variety of mostly misogynistic practices that are unacceptable and illegal in our society.
So let us be clear. In the name of religious freedom, you cannot do whatever you please.
We as a society can and should interfere in religious practices that are deemed unsafe, exploitive, demeaning and offensive.
Because of the fear of offending those who hide their unacceptable religious practices under the cloak of religious freedom and their apologists, we as a society have failed to take action when we should have.
As for religious excess, the fundamentalist Muslims of Quebec don't hold a candle to the ultra-orthodox Jews who make a mockery of our society by engaging in a set of practices that should long ago have been banned. Children are subjected to an ultra-religious 19th-century education that doesn't allow for the time to study government mandated courses, crippling their ability to leave the community as adults and pursue a different life. These religious schools are an affront and represent child abuse as we know it. While coming under prodding by the Quebec education department, the community has grudgingly made some effort, but it is at best lip service.
The outrageous saga of the Lev Tahor cult is another example of authorities fearing to ruffle the feathers of religious nuts because of the fear of being labelled racist.
"It took youth protection officials far too long to intervene in the case of 134 children who were part of the Lev Tahor community living for a decade in Ste-Agathe-des-Monts, a report from the Quebec human-rights commission concluded.
In November 2013, about 250 members of the ultra-Orthodox Jewish sect fled the Laurentians town to avoid a hearing in youth court. The group was facing allegations of child abuse and neglect from Quebec’s youth-protection department — such as corporal punishment in school, underage marriage, sexual abuse of minors and squalid living conditions". Mtl Gazette
Nobody can compare the wearing of the burqa and the niqab as the egregious behaviour as the above, but as a society, we have the right to limit symbols that rightly insult and belittle women, regardless of whether the wearer believes it does or does not.
Religious face coverings tell us that men are not worthy of seeing the face of the wearer and that women are offended by being seen by men other than their 'owners,' be it a father or husband.
What university would allow a student the right to come to class wearing a white supremacist or Nazi T-shirt? What business would allow an employee the free speech to wear an antisemitic outfit while serving customers?
Burqas and niqabs aren't benign symbols of faith, they are symbols of female oppression regardless of whether the wearer believes it an instrument of modesty.
It amazes me how liberals and feminists are all for free speech and expression, as long as it doesn't offend their liberal values.
Try going to school with an anti-vaccine t-shirt or a 'Black Lives Don't Matter' pin and see how fast liberals mobilize to remove the offending messages under the guise that the symbolism make them feel unsafe.
Liberals will argue that the head coverings are innocent devices of modesty, a clever ploy which is meant to deflect criticism. I wonder if a woman wearing a T-shirt that says "Property of my Husband" would be given the same consideration if she argued that it is just a symbol of her devotion to her family.
The real underlying message of the niqab and burqa is subjugation and misogyny and for this reason, many other countries, including Muslim-majority countries are now taking a stand.
Let liberals blather on about freedom of choice and religion, they are bullshitters extraordinaire. They are the first to propose bans on symbols and indeed speech that they find offensive.
Quebec has said that the religious head coverings are a religious practice that its society finds collectively offensive because of its overt message of misogyny.
Don't feel bad about the face-covering ban, feel empowered that we are indeed taking a stand to limit religious oppression of women.
