Tolerance & the Niqab

Any government ruling or law that forces immigrant Muslim women to choose between their cultural and/or religious beliefs and unfamiliar secular customs will only serve to further marginalize such woman from mainstream society.

Quebec's decision is  problematic for several reasons. The initial ruling by the Minister of Immigration, was directed at only one individual, but it was ultimately aimed at all Muslim women in Quebec (Quebec's recent announcement of legislation banning the niqab or any religious face covering demonstrates the truth of this). The minister's involvement signals that the Quebec government, which has a historic insensitivity to immigrants, is girding itself for a difficult constitutional and political fight. It is also using racial and religious sensitivities as an electoral strategy.

Second, Quebec needs immigrants to quickly integrate into modern society. This requires a certain level of accommodation of differing cultures and religious requirements. Forcing Muslim woman to give up their customs as a prerequisite to government assistance will only impede integration if not arrest it entirely. If we assume that woman who where the niqab or burqa are already marginalized by Muslim society, what good will come form denying such women access to public services?

Rather than forcing Muslim women to unveil- literally and figuratively - the Quebec Immigration Ministry ought to provide initial services for woman only rather than mixed classes. The costs would be small but the return on the investment large if it allows Muslim woman access to important government services and begin integrating into Quebec society. Language training is a door that opens to modern Quebec society. If that door is barred than some Muslim woman will never have the opportunity to make the transition from old world to new world.

One way to assess the reasonableness of an argument is to test its corollary. In this case, the Minister of Quebec immigration issued an ultimatum that a woman was either to abandon her niqab or be prevented from taking a government-sponsored French language training.

The niqab is a garment worn out of religious (quasi-religious if you prefer) and/or cultural custom. If we substitute a yarmulke for niqab, is the Quebec's position still reasonable or tolerable? If we substituted Langa Voni or uttariya, would it be reasonable? If we substituted the Christian cross or any other common religious ornamentation, would the Quebec argument be reasonable? What of beards worn out of religious and/or cultural affiliation? Do the beards worn by Sikh and Jewish men not also cover their faces as effectively as the niqab covers the faces of Muslim women? Will the Quebec government issue orders for these men to shave?

Of course the answer is no.

A democratic government cannot single out a common religious symbol for special consideration and call the resultant policy reasonable or tolerant. In this instance, the Quebec government has done so without logic or reason. The individual in question can choose to take part in the class or not, just as the individual can choose to do well or not. It is not up to the government to insist that one person make accommodations where they accept the same or similar in others.