The Muslim Canadian Congress called on the Harper government to ban the wearing of the burka and the niqab in public. According to the group’s communications director, Farzana Hassan, the wearing of a complete face covering is a matter of public safety as criminals often conceal their identities when they are committing crimes.
This is being used as an excuse by the Muslim Canadian Congress to support their view that neither Islam nor the Koran requires women to wear burkas and niqabs; all that is required is that they dress modestly. The Congress takes the view that the practice is cultural and not religious. They of course play the gender card arguing that dressing in a manner where only their eyes are showing is demeaning to women. And of course women are too dumb to believe that they are required to dress in that way.
The request that is being made of the federal government is just as objectionable but less understandable than the request by Muslims that come to Canada and want the country to impose Sharia law. The arguments made by the Muslim Canadian Congress are specious at best.
First there is the claim that wearing a burka or niqab compromises public safety. Well we’ve all known that since niqab-clad women first began to show up on the streets of Canada. Yet Canadians, in the name of tolerance and diversity ignored the very real possibility that criminals could walk around disguised as Muslim women and commit crimes in order to allow others to practice their faith. And Canada is being repaid for that tolerance by the Muslim Canadian Congress telling the law and order Harper government that they’re not doing enough to protect the safety of Canadians.
And why are they raising this public safety issue now? Well it followed days after an Islamic authority in Egypt issued an edict banning the wearing of the burka and niqab. So our tolerance for other peoples’ beliefs isn’t good enough; we should follow other countries such as Egypt and Turkey in determining what practices are allowed and what should be prohibited.
The Muslim Canadian Congress is also of the view that the right to wear a burka or a niqab has nothing to do freedom of religion under the Charter of Rights. Well, they are certainly entitled to their opinion as are other Canadians including the nine men and women who sit on the Supreme Court of Canada. The difference between the latter and everyone else is that when five justices on Canada’s highest court have the same opinion, that opinon becomes law. And that is what happened in 2005.
The majority of the Supreme Court of Canada set out the parameters of what constitutes freedom of religion under Section 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. A person who claims protection of a religious practice or belief must show that there is a nexus between religion and that practice or belief. Secondly, the claimant must show that he or she has an honest belief in the subject matter that is sought to be protected. Finally the court must be satisfied that state interference with that religious practice or belief must not be trivial or unsubstantial.
Contrary to what the Muslim Canadian Congress believes, there is a nexus between the wearing of a hijab or a niqab and the religion of Islam. Those who wish to wear these garments in public do so because of their interpretation of Islam and what the Koran says. Members of other religions or those that have no religion do not dress that way. And a law that would ban the wearing of burkas and niqabs could hardly be framed as trivial or unsubstantial. The court gave as an example of a trivial breach of freedom of religion would be an increase in the sales tax that would make religious goods more expensive to purchase.
The majority of the Supreme Court of Canada said quite clearly that showing a nexus is sufficient to fall under protection of the Charter; it matters not if some or many religious authorities or experts disagree about whether a certain belief or religious practice is warranted. The reason the court decided this way was so as not to put lower courts in the position of deciding accepted practices within a certain religion. Yet this is exactly what the Muslim Canadian Congress is asking the federal government to do; to make the determination that the wearing of a burka or niqab is not required to be worn by Muslim women.
Hopefully, the government will simply ignore the Muslim Canadian Congress’s wish that Canada should follow the dictate of some religious authority in Egypt. Women who have the right to go topless in Canada should also be able to wear burkas or niqabs if they so choose. And if these women are being forced to cover up by their Muslim husbands, then Muslims should address that problem and not go whining to Ottawa.
If the Muslim Canadian Congress is sincere about public safety in Canada, perhaps they should spend more time trying to weed out home grown terrorists instead of dictating what women should and should not be allowed to wear.
