Yes, in some Muslim cultures the face is covered. But who does that hurt? Exactly no one. Really?

Yes, in some Muslim cultures the face is covered. But who does that hurt? Exactly no one. Really? According to the Toronto Star: no one. The problem is Harper. Posted on the front page: “Harper doubled down this week by suggesting that if re-elected, he would consider passing a law banning the veil from the federal public service.”

Harper’s described the niqab as “misogynistic, rooted in a culture of medieval tribalism, and a cloth to hide things.” He has stated that it doesn’t reflect Canadians’ “basic values…We’re an open society and a society of equality.” [url=http://www.thestar.com/news/federal-election/2015/10/08/niqab-debate-is-about-immigration-not-womens-equality-porter.html]http://www.thestar.com/news/federal-election/2015/10/08/niqab-debate-is-about-immigration-not-womens-equality-porter.html[/url] So the Toronto Star published six pages of articles and opinions October 8 on the Niqab, attacking the views of the Prime Minister. We heard from Tonda Maccharles and Ben Spurr, Chantal Hébert, Catherine Porter, John Cruishank, Haroon Siddiqui and the editors’ opinion. A few excerpts:

“Just how far are they prepared to go, demonizing law-abiding, tax-paying Canadian citizens who happen to be Muslim, as they troll for votes in the darker recesses of the voter pool?” and “A lot of Canadians are uncomfortable with the veil. Some see it as oppressive to women. Others see it as a sign of alienation from the wider culture. Some even take it as a positive rejection of our society. The Conservatives have exploited this antipathy ruthlessly, throughout the campaign;” and “But for the women who wear the veil, and who have chosen to make Canada their home, it is chiefly a sign of religious identity, not of hostility to others. In that sense it differs not a lot from the wimples worn by Christian nuns and wigs worn by Orthodox Jewish women.Yes, in some Muslim cultures the face is covered. But who does that hurt? Exactly no one. To this day, some brides veil their faces walking up the aisle, unoppressed and unalienated;”and “Most Canadians may not like the veil, but most would agree that a woman’s religious freedom counts for something.”

My favourite was the opinion of Catherine Porter; a self-described social justice columnist. She wrote that she wore a niqab for two days and “found it freeing.” Wearing the niqab along with a black hijab and abaya she said “I walked through Karachi’s(Pakistan) streets without being verbally harassed by men for the first time. I was no longer a solitary white woman which-I gathered from the comments I regularly garnered-symbolized promiscuity there. I was invisible.”

---

So she thinks there is nothing wrong with the niqab. It’s apparently "freeing" because she was able to be invisible. And that's the problem: in the Muslim world women are made to be and feel invisible. They don't have equal intrinsic value to men. They aren't respected by men because the men have no need to respect them. As Porter wrote, women "symbolize promiscuity." Men are taught that women are things for them. That women are targets for them to abuse because without the covering-white or not-as they can't tell when only your eyes are visible-women are promiscuous. We have come a long way from the days when men could say "She was asking for it." Here in Canada we teach that women are equal to men. We have programmes to teach consent. We have tribunals about microaggression! Yet, Porter like so many feminists on the left, refuses to see the subjugation. Refuses to acknowledge that equality is not instilled in Muslim society. According to Islamic teachings a woman “is inferior by nature to her husband and must obey him as he is chosen by Allah to be the ultimate leader of the family and responsible to enforce discipline in accordance to the Islamic law, including wearing a head covering. Failing to comply with the husband’s “commands” may result in physical punishment.” Muhammad Mustafa al-Jibaly writes In “Fragile Vessels”, which is sold in Toronto Islamic book stores: “[Allah] has set the man as the one in authority. The woman should not reject or challenge that authority… She should view her submission to her husband’s authority as a submission to Allah’s decree. This submission should almost reach the degree of prostrating to her husband.” Wife “beating in Islam is a type of education”, says Quebec Imam Canadian Sheik Houssein Muhammad Amer (حسين محمد عامر), the Imam of Centre Aljisr (مركز الجسر الإسلامي) in Laval, Quebec, justifies wife beating [“not severely”] as a last resort and as an act of education in case the husband fails to convince his wife to return to right path of Islam. “The West prohibits the beating for the purpose of education and this is the position that was taken there. However, the truth is otherwise. The beating is a type of education… the beating is used after exhausting all effective and successful [possible] solutions and [it turned out that] there is no treatment without it.” [url=http://en.cijnews.com/?p=7537]http://en.cijnews.com/?p=7537[/url] We, Canadians, promote equality. For all of the progress we have made because of feminists pushing the agenda for equality, we are preparing ourselves to accept inequality in our country. Porter unintentionally and thankfully, summed up the meaning of the niqab. She said she felt safe because she felt invisible. Is that what she wants for a Canadian woman? Invisibility? Nothingness? Is she suggesting we accept that it’s okay for some women in Canada to be afraid instead of empowered by all the social justice rhetoric? Yes, in some Muslim cultures the face is covered. But who does that hurt? Exactly no one. Really?