Your editorial mocking the legitimate concerns people have about being ordered by a Quebec student to stay separated from her, not look at her face-to-face and converse to her back is unhelpful comment from the Star, and trivializes what appears to be friction determinedly caused by the young Egyptian woman, and not the fault of the Quebec Government or the other students (probably immigrants themselves) who are finding her demands disruptive.
To your snide reference whether there are "compelling reasons of public safety or identification," I answer "Yes!" No one should have the right to hide his/her face in public. Neither mask-wearing protesters in our streets, bandana-wearing Mohawk warriors, those in "hoodies" nor – since last year's robbery by two men dressed in burqas – should those wearing any face covering be allowed to be in a disguise, for that's what any face covering is. Unless there is a contrary "compelling reason," and according to most Muslims wearing a niqab is not compulsory, citizens should not have to worry that some people seem to be hiding their identity.
I'm all for rules prohibiting any face-hiding apparel. As for your careless phrases regarding intolerance, they contain aspects which raise serious questions throughout Canada, not just in Quebec. What about tolerance toward the existing culture of this country? For allowing non-disguised citizens to freely protest without intimidation? Or, toward males who suffer denigration and insults by suggesting they are so incapable of controlling themselves that women must cover every body part when out in public?
Now that is a correct use of the word "risible," and it may be extended to your last line, "As Canada evolves, some attitudes need to evolve as well." How true! How true! Some practice might help.
Dan MacDonald, Toronto
Those protesting Quebec's opposition to the niqab are missing the big picture. The big picture is that of a country (Canada) whose principles embody freedoms that dignify human life with values that pertain to individual liberty and equality. The niqab is symbolic of oppression. The proponents can add whatever holy attributes they like, male chauvinism is at its core.When Saudi Arabia insists on women covering bare heads, it is accepted. There is not a word about how this is in contravention of individual liberties. At least everybody is clear about what Saudis stand for. But when those countries with their peculiar values and their supporters cry foul for this country insisting on respecting its values, they are insisting on a world according to them and them only.
Symbolism has the kind of value-power that few discern. Symbolisms are the first line of defence against eroding nation identity. Australia, France and Denmark are recognizing this. The people of this country are respectful and proud of its symbols. By choosing to come to this country, you are accepting Canadian values. If we want to cover our heads and faces, we know where to go.
Cyril Abraham, Whitby
Your editorial is indicative of some of the cultural clashes taking place over the Muslim veil. To a small minority of Muslim women, the veil is an important symbol of who they are. Other women may wear tatoos on visible and invisible parts of the body. Still others wear pins and things in their nose, mouth and elsewhere. Some Muslim women wear the veil.
Five years ago, Ontario Muslim leaders were trying to establish Sharia courts in this province to the consternation of many of us who think of Sharia in the context of chopping off of hands for theft and heads for blasphemy and the whipping and stoning of women for sexual indiscretions.
Like it or not, Muslim culture has a history of violence and cruelty to women. If Canadians of European descent feel threatened by Islam, it is the followers of Islam who must shoulder much of the blame. In their own countries, non-Muslims are very restricted in where and how they may practice their religion and need to be very careful that they do nothing that gives offense to their Muslim hosts. Many of us remember the English schoolteacher who was going to be flogged for naming a class teddy bear Mohammad.
The giving of offense works both ways. People coming to Canada have to make an effort to fit in, never mind the cultures they left behind them. Canada is not a religious country, it is a secular country. Many of us think it could be a lot more secular than it is.
My vote goes to asking the Muslim ladies to wear their veils in private. We have a very old saying about how, when we're in Rome, we should do as the Romans do. I was always told that it's only good manners. Muslim women who insist on wearing their veil in public are not being very mannerly.
Bill Broderick, Belleville
Québec's decision on the niqab was right. The niqab is no more a suitable way to dress in a classroom than if a woman walked into class in a bikini and high heels or a man coming in with Bermudas and crocs with no shirt on, showing his belly!
There is a distinction to be made between the public space (the street, outside, parks, beach, malls) and the civic space (where government services are given, for example: schools, any government agencies, courts, etc.).
The woman in niqab has to accept that, for many others, it is a symbol of non-communication with others. It is seen as a wall between people. It goes against the fact that, in a democracy, people infer that the next person is seen not as a threat or someone suspicious but on the contrary as someone of good will that can be trusted and therefore we show each other our faces.
You wear the niqab on the street? Okay, but again there will be a different response from people around. Just as a woman might not get arrested for wearing a bikini, she sure will get a different response from the people around her.
You can't expect everyone in this country to bow down to every little demand that comes up as new immigrants arrive and then pretend we are racist because the majority rejects some demands. The decision in Québec was a good one. Because the woman in question did not just wear the niqab. She consistently argued with the college to obtain more exceptions that became unacceptable.
She didn't want to be faced by men. That is sexist. It goes against the idea of equality of the sexes. What if her demand had been that she didn't want to face black people? Or a gay man or a lesbian?
Ha! I see now the outrage.
In Iran (a theocracy), Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia, women are forced to wear the niqab or burqa. Christians from Western nations working in Saudi Arabia can't wear a cross at the neck. Western women can't go around in low-cut jeans showing their belly. Then why should we tolerate the niqab in Canada?
Luc Béland, Gatineau, Qué.
I'm currently working for a university in the Sultanate of Oman. None of our female students are permitted to be veiled at any time they are on campus. Further, a female is not permitted to wear a veil when applying for an identification card such as a driver's license, national identity card or bank card. Hence their faces are completely exposed. If this is the case here in a strict Muslim country then why should we permit such a thing in Canada? It is rubbish to say that wearing a veil is purely for religious reasons. Come on Canada, wake up!
Anette Lang, Peterborough
The last line of your editorial says, "As Canada evolves some attitudes need to evolve as well." Indeed we must evolve, but surely with our eyes open.
A tearful Naema Ahmed should indeed be watched. What do we know about the wearer of the burqua or niqab? Is it a male, female, a gun-toting individual, or worse, someone carrying an explosive? How do we know this young woman isn't being pressured by her parents or her religious community? How do we trust someone who will not show their face?
Canada has a great heart, but can we accommodate everyone with no limits? Should we not show some prudence?
D. Page, Oakville
Whatever happened to the old adage, "When in Rome, do as the Romans do"? In Canada we look to a person's face to get their feelings along with the words. Religion is between you and God. No one knows what I am from just looking at me. The Canadian way.
John M.Ward, Havelock
You state that wearing a veil is a manner of dressing differently and that this is acceptable. Covering one's face is certainly a sign of difference. We wear masks at masquerades or when we wish to conceal our identity. Muslim women who choose to wear traditional signs of inequality are stating that they do not wish to be Canadian women who enjoy the freedom, rights and responsibility that this country provides women in this century.
Faye Huber, Toronto
It is difficult to understand your indignation over Quebec's decision to disallow the veil in a language class. Agreed, that it was not a most fortunate instance to invoke the veil ban, but, as a former language teacher I can attest that seeing someone's mouth to ensure proper pronounciation is paramount.
The lady can still learn French from a tape or video disc at home if she so desires. This will not prevent her from integrating into Quebec society.
However, I fail to recall your righteous indignation over governments suppressing cultural differences in countries where wearing a veil in public is compulsory for women, whether they like it or not. In that case you will state, "It is their privilege." And don't kid yourself, even in Canada, many devout Muslim families force their women to wear a veil or a burqa. They even go so far as punishing them if they don't, as was the case with the unfortunate Mississauga girl who was murdered by her family for trying to dress in a Western fashion.
If Canada ever has a Muslim majority that enforces Sharia law, I doubt you will have an opportunity to express your strong dissent over this. See Iran.
John Vag, North York
I read with interest the challenges of integrating or accepting Islamic and other religious face coverings in Canada. Quebec has taken a hard line and Ontario is currently reluctant to take a stance, afraid of being labeled racist or worse. May I suggest we take this to the general Ontario public in a vote to see what this country really wants.
I know I am troubled watching covered women pick up kids from school. They do not even look other men in the eye. Is this the Canada we want? Are we willing to invite those who do not want to adopt the practices of Canada, instead come here as religious mercenaries through legal channels to conquer rather than assimilate?
When will our self-centred politicians, especially those in the Liberal party, realize that this is not a political game, instead a problem we are creating for our future generation? Can we not realize the freedoms we have already lost – see our airports and CSIS operations and such – thus far with the threat of radical Islamization of certain sections of new immigrants? Are these the best we can accept to Canada for our own good?
Are we taking multiculturalism just too far? When our politicians fail, who do we turn to to protect Canada? Its time for that vote.
James Brodie, Mississauga
Compelling a female to totally hide her face is not required anywhere in the Qur'an. In the Middle East it is part and parcel of the subjugation of women and the inferior legal status they are given, treated as minors totally dependent on their husband. If he dies, his brother becomes master. Forced concealment is a form of "identity-theft." And to disobey is to risk the anger and physical abuse from the male family members.
No freedom is absolute. There are competing rights and freedoms. While the individual has the right to dress as he or she pleases. However, when interacting, a bank teller, insurance agent, voting officer, teacher, policeman, doctor, etc. have the right and the obligation to recognize who they are dealing with. And to be able to "positively identify" that person later if necessary – for example, someone writing an exam.
The purpose of a mask is to prevent full communication and disable recognition. It's a denigrating medieval device that is a solid barrier to social integration and reinforces the "ownership" of one human being by another.
There are many foreign practices that are simply unacceptable in Canada – shooting rifles off in public, wife beating, female circumcision, vendettas, etc. Just because it's a tradition elsewhere does not make it automatically an "absolute" right here.
D.S. Barclay, Georgetown
</TD></TR><TR><TD bgColor=#f0f0e0>
