Oy! Quebec's Liberal Party (holy irony, Batman) has tabled a bill to deal with the niqab "problem." It would deny women (and I suppose men) government employment and public services if they do not show their face. Even if it is entirely irrelevant. That is, even if you are public servant that never deals with the public, or even if you are consuming a public service where seeing one's face is not required. For instance, it seems to be the case that university students (since all universities in Quebec are public) will be prohibited from wearing a niqab, but in a class of 600 students, it really makes no difference to me if a student is wearing one or not. I don't check IDs for when students hand in papers or do exams, so seeing a face is irrelevant. Headless students would freak me out, but a covered face? Not so much.
Of course, this all makes sense. Not from a perspective of what follows logically from the challenges of the situation nor from what is supposed to be a Charter of Rights, but rather from a logic of outbidding. In ethnic politics, particularly in first-past-the-post (plurality wins each district) electoral system, we can often expect parties to try to outbid each other in being the best defender of that group's ethnic interests. The competition pushes each far past the point of what might be necessary to what is likely to be oppressive and then ultimately self-destructive. The classic case is Sri Lanka where two parties competed to represent 90% of the population, leading a series of elections and then laws that systematically excluded Tamils. This, of course, produced a reaction--a civil war that may have just recently ended after more than twenty-five years of bloodshed.
I am not saying that the Muslims in Quebec will start a civil war, but if we want to alienate a minority community and create greater sympathy for extremism and terrorism, this is not a bad way to go.
And what precisely is the problem? There is an issue here, as the niqab issue is precisely where reasonable and accommodation hit their limits. Should women wearing niqab refuse from having their picture taken for ID cards? No. Should they be allowed to insist on a female photographer? If one is easily available, then a compromise makes sense. If one is not available, then the accommodation would not be reasonable. To be sure, there is a problem with a religious practice that "works" in societies where women have restricted rights (women don't drive in Saudi Arabia so they don't need licenses to drive) but will not work too well in societies where women are integrated.
So, some thought is required about how to handle the challenges in a nuanced way. But that does not play well in any political system, but especially one where identity politics and a hyperventilating media combine to exaggerate any situation that comes along. The Quebec Liberals have long been cowards on a variety of issues, whether it is English education in Quebec or reasonable accommodation of immigrants. So, we should not be surprised. Appalled yes, surprised no.
Of course, significant elements of the Parti Quebecois wants to go further--restrict any religious symbols in public except for Christian ones supposedly for the sake of heritage. Sure. Perhaps France does not always have the best model. Better for health care, which they ignore, but not so good for dealing with multi-ethnic communities.
Tyranny of the majority, indeed.
No comments:
Post a Comment