Unpublished letter submitted to the Toronto Star

Re: Court’s ruling on niqabs just plain wrong. September 19, 2015.

Congratulations to Rosie Di Manno and her intelligent, accurate and insightful critique of the court’s ruling on the wearing of the niqab. Clearly, it is in itself a polarizing issue reflecting the dilemmas of an evolving democracy within a global culture. Do we support human and women’s rights even when that support may also lead to their continuing oppression and subordination in society and inhibit the ability of society to evolve in a more fully democratic manner? The easy answer is to support the individual’s choice – but is it a real choice made independently and without coercion? These are only a few of the troubling complexities of this issue.

Before the politicians, media and even our courts leap to defend the rights of women to wear the niqab they (and women who wear it) must ask themselves if this is truly a question of freedom of choice and religion or an outmoded expectation of a patriarchal society that subordinates them? To do this they need to reflect carefully on its history and meaning and the implications of their decision. There are a number of critical questions to be answered.

The niqab is a symbol of the Muslim faith worn only by women to demonstrate their chastity and morality however it can be traced back to early historical times. The demand that it be worn is one part of an arcane male belief system imposed upon females through selective socialization and male dominance. The Muslim faith like all other major religious traditions is based on patriarchy. Male prophets (Mohammad, Jesus, Buddha, Bahá’u’lláh, Confucius, etc.) founded these now archaic faiths and their dictates have governed the believers lives and the organization of society ever since. While these belief systems may hold some value, too often they drive sectarian violence and death. The history of mankind is filled with a litany of male deities and their expectations that curiously privilege only the lives, beliefs, attitudes and expectations of men about everything in society and particularly over the behaviour of women. A by-product of this is our legal protection of religious freedom in the courts of even democratic societies which accept the indoctrination of women into various religions while asserting their independence as humans. Whether it was the emphasis on chastity by Christian faiths or numerous countries today that still impose the death penalty for adultery, the niqab is one of many symbols of men’s control over the sexuality of women and other men (i.e. homosexuality). For example, we have banned the practice of FGM (female genital mutilation) as a barbaric male expectation placed on women in certain Middle Eastern countries and Africa. The wearing of the niqab is the same issue.

It is an ironic and mystifying demonstration of the power of patriarchal socialization and mass psychology that millions of intelligent, well-educated and otherwise progressive Muslim women continue to willingly accept and defend the wearing of the niqab despite its oppressive and deferential symbolism and millions more defend their right to do so. It is equally mystifying why billions of Christian women continue to accept a subordinate role in their respective faiths without challenging the patriarchal theological oligarchies that dominate Christianity worldwide. The willingness to accept subordination is truly perplexing to many feminist scholars.

The question for the courts and for public opinion beyond the obvious one of human rights is why we continue to exempt male-dominated religions from the democratic expectations applied in all other arenas of society and throughout history. We would not tolerate people wearing Nazi swastikas openly or t-shirts with misogynist images on them or even young male individuals demeaning female news reporters while on camera so why would we allow women to wear the niqab in our western pluralist democracies (willingly or not) that is clearly a symbol of male domination and oppression of women – as subtle and sublimated as it may have become in modern society? Does the issue of oppression trump religious freedom? Do we continue to support our misguided and anachronistic patriarchal views of the sanctity of religion and its views on sexuality even though it advocates actively oppressing certain segments of its supporters and privileging certain of its members or do we strike down freedom of religion as an antiquated male legal and religious standard that protects male interests and that is unsuitable for a fully functioning and progressive modern democracy? Only if we do will all people truly be free in a democratic society.

Congratulations to Rosie Di Manno and her intelligent, accurate and insightful critique of the court’s ruling on the wearing of the niqab. Clearly, it is in itself a polarizing issue reflecting the dilemmas of an evolving democracy within a global culture. Do we support human and women’s rights even when that support may also lead to their continuing oppression and subordination in society and inhibit the ability of society to evolve in a more fully democratic manner? The easy answer is to support the individual’s choice – but is it a real choice made independently and without coercion? These are only a few of the troubling complexities of this issue.

Before the politicians, media and even our courts leap to defend the rights of women to wear the niqab they (and women who wear it) must ask themselves if this is truly a question of freedom of choice and religion or an outmoded expectation of a patriarchal society that subordinates them? To do this they need to reflect carefully on its history and meaning and the implications of their decision. There are a number of critical questions to be answered.

The niqab is a symbol of the Muslim faith worn only by women to demonstrate their chastity and morality however it can be traced back to early historical times. The demand that it be worn is one part of an arcane male belief system imposed upon females through selective socialization and male dominance. The Muslim faith like all other major religious traditions is based on patriarchy. Male prophets (Mohammad, Jesus, Buddha, Bahá’u’lláh, Confucius, etc.) founded these now archaic faiths and their dictates have governed the believers lives and the organization of society ever since. While these belief systems may hold some value, too often they drive sectarian violence and death. The history of mankind is filled with a litany of male deities and their expectations that curiously privilege only the lives, beliefs, attitudes and expectations of men about everything in society and particularly over the behaviour of women. A by-product of this is our legal protection of religious freedom in the courts of even democratic societies which accept the indoctrination of women into various religions while asserting their independence as humans. Whether it was the emphasis on chastity by Christian faiths or numerous countries today that still impose the death penalty for adultery, the niqab is one of many symbols of men’s control over the sexuality of women and other men (i.e. homosexuality). For example, we have banned the practice of FGM (female genital mutilation) as a barbaric male expectation placed on women in certain Middle Eastern countries and Africa. The wearing of the niqab is the same issue.

It is an ironic and mystifying demonstration of the power of patriarchal socialization and mass psychology that millions of intelligent, well-educated and otherwise progressive Muslim women continue to willingly accept and defend the wearing of the niqab despite its oppressive and deferential symbolism and millions more defend their right to do so. It is equally mystifying why billions of Christian women continue to accept a subordinate role in their respective faiths without challenging the patriarchal theological oligarchies that dominate Christianity worldwide. The willingness to accept subordination is truly perplexing to many feminist scholars.

The question for the courts and for public opinion beyond the obvious one of human rights is why we continue to exempt male-dominated religions from the democratic expectations applied in all other arenas of society and throughout history. We would not tolerate people wearing Nazi swastikas openly or t-shirts with misogynist images on them or even young male individuals demeaning female news reporters while on camera so why would we allow women to wear the niqab in our western pluralist democracies (willingly or not) that is clearly a symbol of male domination and oppression of women – as subtle and sublimated as it may have become in modern society? Does the issue of oppression trump religious freedom? Do we continue to support our misguided and anachronistic patriarchal views of the sanctity of religion and its views on sexuality even though it advocates actively oppressing certain segments of its supporters and privileging certain of its members or do we strike down freedom of religion as an antiquated male legal and religious standard that protects male interests and that is unsuitable for a fully functioning and progressive modern democracy? Only if we do will all people truly be free in a democratic society.