From a human rights perspective a particularly troubling side of the recent federal election was the heated discussion that arose about the niqab. Now that the election is over it is time to put the ugliness of that divisive and toxic debate behind us and ensure that we move forward with messages and an approach that are inclusive, respectful and grounded in rights.
The debate arose because one woman who has chosen to wear the niqab challenged a policy brought in by former Minister of Immigration Jason Kenney which would have required her to remove her niqab face covering during her citizenship ceremony. Zunera Ishaq did not object to being required to reveal her face privately to female officials in advance of the ceremony, to verify her identity. But she felt that being required to remove the veil in public during the subsequent ceremony ran contrary to her religious beliefs.
In February 2015 the Federal Court ruled in Ms. Ishaq’s favour, overturning the government’s policy. The government appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal. The appeal was heard and judgement rendered on the spot on September 15th in the midst of the election campaign. The three judge appeal panel unanimously and immediately sided with Ms. Ishaq; that is how clear the legal issues are in the case.
The government announced a further appeal attempt, on to the Supreme Court of Canada. Recognizing that the appeal would not be heard before Election Day government lawyers were instructed to ask the Federal Court of Appeal to puts its ruling on hold until the matter was dealt with by the Supreme Court. The Federal Court of Appeal refused to do so, recognizing that Ms. Ishaq’s need to obtain citizenship in time to vote was of fundamental importance and there was no countervailing and compelling government interest in delay.
What was so deeply troubling was the extent to which Ms. Ishaq’s case was then used for poisonous political advantage. Politicians, particularly in Quebec, used it directly and indirectly to fan flames of xenophobia, including in the leaders debate. And with that move, a group that already faces considerable marginalization and disenfranchisement suddenly faced even greater stigmatisation and derision.
The niqab is a form of dress adopted by some Muslim women which includes a face veil which only leaves an opening for a woman’s eyes. In some parts of the world governments and religious authorities force women to wear the niqab and refusal to comply can be met with severe penalties.
The human rights response to the niqab is clear. No government anywhere is allowed to impose laws or poliicies requiring women and girls to wear it (or any other mandated dress code that has no legitimate basis in health or safety). But similarly no government is allowed to prohibit women and girls from wearing the niqab (or ban other forms of dress, again absent security or safety concerns). The human rights side of this debate is so clear it is no surprise that court rulings have been quick, unanimous and always in Ms. Ishaq’s favour. Important rights to free expression, freedom of religion and women’s equality are on the line.
Clearly many Canadians are troubled by and feel uncomfortable with the niqab. Many see it as a symbol of women’s oppression. But that discomfort or personal perceptions about the niqab do not change the fundamental human rights equation: governments are not allowed to force or prohibit any particular form of dress.
What also came out during the recent debate is the degree to which misunderstandings and stereotypes about the women who wear the niqab prevail, largely on the basis of assumptions. Ms. Ishaq herself made it clear that wearing it was her own personal choice and that both her father and her husband had in fact discouraged or questioned her decision. What that reminds us is that clearly the motivation and personal experiences of the women behind the veil differ considerably. Some feel forced and with no choice. Others compelled to follow a sense of duty. Some see it as tradition. Others may feel more comfortable and at ease when they wear it.
A remarkable group of over 500 Canadian women leaders from such fields as law, politics, business, the arts, civil society and religious life came forward during the final days of the recent election and released a statement calling for respect and rights to prevail in the niqab debate. That statement noted with concern that the discussion to date has been marked by talking about the women most directly implicated and that it was time, instead, to talk with them. How true that is. It is quite astounding that the majority of the loudest voices in recent weeks, on both sides of the debate, have been men. Women, let alone women who wear or who have made the decision not to wear the niqab, have been relegated to the sidelines.
This debate is not over. For instance, there is proposed provincial legislation pending in Quebec which might prohibit women wearing the niqab from working as public servants.
We cannot and should not shut down that debate. But we can work to ensure that it takes on a tone of inclusion, not exclusion; builds understanding, not misconceptions; and is focused on rights, not punishment.
Guest Blogger:
Alex Neve
Secretary General
Amnesty International Canada
Over the past several months, many of us have followed the proceedings of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC). The work of the Commission focused on the impact of Residential Schools but the members of the Commission soon saw, in the stories they heard, the far reaching implications of the government mandated law that brought Residential Schools into being and the genocidal intent of such a decision. The Commission’s final report represented five years of work and resulted in 94 recommendations. 
