…when one cannot tell who some other people are (with video)?

Lifting the veil on airport security
Air security won’t ask for veiled Muslims to prove ID

…a man traveling with the group hands in all the passports and is the only one to interact with airline staff while two veiled women simply walk through…

But some have more sense:

…[the] call for lifting the veil is backed up by two Muslim groups often at odds with each other, the Muslim Canadian Congress and the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Canada.

“You cannot allow a person wearing a mask to be in the perimeter of an airport,” says Tarek Fatah [more here and here] of the Congress. “If you don’t want to take off the mask, take the TTC (public transit) to Cairo.”

“Women who wear the niqab are not constrained by the religious belief from removing their veil for legitimate reasons, and security is one of them,” said Ihsaan Gardee, executive director of CAIR-CAN.

Gardee admits that Canadian officials may be reluctant to deal with this issue head-on due to concerns about political correctness. “It’s something that needs to be addressed,” Gardee said.

Gardee says it would be preferable if female staff were able to conduct any screening that involved removing the veil but adds that if female staff are not available, the women must still be forced to remove their niqab.

Update: Ezra Levant takes on Pernicious Peggy Atwood et al. (Ottawa Sun on a roll today).

Mark
Ottawa

Twitter is a funny animal. Because of the nature of the beast, you wind up following and, in turn, being followed by a wide range of different people with different interests and beliefs. So long as you don’t discuss politics or religion, things can be fairly amicable. Some of the nicest people I’ve met on Twitter were wonderful conversationalists before we clashed swords on some tenuous topic.

Although political tweeters tend to become segregated into the the left versus right dichotomy, I strive for a balance from both sides. As a result, I usually wind up in an argument during the inevitable moment somebody rushes to the defence of Omar Khadr. Or when I discuss the relative merits of the death penalty. Or, as in the case of last night, when I discuss Islamic extremism.

The topic of Islamic extremist can be fairly toxic, since very few people are able to rationally discuss it without offending the other person. Criticizing the fascistic and expansionist aggressive elements of political Islam can be almost impossible, if that discussion is taking place with a leftist afflicted with relativist myopia.

For a political group that claims to reject intolerance and hatred, the left — and I use that term loosely, since I mean a specific subset of the socioeconomic-progressive leftist — have found themselves the apologists for racism, hatred, intolerance, sexism, misogyny, inequality, segregation, and hegemony.

The discussion I had last night with several people revolved around the political symbol of the burqa/niqab, and what it means in the context of a woman wearing it within western society. I posited that while wearing a burqa does not necessarily make one a supporter of political Islam, it certainly ignores the symbolism of the garment, and the gender apartheid it represents in Middle Eastern society.

My opponent made the prevarication that the burqa is nothing more than a choice of dress, worn by the prerogative of the woman, and that I, a male, had no right to repudiate that right. Moreover, toward the end of the conversation, this person suggested that our culture — which by the way, is an egalitarian one, where women’s right are enshrined in law — was not morally superior in this regard, and that we should not place judgment on those who wish to live under Islamic law.

Such nonsensical thinking is the reason why western civilization is rotting from the core outward. That a self-celebrated progressive-leftist can’t summon the ethical fortitude to apply universal concepts of equality beyond her own bubble of self-serving rights, is the reason why the Taliban smirk at our attempts to promote the health and welfare of women in Afghanistan.

So-called feminists in Canada are perfectly comfortable within their much-celebrated birthright to equality under Canadian law. But they cannot summon the courage even to fight for their international sisters yet enchained in the slavery of a codified patriarchal society. They stand on the shoulders of giants, suffragettes who fought for the international principle of human equality, only to stand at a bus shelter next a woman whose identity has been eradicated by a black shroud, and think to themselves how tolerant they are of differing cultures.

Indeed. Yet for all of the education of the pseudo-leftist feminists, who will not hesitate to tell you the underrepresentation of women in Parliament and the gender gap in income, they look to nations like Afghanistan and give a shrug that suggests we should allow Islamic fascism a chance at self-determination.

Ask an eight-year-old child whether women in the third world should have the same equal rights as women in the first world, and you’ll get an unequivocal answer. But ask a neo-feminist in Canada the same question, and be prepared to hear the non sequitur rants on George Bush, Stephen Harper, neoconservatism, neocolonialism, and the rest of the University-bred philosophizing that has dumbed down the common sense of supporting universal human rights universally.

Worse than the fact that these people unwittingly support the paradoxical concept of gender equality and a woman in a burqa, they have the unmitigated gall to bandy about the term “racist” for those who disagree with their shamefully relativist views. The very idea of calling somebody a racist because they don’t believe women should be dressed in black gowns and robbed of their innate individualism, is just about as intellectually bankrupt as it gets.

I have a little girl, whom I love more than anything in this world or beyond. I cannot fathom covering her face behind a veil that shuts her off from the outside world, because doing such a thing would annihilate her outward individuality, and relegate her to nothing more than an object, conformed by extremist religious dogma. I would hope that any parent would feel the same way.

…if they’re banning these:

A Muslim woman wearing the niqab poses during a meeting with Imam Ali El Moujahed on May 18, 2010 in Montreuil, outside Paris.
FRED DUFOUR/AFP/GETTY IMAGES

…In Tuesday’s vote at the National Assembly, there were 335 votes for the bill and just one against it…

The lyrics (and the tune, always chokes me up).  And here’s something you will not see in Ottawa on our national day–earlier.

Predate: In a former French protectorate…

Mark
Ottawa

Oh those fearless Talib insurgents:

Taliban commander in women’s clothes shot dead

Mark
Ottawa

Aislin/Montreal Gazette

A cartoon referred to as “controversial”, and the Islamic faith, are both back in the news together today, after the Montreal Gazette ran an editorial cartoon on the Muslim woman expelled from school for refusing to remove her niqab in class.

The cartoonist, Terry Mosher, who draws under the name Aislin, crafted a picture of a common niqab, but with prison bars and lock where the eyes would go. As far as cartoons go, it’s not particularly original, or offensive. A simple google images search for the word “burqa” turns up the niqab instead, with a digitally edited photograph of a woman looking through a veil of prison bars. The photo was commissioned by the International Society for Human Rights, which opposes third world gender apartheid for women.

The Egyptian-born immigrant, Naïma Atef Amed, has now twice been removed from provincially funded French language and integration classes for new immigrants after refusing to remove her niqab. The province has backed the wishes of school instructors who said that the niqab was making interaction impractical.

Ms.Amed has since spawned the obligatory provincial human rights complaint with the Quebec Human Rights Commission, an ironic move not lost on many women who say that religious freedom should not be used as an excuse to wear the symbols of gender oppression.

Several Islamic lobby groups and organizations expressed disapproval of the political cartoon today, saying that many women wear the Niqab because they believe it to be the truest expression of their faith. Islamic scholar and author, Tarek Fatah, is not convinced.

“You are free to support these ninjas and I will continue to expose this hideous symbol of Islamofascism,” he wrote on his Facebook page.

“The niqab is a symbol of the Muslim Brotherhood doctrine best expressed by the Saudis where an entire population is identified by their attire just as the red guards were under Mao’s China.”

Many people, like Mr.Fatah, believe that the burqa and niqab aren’t expressions of religiosity, but rather political symbols of political Islam. Indeed, he has written that the burqa is an imported and modern compulsion of Saudi Arabia’s strict Wahabbist interpretation of Islam. It is an interpretation that has been widely condemned by human rights observers the world over.

There’s nothing wrong with the editorial cartoon, which accurately symbolizes the voluntary imprisonment of individuality behind a black curtain of religious dogma. But if I were Mr.Mosher, I would purchase a panic room forthwith.

France has recently taken the bold step of cracking down on hardline Islam by proposing a $1,150 fine for women who wear the burqa in public, an Islamic dress comprised of the full veil and hijab. That penalty would be doubled for any men who force their wives or other female relatives to dress this way.

The proposed fine aims at protecting the dignity and security of women, and would apply to all people on the public street whose face is entirely covered, including public buildings. This follows recent comments by French president Nicolas Sarkozy that the veils are “not welcome” in secular countries such as France because it causes cultural isolation and alienation. President Sarkozy said the Burqa is a “sign of subservience and debasement that imprison women”.

The aim of the legislation is admirable, even if not entirely likely to succeed. And it has certainly generated a good deal of debate in other countries, including our own. The National Post editorial board recently ran a piece entitled Don’t ban the burka, arguing that banning the clothing would restrict the free will of women in our society, which goes against the foundations of our liberal country.

It’s true that the Burqa has no traditional basis in Islam, as noted by Islamic scholar Tarek Fatah. It is a recent importation of radical Wahhabist Islam from Saudi Arabia, the spread of which has traversed the Middle East, from Yemen and Egypt to Iran and Afghanistan, and in the past decade has even begun to infiltrate western nations.

It isn’t that I don’t support a ban on the burqa simply because of free will; after all, we restrict free will all the time, when that will is considered to be in contravention to the basic liberties of others. No, I don’t support a ban on the burqa because our society is not prepared for the full and inevitable confrontation with the ignorant and regressive doctrines of radical Islam that are sure to ensue.

Religious freedom is protected strongly in Canada under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There are cases in Canada routinely involving the Sikh religion, and often their firm beliefs supersede any regulations by safety authorities or legislation. If we were to impose a ban on the burqa, there would be immediate challenges in court that would take years, if not decades, to all sort out.

It is ironic to imagine Muslims using the free expressions protected in our society in order to wear a garment that symbolizes gender apartheid and slavery, but you have to expect that inevitability. Part of the reason the terrorists who infiltrate North America are able to succeed is that we are generous in our liberties and tolerance for various beliefs.

There’s also the problem of “official multiculturalism” in Canada, which protects the idea of diversity by law, and allows immigrants to shape Canada into their vision of what it should be, rather than the other way around. We don’t have any assimilation or conformity structures in Canada that even begins to challenge Muslims for wearing burqas, so how would one even begin to hand out fines for something entirely unenforceable?

No, banning the burqa is putting the cart before the horse. The first thing that western liberal nations must do is identify the strains of radicalization in Islam, which includes the burqa, and then create constitutional amendments which abolish radical forms of religion as not being in the spirit of religious freedom. The concept of a ban of the burqa, after all, isn’t going to affect us. It’s a means of saving Muslims from their own indoctrination, just as the state would intervene to protect someone who fell under the influence of a dangerous cult, or a person who decided to start wearing Nazi symbols in public.

You can’t just ban the symbols of hatred. You have to go to the root and sever the connection before it can grow.

Margaret Wente wrote precisely the kind of column I would have liked to write, making to the same kind of arguments, and ultimately the same conclusion. We shouldn’t impose a ban on the burqa. It goes against my natural instinct, perhaps even against my cognitive rationalizing, but there it is. A year ago, or even farther back, I think there is no question that I would oppose the wearing of the burqa in Canada. But that doesn’t mean that I accept the fundamental problems associated with the symbol of political Islam.

The history of the burqa, also transliterated from Arabic as burkha, burka, or burqua [which is why you see so many variations on the spelling of other Arabic words in the media], is somewhat varied based upon which source you read. A completely enveloping outer garment, the covering is worn over normal clothing and removed inside the household. The burqa is a combination of the hijab, or head-scarf, with the niqab, or face-veil. The hijab, for instance, is frequently worn by many Muslims in Canada, and is a scarcely noticeable part of their attire, most probably because of the European, and particularly Eastern European tradition that also involves head-scarves. The face-veil portion of the burqa is called the purdah, a Persian word that rather appropriately means “curtain”.

Many westerners are puzzled as to why Muslim women would want to wear symbols of Islamic oppression in western society. There are, perhaps, arguments to be made based upon the religion itself. Those raised in Islamic societies believe in the hadith, a collection of edicts by the Prophet Muhammad, one of which is to teach men and women to dress modestly in public. While most Islamic societies have interpreted this as the reason for wearing the burqa, there is no specific mention of the garment in the Holy Qu’ran whatsoever.

For an explanation of the origins of the burqa in modern Islam, muslim writer Tarek Fatah explains:

There is no requirement in Islam for Muslim women to cover their face. Rather, the practice reflects a mode of male control over women. Its association with Islam originates in Saudi Arabia, which seeks to export the practice of veiling — along with other elements of its austere Wahhabist brand of Islam — to Muslim communities around the world.

[...]

Most of Canada’s growth in niqabi women can be traced to 2004, when a radical Pakistani female scholar by the name of Farhat Hashmi came to this country on a visitor’s visa. After arrival, she was twice denied a work permit. But that didn’t stop her from establishing a Muslim school in Mississauga, Ont. that prosletyzed Wahhabist norms — including the wearing of the niqab, leaving the workforce and embracing polygamy.

In Irshad Manji’s film “Faith without Fear”, there is a somewhat humourous scene when she is in Yemen, trying on burqa’s to see what it feels like to wear one. She asks for the most popular, most liberal style from the shopkeeper. The man nods and shows her a full array of garments, every single one a deep navy blue or a midnight black. There is something a little dehumanizing in not only the “modesty” inflicted upon women in the muslim world, but the lack of colour as well.

The fact is that Nicholas Sarkozy had quite a different reason for speaking about the burqa than might a Canadian. France is host to an estimated 5.5 million Muslims, although admittedly such numbers are difficult to confirm owing to the clandestine nature of North African refugees. Their presence in that country, therefore, is far more pronounced, and entrenched. In Canada few such neighbourhoods exists, and it is safe to say that many Canadians are far more likely to see your average “goth” girl in full black and white makeup, or a British-style “punk” rocker replete with 1983 mohawk, than they are to see a woman shopping in her burqa. Full disclosure here: I’ve never seen a woman in a burqa in Canada, and only quite recently saw a woman in a niqab walking out of the Vancouver convention centre.

But the truth is that we can’t ban the burqa. Not in a nation where we proclaim the fundamental value of our society is the freedom of the individual and the choice that comes with it. Just as we tolerate all other sorts of choices which we consider less than appealing, we have to accept the personal choices that comes with the freedom of a liberal society. The moment we start dictating what women can wear, or in this case can’t wear, we aren’t much different than the countries we criticize. I believe there is also a certain appeal, a natural rebellious instinct among many people, to do something simply because it is forbidden. It would be the ultimate irony to have women “rebel” by wearing a symbol of conformity because it is banned here.

As Margaret Wente says, we have to allow it. That doesn’t mean we have to like it.