Quote:
Originally Posted by CliffFletcher
It's true that Islam isn't a race. Still, it's hard to dispute that concern over the niqab has nothing to do with racists. Some criticism is over displays of religion, some is about the oppression of women, and some is about nativism and hostility to foreign cultures.
On the other hand, race is also a factor in the defence of the niqab. If it wasn't Islam, but some fundamentalist Christian sect out of the U.S. that mandated women had to cover their faces in public, I wager a great many people championing tolerance of the niqab today wouldn't have any problem with enacting legislation to suppress that custom.
|
Okay, perhaps "nothing to do with racists" is too black and white. I'd concede that -- in some contexts -- it probably has
something to do with racist opinions. I agree with your second paragraph 100%, I don't even think it would be in question as to what response you'd see.
It's a touchy subject at the best of times, but far too often I find that my people -- those on the left side of the political spectrum -- are way too quick to jump in and blanket defend foreign cultures. Exposure to foreign cultures are generally a good thing; among other things, they bring new forms of entertainment, food, and viewpoint diversity. Hell, the fact that I was raised with a significant amount of foreign cultural influence alongside my decidedly lower-middle class Canadian upbringing is something I'm very thankful for (I'm half Pakistani).
But we have to evaluate individual cultural components on their merits, and the mixing of both Canadian and (in my case) Pakistani components allowed me to compare, contrast, and reject negative components of each as I got older, while also appreciating their differences and value to my life.
Now, whether the niqab is a religious or cultural effect is of no meaningful distinction to me, though they are viewed differently in a legal context; neither is a good excuse. The way in which people are coerced to wear it (and the punishments for failure to comply) and the underlying implication it has (women are chattel, women must be modest and cover themselves because somehow men in those cultures
just can't help themselves if they see a bit of skin) doesn't wash. It's anti-woman. People want to bitch about patriarchy, well here's one of the most egregious offenders literally staring them in the face, and they're tripping over themselves to defend the practice.
Again, I don't know what the answer is here. It isn't ideal to tell people "you can't wear X", but it is definitely not ideal to allow an abusive and dehumanizing practice like this one to survive scrutiny in our country under the guise of either religion
or culture, and it should be discouraged. Quebec's approach is a far less severe one than that of France, and in my opinion, it's a much more reasonable first step.