Like the hijab , its more liberal cousin, the niqab arouses controversy at every turn in modern democratic states – especially when it jars cherished institutions such as Parliament, the courts, or schools.
In Toronto, in a case currently before the courts, a judge has ordered a woman testifying in a sexual assault case to do so without her niqab.
She protested, saying it was an issue of modesty and comfort – of Islam.
But Ontario Court Justice Norris Weisman ruled that it was more an issue of comfort than religious freedom, and that she must show her face.
THE REALIST
Saira Zuberi
Toronto-based minority rights activist
“This is one of those contentious things, because most people don’t actually believe it’s a requirement and there are those who actually believe that they have to do it.
“It’s like the case in the election (with voters having to unveil).
“It really ends up being a little bit of a tempest in a teacup. You’ve got this tiny percentage of people that it applies to; it’s minuscule. You’re talking about Muslim women voters who happen to also wear niqab who would actually refuse to identify themselves. This tiny percentage.
“And they’re not actually contravening the law, because there are thousands of people who vote by mail, who are not required to show ID.
“It just ends up being a lightning rod for those people who get angry because, `Oh, we’re making too many concessions for all these people …’ You know?
“I don’t think it’s a huge number of people who are asking for this.”
THE PRAGMATIST
Shahina Siddiqui
President of the Islamic Social Services Association
“There’s a law of necessity in Islam, where you can relax what your understanding of the requirements are.” If there are reasons of security or law, exceptions can be made, “and that’s why they (unveil) for driver’s licence, for passports and for crossing borders.”
“I’ve travelled with women who wear niqab and at airports they do remove it. And some will say, `Oh, can I do it in front of a woman attendant?’ And some don’t bother with that either … It can be done, even in Muslim countries. When they’re required to, they do it.”
Since the case on trial was a sexual assault, “For her, it’s her security blanket … I would say the judge should take that into account. And I don’t know if she’s an immigrant or a new refugee … As a social worker I always try to look at all the variables.
“I mean, it is a religious obligation, but in this case it’s also an added question of how secure she feels. But generally speaking, exceptions can be made. The issue is, is this that case?”
THE ETHICIST
Alia Hogben
Executive director of the Canadian Council of Muslim Women”It is not a religious requirement to cover your face. That’s put very simply. Some women do this because they think it’s more modest.
“It’s about modesty for both women and men – don’t flaunt yourself, dress modestly, etc.
“But the emphasis seems to have shifted, to focus on women rather than men. And a lot of women are interpreting it, or are having it interpreted for them, that modesty means covering yourself. That’s a personal choice a Muslim woman makes. It is not a religious directive.
“The judge sounds like he carefully considered it all and felt that it was important that her face be seen in court.
“When there’s been some sensitivity … they have done (testimony) in other rooms, particularly for children, instead of having to face the whole court….
“If this woman is frightened … then that’s another question … And that should be addressed, absolutely. But covering her face in an open court is not necessary.”
OTHER CASES
In the U.K., one magistrate stormed out of a Manchester court when faced with a veiled defendant and another judge adjourned because he said he could not hear a veiled Muslim lawyer’s muffled voice.
Soon after, in 2007, a judges’ advisory panel said judges should use discretion, and could choose other options – such as a live link or clearing the public gallery – instead of forcing a woman to unveil.
In Canada, without any veiled Muslim woman contesting election regulations, the niqab became an issue in 2007 among politicians, election officials and the media.
It surfaced again briefly in the election of 2008, when Canada’s chief electoral officer said a veiled voter would have to swear a special oath if she didn’t remove her veil.
Oppressions To The Hijab's Weblog 
Recent Comments