Everybody Knows that the Naked Man or Woman....

... Are just a shining artifact of the past.  Not so much in Quebec anymore.  The introduction of Quebec's Bill 94, a bill banning Muslim women from receiving any sort of public service if they are wearing the face-covering veil called the niqab, is, in essence, imposing nakedness upon certain women.  Extreme?  Yes, by some mode of thought, it is, but if you look at it through the eyes of the women this bill affects, it is not so extreme at all.

This ban is about security issues and equality.  I'm not interested in discussing the security side, as it's painfully obvious that a few adjustments to the existing system would easily render this point moot.  I am, however, interested in the idea of banning the niqab as a way to promote equality.

The veils, though they can be seen as subjugation, and are indeed subjugation if the woman who wears them is being forced to do so by someone else, whether it be a religious leader or a member of the family.  But this is certainly not always the case.  I, a Christian woman, have some Muslim female friends whom I love and respect a great deal.  They wear varying versions of scarves and veils, ranging from a loose, bandana-like drape over the crown of the head to a full niqab.  As we discuss the differences in our faiths (and there are a lot fewer than I'd first thought) we often return to the concept of modesty.  Modesty, though it first, to me, invokes images of Victorian gowns and forbidden ankles, is an idea, and an ideal, that is becoming a social movement in this era of thong bikinis and Tweeted sexual histories.  Sociologist and author Wendy Shalit is one of several female leaders of varying religious faiths who are advocating modest dress and behavior as an expression of self-confidence and self-respect.  Modesty is basically the choice to keep private those aspects of your body and self that are related, in one way or another, to your sexuality.  Religious beliefs provide some pathway in determining what those aspects are.  The standard in North America for women has long been that breasts and the pelvic area are sexual.  Varying from person to person, region to region, you might add shoulders, parts of the leg, and waist into this equation.  Depending upon the degree of orthodoxy, Jewish women cover legs past the knee, arms past the elbow, sometimes hands, and often hair.  From there, it doesn't seem so extreme that a woman would consider her face part of her sexuality, and want to keep that private.  In parts of Africa, Southeast Asia, and South America, a woman's breasts are not considered sexual, and are therefore exposed.  I, personally, would be horrified at being forced to walk around like that.  It should be my choice, based on my personal belief system, which parts of my body I cover and which I don't.  My niquab-wearing Muslim friends would be as uncomfortable walking around with their faces exposed as I would be with my breasts.  So why should the law deny them that?

Is this ban honestly about security concerns, or is it just another form of cultural imperialism?  While Jean Charest claims security as the reason, Christine St-Pierre, minister of women's issues, is declaring this a victory for equality.  She makes no secret of her disdain for the garment, going so far as to call them 'ambulatory prisons' for the women who reside inside.   She's proudly declaring Quebec as a world leader in gender equality, but equality does not exist if you're forcing women to change themselves in order to fit into a certain cultural ideal.  It's just a different form of subjugation.  Nowhere else in Canada are people banned from receiving public services based upon what they are wearing, or their religious beliefs.  It goes against everything this nation stands for.

It was Pierre Trudeau who declared Canada as multicultural, who helped implement much-needed protection measures to preserve the unique culture in Quebec.  It's shamefully hypocritical for that province to then turn around and deny those same rights to others.

Looks Like Freedom but it Feels Like...?

Leonard Cohen might have said death, but the furor over Ann Coulter's cancelled Ottawa appearance feels, to me, like something else entirely.  Coulter, that right-wing political agitator whose words too many less-than-intelligent individuals take as gospel, is screaming human-rights-abuse because the provost of the University of Ottawa took it upon himself to inform her about details of Canadian law that could be relevant to her planned speech.

Coulter is well-known for her extreme social Conservatism, and for her derogatory comments towards Muslims, Canadians, Democrats, and, really, anybody who does not fit into the Conservative American WASP Republican ideal.  The KKK likely wants to set up a national holiday in her name.  She justifies her views by citing that illusive concept of 'free speech' that, in the rhetoric of herself and many others of her ilk, seems to demand that right only for those who espouse a similar ideology.

Again, Coulter has proven herself a hypocrite in her reaction to the situations in London and Ottawa.  It was her public recommendation that freedom be restricted for those of certain ethnic and religious backgrounds, regardless of their political leanings, that set off the firestorm in the first place.  The protestors in Ottawa were exercising their own rights to freedom of expression by protesting.  Seems as though Coulter's belief in the rights to free speech extend only to those of her worldview, for it was Coulter's people, not U of O, who then chose to cancel the appearance.  Apparently she can dish it out, but is unwilling to take it in a forum where she is not assured of coming out on top.

Coulter has publically blamed Francois Houle, the University of Ottawa Provost, for promoting hatred against her by sending her a private email that informed her of the details of Canadian law that forbids hate speech.  Ezra Levant, the tour's organizer, cited this email as the reason for the Ottawa protest against Coulter.  Interesting, how Coulter has claimed that this missive, sent directly from Houle to herself, 'promotes' hatred against conservatives.  She was the sole intended audience of the note, which simply informed her of Canadian law and the possible ramifications of breaking it.  It was Coulter herself who made the discussion public.  Personally, I'd be grateful to somebody who quietly let me know something that might keep me out of prison, rather than publically screaming for the execution of the messenger.

Canada has laws against hate speech.  If these laws are somehow inappropriate, then it is up to Canadians themselves to lead the way in having them altered, rather than an American whose public statements have never gone beyond discussing Canada beyond its usefulness to furthering the Conservative American agenda.

Seems to me that Coulter's real problem is the fact that she was inconveniently reminded of a law she does not respect, made by legislators she does not respect, in a country she does not respect.  So now, of course, the result will be a human rights complaint, based on the delusion that it is because she is female, supposedly Christian, and conservative, that led to a university official informing her about certain laws, and other individuals protesting because she chose to break those laws.  If this actually does go through the tribunal, it may indeed be death, after all.