In more proof that Canada is not the oasis of tolerance that we sometimes like to think it is: the chief officer of elections in Quebec has said that Muslim women who were the niqab must lift their veils to vote: see here.
Does anybody see the sickening irony in the fact that this means some Muslim women may actually lose the vote? Whoops, I thought it was Canada in 2007, not Canada in 1947.
This is one of those topics that really gets my goat!! And this is not the first example of this in Quebec - it follows the recent barring of an Ontario girl in a soccer tournament for her hijab, and the firing of a corrections officer for the same reason. In both situations it was suggested that the hijab was dangerous. At the soccer game, it was suggested that a player could strangle herself with her hijab (Death by hijab? I don’t think so).
Suggesting that someone could strangle themselves with a hijab seems to make about as much sense to me as suggesting that someone could strangle themselves with their ponytail, scarf or tie (much more likely with a tie, since it is already wrapped around your neck). This is all the more ridiculous considering that there actually is a specially designed hijab for sports and safety that tucks into the collar, see: here
In all honesty, at the polls you generally have to show photo ID, so it is not totally unreasonable to ask that poll employees get a clear view of voters’ faces (even though our embarassingly low voter turnout makes it seem unlikely that anyone would want to try and vote twice, let alone once). But the fact that this legislation follows so swiftly on the soccer debacle and the corrections officer debacle, as well as the whole kerfuffle at Herouxville (where residents tried to pass a set of laws to make sure that immigrants “fit in” - and most of these laws were targeted at Muslims, and clearly skewed by racist perceptions of Islam) makes me suspicious that it is truly about electoral efficacy.
I’m too enraged to properly express myself! Please see the much more lucid Zuzu at Feministe for more details.
(Thanks so much to avid Shameless Blog reader Katie for this tip!)
Digg
Facebook
del.icio.us
20 comments
Oh look! Here are more examples of hijabs for sports: http://www.thehijabshop.com/capsters/...
Posted by thea
March 27, 2007, 9:35 AM
I think it is unfair to compare the issue of the hiqab at the polls with recent manifestations of racism in Quebec.
First of all, the people at the polls need to have some way of verifying the identity of the voter! As you said, "at the polls you generally have to show photo ID, so it is not totally unreasonable to ask that poll employees get a clear view of voters faces". Saying that "there is a low voter turnout anyway" is beside the point. We need to have a way to make sure that no one can vote more than once and skew the democratic process.
All of this has nothing to do with banning the hijab in soccer games, or the outrageous "constitution" thing that the people of Hérouxville wanted to instate. Putting these eggs in the same basket, in my eyes, is dishonest.
Posted by Marie
March 27, 2007, 5:30 PM
those are nice, but the girl wasn't wearing any of those(if it is believed that she was wearing the same hijab she wore in the papers, that's what i'm assuming). in any event skating, aerobics and tennis that the sporty hijabs there are said to be for are not contact sports. the argument isn't that she'd strangle herself, it's that an agressive player would grab her by it and cause an injury, there actually were incidents where kids playing soccer wore simple sweatbands, and they fell down, were pulled on and the kids' necks were snapped.
i'm sorry but if you've ever watched or played any soccer you'd know the most common thing ever is kids getting held and pulled back by their jersey. it's the reason why there's rules against wearing necklaces and other jewelery, and they are legitimate concerns.
the security guard case, and herouxville are definitely racist but in this instance i'm not buying that it's necessarily the case.
Posted by nadia
March 27, 2007, 5:37 PM
there are other models that don't pose the same issues, but to each their own.
flame away.
Posted by nadia
March 27, 2007, 5:50 PM
oh and it seems that it's agreed upon that identity checks are something that will come up in elections from time to time. it bothers me a lot that there's so much focus and attention on the fact that ID might be checked at all instead of making sure that these women are properly accomodated (ie having a female worker on hand to do it at polling stations, and that it's done in private.)
allright, now i'm done.
Posted by nadia
March 27, 2007, 9:43 PM
It's especially unfortunate that this is a reversal of Elections Quebec's earlier decision (that it was fine for Muslim women to wear the niqab to vote).
One would hope that policy decisions are arrived at after due consideration -- so an abrupt reversal tends to not be about a new piece of information or further discussion, but because of "angry e-mails and phone calls".
I am pleased when public pressure has a direct impact on governance -- but that is conditional on the public pressure being based on legitimate, reasonable concerns. In this case (at least the way CBC is telling the story), it looks more like a reaction to ignorant public bullying.
Elections organizations in all provinces should be concerned with making it easier, not harder, for people to vote. Absolutely take steps to ensure 1 person 1 vote. But have a little perspective. A notice of entry, and trusted /government-issued/ ID are already required for all voters. The lengths to which someone would have to go to make a fraudulent vote in a provincial election are a little ridiculous. I could be naive about the seedy underbelly of voter registration, but I just don't think 'notice of entry' chop shops are on the rise.
As André Boisclair inadvertently pointed out, Quebec citizens already have to show their faces to obtain a driver's license or health card. So if a voter is bringing that ID with them to vote, shouldn't that ID be seen as part of a trusted system? The person's identity has already been verified by a government body. Possession of that government-issued document should be sufficient proof for a voter to be "properly identified". Unless there's a rash of driver's license thefts right around election day...
I think it is fair to parallel this story with the other current Quebec controversies on wearing a hijab. Political parties in Quebec were eager to weigh in on this topic pre-election, because it is still a "hot" issue with their constituents. Rightly or wrongly, this story would not receive the news coverage it is getting (or have politicians foaming at the mouth to comment on it) if it was not seen as an opportunity to take a stand on the larger issue.
And I could be wrong, but as I understand the rules of soccer, tugging clothing is not legal play, and players are penalized for it. If that's the case, it is coming at the problem backwards to restrict the rights of the players who are playing cleanly. If a soccer player doesn't get that grabbing or endangering an opponent is not acceptable gameplay, /they/ get turfed out. A player who wants to be a tool can always find something to grab or pull. The solution isn't to remove any 'pulling temptation' (otherwise we'll have to keep paring down the outfits until we have nude soccer, which ends us up with a whole host of new issues...), it is to penalize the offending player. You can't behave yourself on the pitch? You're not allowed on it.
Posted by catherine
March 27, 2007, 9:59 PM
of course tugging on clothes is illegal, regardless it happens. if girls were wearing necklaces or earrings and they were tugged on that would be illegal too. but there are also rules against wearing them and they're there for a reason. i know a few girls with their earlobes shredded in two that can attest to that.
if this girl and her parents want to make a big stink about it that's their business, but the field is full of rules like that and i find it a little out there that racism is the only possible rationale.
as for the voting i agree that it's overblown. the thing is, if they showed their face for the photo ID i don't really see why it's assumed that it would be an issue if they were also asked to verify their identity for a few seconds before voting(and indeed, all the feedback i've read from niqabi women seems to be to the effect of that it's not a big deal), provided that proper measures of accomodation be taken.
Posted by nadia
March 27, 2007, 10:29 PM
It's true that regulations in sport shouldn't turn a blind-eye to the realities of what happens on the field/rink/pitch. And given that tugging is prevalent, it is fair to take steps to minimize risk. But I don't think the hijab, worn safely, is an especially risky article of clothing. And if it's not (which I think was FIFA's original position), singling it out for a ban is inappropriate.
Re: voting, we will always have to negotiate the line between personal and public rights. It may be necessary for there to be some infringement on the personal if there is a significant trade-off for veracity and safety. But a tolerant, inclusive culture should err on minimizing that infringement. If your beliefs were impinged on once to obtain the ID, you shouldn't have to do it again -- regardless of whether the majority of those affected mind or not.
Posted by catherine
March 27, 2007, 11:08 PM
so the issue is then whether this is seen as a minor infringment on their religious beliefs or simply an inconvenience. my understanding is that the niqab's rationale is that unveiling around women is acceptable, and even in countries where it's more commonly worn security checks are not uncommon(that saudi arabia isn't the most laid back government in the world is common knowledge, i think). while the reasons that the issue are raised aren't very pretty, i don't think it's very out of line with the religious practice. i still think this is just a political football for muslim hating idiots to kick around and that the major concern should be accomodation with female staff and allowing privacy. but i tend to err more on the pragmatic end of things :)
i still think any article that wraps around the throat is potentially risky(and most relgious headgear doesn't), but i don't have much more to add on the subject.
Posted by nadia
March 28, 2007, 12:06 AM
I'm glad to see there is so much discussion on this!
Like I said, it is not unreasonable to ask to see someone's face at the polling station - and the comment about our low voter turnout wasn't intended to diminish the importance of one vote per person. However, everything happens within a specific political context - and within the current context of Islam in Quebec, all this troubles me.
One thing that bugs me is that women vote in countries with large Muslim populations, they play soccer, and they work in correctional institutions. What do they do there? It doesn't seem to occur to FIFA or Corrections Canada or Elections Quebec/Canada to just find that out. It seems like that would be the easiest thing to do - and the fact that it either doesn't occur to officials to do that, or that they don't want to, makes me think that this is about more than about safety or fair voting.
Perhaps the thing that is most telling about both the corrections officer thing and the soccer thing is that in both cases the women were allowed to get quite far before they were stopped. Like why did no one say to the corrections officer on her first day, hey, your scarf might be a problem? The same with the soccer player - she had already played in tournaments in Ontario, and it was her third game in Quebec before someone, ahem, blew the whistle.
I totally agree that it is important not to be yelling "racism!" (or sexism or classism or etc...) at everything we disagree with - labelling things as bigotry that are not bigoted makes it hard to fight actual bigotry. But I have a lot of trouble believing that all of these examples are straight up about safety. In fact, Canada has a long history of masking racist regulation as safety/efficacy. Ever heard of the Komagatu Maru?
Gender/race/culture all intersect so much that being a feminist more often than not also means being anti-racist and anti-oppression in general. The fact that Muslim women are being so insulted and discriminated against by these various legislations - and by Herouxville, where many of the rulings were specifically directed at perceptions of women in Islam - upsets me so much, as a feminist.
PS I would recommed "Being Muslim" by Haroon Siddiqui...for more info see my review in the upcoming issue of Shameless...
Posted by Thea
March 28, 2007, 10:02 AM
yeah it sucks the rules were not enforced consistently, but it's also 11 year old girls' soccer and the refs were most likely kids in their teens and early twenties, so i'm not surprised they haven't developped a rigid rulebook. and it's good to have that perspective and point out there's more dangerous things she could be wearing, and it's a calculated risk, but if there's equipment that minimizes it, and it exists that should be pushed(as far as hijabis go i'm ignorant as to whether this is strictly an issue of hair covering for her or if she was really attatched to the style she wore it in, for some ladies it's the former). note that i didn't cite that the ref is muslim cause i don't think that's particularly relevant to one's individual beliefs and practices.
one of the things that bothers me the most about the voting issue is that as far as i can tell it is permissible religiously(even for those that support the niqab), it does happen in countries with islamic governments, and niqabis seem to generally be like "yeah it's cool, but i'd prefer to have a lady check it and not have it done in front of the whole room," yet it seems that a lot of liberals have taken it upon themselves to decide these women are disenfranchised without consulting them. treating these ladies as helpless victims who can't speak for themselves is also, of course, problematic in another way.
i know firsthand that there's racism in quebec and the rest of canada. i think a lot of the time smaller things get blown up as the tip of other bigger problems (security certificates anyone? well at least those are done with). the nice thing about the little things is that it's usually much easier to get to a practical solution. i think a lot of the time the problem is just that the majority are simply oblivious to the needs of "the other" and issues like these are good in that they can push people to find solutions. but i also worry that they are just a sensationalist distraction from bigger rights infringements.
lord knows the globe an mail likes to exploit the hell out of everything muslims do every other day on its front page: NEWSFLASH: muslims like to hang out with each other, there are muslims in sweden, there are also muslims in china, are muslims integrating, do muslims swim, are there too many muslims in france, there are whole countries full of muslims and they're also doing stuff-DO THEY SWIM?
oh and as as long as books are on the table i just happen to be about halfway through leila ahmed's "women, gender and islam" right now. i strongly recommend it.
Posted by nadia
March 28, 2007, 3:12 PM
I read on a forum where people were discussing the issue that in a lot of parts of Quebec, perhaps including the part where this problem happened, that you don't need a photo ID to vote. Apparently in a lot of places, all you need is for a neighbor in the precinct (or whatever you Canadians call a precinct) to vouch that you are who you say you are. That, of course, doesn't require ANY kind of test of HOW the voter is recognized in most manifestations of the "I know that person, and that person is who he/she says she is!" setup that I've heard of. As far as I know, a blind neighbor can say, "I know that person's voice, and I can tell by putting my hand on her head that she's 6 inches taller than me--that's definitely my neighbor, _____ _____, just like she says."
Anyway, the whole "But you need to be VISUALLY recognizeable!" thing falls apart in any areas where there is simply a "vouched by someone else" rule instead of a "photo ID" rule.
Does anyone know how to find out which kind of rules the area in question has?
Posted by Katie
March 29, 2007, 10:56 AM
Excellent point. I do feel some regret for bringing up the issue here on Shameless without making it clear that I wanted to discuss the potential for disenfranchisement when a rulemaker announces something like this without, in the same breath, announcing that of course the city/province/country will provide funding to gather up extra volunteers and make sure there's a female ID checker and a private area at all times.
Posted by Katie
March 29, 2007, 11 AM
Speaknig of non-Muslim _________s taking it upon themselves to decide something about Muslims, you know what else is sad?
Someone brought up the point that all the wackos who threatened the Chief Officer of Elections were probably trying to get a whole bunch of anti-Muslim prejudiced people to associate one of their pet causes with the election--increasing the likelihood that they'll turn out.
You know, kind of like national politicians in the USA pushed state politicians to put gay marriage constitutional amendments on the ballots of as many "swing states" as possible in November of 2004 so conservative voters who would've stayed home if it were just a presidential election would come out to the polls over a pet cause and then, while they were there, also vote in the presidential election.
Sad, huh? Makes me really upset that this turned out the way it did if that's the case. And if it is the case, I think the best action liberals can take is to get liberal stay-at-home-non-voters to the polls (instead of putting their time into lobbying for a reversal of the rule)!
Posted by Katie
March 29, 2007, 11:07 AM
I think the best action liberals can take is to get liberal stay-at-home-non-voters to the polls
ha, if you know of any way to get cynical college age kids to do this let me know. i've been trying for quite a while.
Posted by nadia
March 29, 2007, 12:27 PM
Geez, I hope you're not referring to me as a "liberal"!
I think it is a good point that it's important not to just be like "OooOOOOoooo those poor Muslim women! They're being forced to disrobe!!" without actually knowing the facts - so I'm sorry if my post came across that way. I think my immense irritation at the situation really was a culmination of immense irritation at all the things that have happened - not just in Quebec in the past few months - but in the past few years, especially since Sept. 11th.
I'm sure women in niqabs have been voting in Canada for some time - so why is it only up for debate right now? It's really hard for me to believe that, in the context of everything that has happened, that this has nothing to do with race and religion and culture.
This quote from CBS News suggests that the overturning of the decision is totally related to the current racial climate of Quebec:
"At first, Blanchet wanted to permit Islamic women to enter voting booths wearing traditional scarves that just about completely covered their heads. But the decision riled assimilationist factions in this French-speaking Canadian province that has been "enmeshed for months in acrimonious talks over accommodating religious minorities."
This article: http://www.montrealmuslims.ca/module-...
has some info on what Montreal Muslim women think about the situation.
Nadia, I don't think that it's a good idea to dismiss what happened with the soccer player as just being sloppiness on the part of kids. That may or may not be true but I think it's irrelevant - just as the religion of the ref is irrelevant - because this sets the tone for how the issue of women playing soccer in hijabs will be dealt with from now on.
Posted by Thea
March 29, 2007, 6:20 PM
This is an absurd, and so tilted it is obscene. The soccer incident is completely and utterly unrelated. And so while it has already been addressed by other readers (And quite eloquently too, thank you Nadia.) I will not touch it, and focus on what was originally the topic of the article, even if it did find itself following this ridiculous rabbit-hole.
You provide a photo ID when you vote in the United States, I would assume it is the same in Canada. The democratic system hinges on votes for obvious reasons, and the people who take these votes cannot be expected under any circumstance to remember the faces of every voter, so we give ID, as even you admit this is perfectly reasonable.
But I digress, if your face is covered with a veil, than a photo ID may as well be a scrap of paper. There would be no way to confirm the identity of the owner, so even if it is a religious item, to tell someone that "No, I will not show you my face to confirm my identity." is ridiculous.
I'm not saying you cannot exert your religious freedom and use that option of course, but if you do you have no right to vote, putting the democratic system at risk for feminist views is uncalled for.
Posted by Matthew
March 29, 2007, 9:03 PM
Please read all the comments.
I just explained in detail how confirmation that one may vote works in many parts of the United States, including mine. I have never had to show a photo ID.
Never.
Posted by Katie
March 30, 2007, 6:32 PM
Right, and in many places, you don't even need a scrap of paper.
You just need a phone bill addressed to your house or the signature of someone who claims to recognize you and know that you live in the precinct.
VISUAL identification is not necessary in many parts of the United States, and obviously, VISUAL identification is the only kind of identification that the niqab impairs.
All other commonly used forms of "Okay, Jane Doe has shown up and taken her ballot today" are not impaired by niqabs.
This, Matthew, is why it's critical to know what kind of system that part of Quebec uses.
Posted by Katie
March 30, 2007, 6:35 PM
Nadia, I dont think that its a good idea to dismiss what happened with the soccer player as just being sloppiness on the part of kids. That may or may not be true but I think its irrelevant - just as the religion of the ref is irrelevant - because this sets the tone for how the issue of women playing soccer in hijabs will be dealt with from now on.
nono, my point exactly was that it DIDN't set the tone for women playing soccer with hijabs. that decision was an individual decision by an individual ref, the rule that what is unsafe attire is at the ref's discretion.
what WILL set the tone is whatever FIFA's call is on it after this whole debacle.
Posted by nadia
March 31, 2007, 12:21 AM
Leave a comment
This blog post is older than 90 days old. All comments submitted regarding this post will be automatically held for review by the editors before posting. Your comment will not appear on the site until it has been approved.
Our comment policy
Shameless prides itself on the diversity of opinions expressed by our writers, and we encourage and appreciate different points of view. Our intention at Shameless is to foster community and to maintain a safe and positive blogging environment; we do not consider it our duty to give a voice to anybody with an opinion.
Discussion on this site is moderated. We will delete comments that:
(We get to decide what's discriminatory, hateful, attacking, or inflammatory).
In some cases, we will cap off comments on a discussion when we feel they are spiralling out of control and fostering an unwelcoming space for bloggers and readers. Comments will be closed by the Web Editor, unless the post is by the Web Editor, in which case the Editor in Chief will close them.
If your comments repeatedly make the same point, they may be deleted. This also applies to comments made by multiple members of the same organization.
Your comments should be about the topic of the post, not its writer—although we certainly encourage praise for our writers, if you want to say something nice.