Voting While Veiled

Scott Lemieux writes about Québec regulations against voting with a covered face, and efforts to secure an exemption for observant Muslim women. I agree with this bottom line:

Even if the Quebec government can do it, however, we need to ask whether it should. Absent a showing that facial covered was being used to a significant extent to commit voter fraud, I cannot agree that this regulation is remotely justifiable. The state should accommodate minority religions absent a good reason to do so.

Given the generally fraught subject of the relationship of the major western democracies to the Islamic world and to their internal Muslim minorities, it's worth pointing out that this is a fairly perverse measure. Nobody who feels a serious religious obligation not to uncover her face is going to be shaken from that conviction by being barred from voting. Instead, a regulation of this sort is just going to be experienced as the disenfranchisement of a group of observant Muslim women. What one wants to do, however, is encourage minority groups to participate in mainstream practices and institutions -- voting being high on the list -- even if that means the practices may need to be slightly modified in order to accommodate such participation.

Comments

U LEFTARD THEY R GONNA VOTE 4 TEH SHARIA!!!!11

Posted by digamma | September 9, 2007 2:45 PM

Is voting by mail an option?

I'm tired of accomodating quirky religious fetishes in the public space. Would Matt support someone who adheres to a religion that says, when out in public, wear a gorilla suit? Should this person be allowed to vote while wearing said outfit?

There is a good reason for requiring people to be recognizable in certain situations (e.g. using a credit card with the identity theft protection of a picture). Voting is one of them.

QUESTION: If a religion requires people to hide their faces in public, is it therefore reasonable to require, as an alternative, that they have some other identity device (like a RFID chip implanted) instead?

Posted by Quiddity | September 9, 2007 2:48 PM

"U LEFTARD THEY R GONNA VOTE 4 TEH SHARIA!!!!11

Posted by digamma | September 9, 2007 2:45 PM"

This is my favorite fake comment ever.

"I'm tired of accomodating quirky religious fetishes in the public space. Would Matt support someone who adheres to a religion that says, when out in public, wear a gorilla suit?"

That would be awesome. Don't give me any ideas.

Posted by Reality Man | September 9, 2007 2:51 PM

If Muslim women should be allowed to walk in public with their face covered, my girlfriend should be able to go in public naked because her religion tells her so. Vanessa Hudgens has nothing on her.

Posted by Dan the Man | September 9, 2007 2:55 PM

They're hot in the summer, but you might get away with it in Quebec.

The real problem is that, for all we know, there's a gorilla inside that gorilla suit.
And we all know where _that_ leads.

Posted by gcochran | September 9, 2007 2:58 PM

What about completely voluntary, religious-based FGM or polygamy? Would MattY support various exceptions from current laws to accomodate those practices?

Posted by TLB | September 9, 2007 3:04 PM

The real problem is that, for all we know, there's a gorilla inside that gorilla suit.
And we all know where _that_ leads.

Comedy gold!!!

.

Posted by spork_incident | September 9, 2007 3:05 PM

Time to unmask enemies of the people!

Posted by abb1 | September 9, 2007 3:17 PM

"If Muslim women should be allowed to walk in public with their face covered, my girlfriend should be able to go in public naked because her religion tells her so. Vanessa Hudgens has nothing on her.

Posted by Dan the Man | September 9, 2007 2:55 PM"

I like your form of tolerance. Maybe we can export it to Dubai.

Posted by Reality Man | September 9, 2007 3:18 PM

...voting being high..

Is that permitted?

Posted by gregor | September 9, 2007 3:21 PM

Sigh. We had this debate over Sikhs and motorcycle helmets, didn't we?

Just tell them to produce some ID with their fingerprints on it. Islam does not require women to wear gloves.

What about completely voluntary, religious-based FGM or polygamy?

Teh stupid. FGM and polygamy are illegal. Wearing a veil is not, and there are fairly simple workarounds for the ID problem.

Tolerate these practices, and within a generation or two, most of the community will abandon them by themselves. Go after them, and they'll dig in. The people who want to start a jihad over this are bullies, closet racists, or busybodies. None of that type of person is wanted in Canada. Let them move to the United States, there seems enough of them there....

Posted by sunsin | September 9, 2007 3:23 PM

How 'bout the folks whose religion lets them vote for their spouses? Or while high on shrooms? I see all sorts of possibilities for encouraging the participation of hitherto disadvantaged minorities.

Posted by faux facsimile | September 9, 2007 3:25 PM

Well, no. Just no. Everyone should be treated the same. I agree with Quiddity; we in the West go way too far to accomodate every religious quirk. We shouldn't let extreme Catholic pharmacists deny the Pill to customers and we shouldn't let Muslim women mask their face at a polling place (or when getting a driver's license, or when getting a passport). Requirments should be the same for all. If they must wear a veil, they can vote absentee, or stay home.

Posted by Vidor | September 9, 2007 3:40 PM

Why not have polling judges of both genders and a private place where they can unveil and have their identity checked? We do it at airports.

It seems that the public has an interest in making sure that the people who vote are who they say they are. But there is also reason to provide a space for those of differing conceptions of the good to operate in the public culture.

Posted by Patrick | September 9, 2007 3:47 PM

I do not think it is right to expect the government of Quebec to incorporate finger-printing tech into gov IDs because of a pushy minority (not Muslims, or even Muslims who wear or urge women to wear head-scarves, but Muslims who wear or urge women to wear veils). You snark about allegations of dhimmitude with good reason. There are very few Muslim countries where women are regularly coerced to wear veils etc. etc., but expensive accomodations are an important aspect of rulership.

I would go so further and outlaw routine public veiling for purposes throughout Quebec, well everywhere except for those Muslim countries where everywhere from large minorities to government enforced majorities practice this. While privacy is an important right, visual facial communication, limited feminine esteem are very important for a functioning modern society. Veils undercut both of these, through hiding muffling what I am assuming to be important expressions radically differentiating women. Cultural cohesion may be important too!

I think the days in which Canadian self-righteousness fuels an aggressive multiculturalism that makes the American brand seem timid are numbered. It very well may collapse into a narcissistic, nihilistic white nationalism (and yes I understand we are talking about Quebec where there is separatism blah blah blah) that makes Jesusland look like New York City.

Down with the internet! Abandon the blogosphere!

Posted by Moral Panicker | September 9, 2007 3:52 PM

Absent voting id that might invalidate secret ballots, how would we detect whether veils are or are not being used for voting fraud?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

In the US, Tuesday voting that is, working week voting, probably suppresses many more minority votes than do veils.

I would prefer to see ways to make vote by mail more secure, or more reliable, or less subject to coercion.

Posted by feh | September 9, 2007 3:53 PM

It seems to me that the veil problem can be resolved without violating what we see as the fundamental requirements of a free and fair election. There are respectful ways to establish a veiled woman's identity.

But, more abstractly, it is possible that some element of religious observance would conflict fundamentally with the conduct of a proper election (e.g. husbands attempting to vote their wives' ballots). It seems clear to me that, on a point of fundamental disagreement, you would not want to sacrifice the integrity of your election to guarantee the franchise to every possible religious group--even a potentially radical faith. Similarly, you wouldn't expect any religion to alter its creed to bring itself in line with the state's regulations.

Posted by southpaw | September 9, 2007 3:58 PM

I'm super sympathetic to idea of accomodating a whole range of customs, and while not religious myself, I have no problem with devout followers of any religion and believe that within a standard set of norms that we should be able to choose our way as we see fit. In the abstract, I also see as perfectly reasonable the notion that women that elect to dress in this fashion should be accomodated to the fullest extent possible.

Ok, with all of that out of the way, I will admit that when I observe women with their face covered, it makes me uncomfortable. In Western culture, there is a deep seated sense that failing to show one's face is vaguely a menacing act. This is an initial emotional reaction that has little to do with the slower and more deliberate thoughts that follow. Perhaps if i saw this more often, it would bother me less but the once or twice a month that i see it, my first reaction is not a positive or indifferent response.

Frankly, letting members of diverse religions dress however they wish regardless of cultural norms that pervade a particular culture seems a little extreme, on the other hand, applying restrictions like this also seems extreme. Let me note that in this context, "cultural norms" refers to a narrow sense that I would say that a very large proportion of the US/Canada population come from cultures for which hiding one's face occurs under very circumscribed situations and not habitually.

Count me as baffled on the matter...

Posted by Glockenspieler | September 9, 2007 4:03 PM

It's ridiculous to suggest that only a demonstration that "facial covered was being used to a significant extent to commit voter fraud" justifies prohibiting the practice. How do you define "significant extent"? As others have suggested, ways can be found to accommodate Muslim religious practice without throwing overboard sensible election rules - such as having a female rather than a male official verify a covered-woman's identity.

Posted by Winston | September 9, 2007 4:14 PM

Any society, as a society, sets and enforces standards. Secular societies are no different than any other. We make special allowances for religious beliefs because the West has had such a long history of religious persecution, but implicit within the notion of any secular society is the principle that no religious group has the absolute right to define for itself, much less others, what is required in the practice of its religion.

Catholics cannot proclaim that it is part of their religion to ignore the traffic laws, nor can Lutherans. Everyone knows that veils are a symbol of a regressive movement within Islam. Secular societies have no duty to humor this retreat from tolerance.

Posted by Alan Vanneman | September 9, 2007 4:25 PM

Yeah, this is a great idea. You might as well put up a sign that says "How to commit fraud: Pretend to be an Islamic woman".

If religious muslims want to participate in Democracy, they need to make some accomodations - one of which is being willing to actually demonstrate that they are who they say they are.

Posted by James Robertson | September 9, 2007 4:26 PM

I think the days in which Canadian self-righteousness fuels an aggressive multiculturalism that makes the American brand seem timid are numbered.

What universe are you living in? Fantasy, much? That's not "self-righteousness fueling an aggressive multiculturalism." That's what the WORLD looks like when you get out of the uptighty-whitey zone.

I certainly can't see any backlash sort here in Vancouver. Nor is there any possibility of it ever happening, since there is no longer any religious or ethnic majority here. You want to win in an election, you have to accommodate as many people as you can.

I didn't see any negative commentary at all, for instance, when the University of British Columbia decided to rebuild some of the university bathrooms to accommodate the needs of devout Islamic students, who wanted ablution facilities, and transsexuals, who were, so to speak, falling between two stools with the men's/women's split. It's a one-time cost, not really that much, why not make these people more comfortable? If it makes YOU uncomfortable, I suggest you examine your phobias.

It might be different in rural Alberta. But there are too few people like that to count for anything, and besides, I'm not even sure rural Alberta is like that any more.

Posted by sunsin | September 9, 2007 5:25 PM

AFAIK there is no generally accepted Muslim prohibition against women showing their faces in public. Certainly most Muslim women in most Muslim countries do not practice face-covering. Face-covering is a minority practice within Islam (mostly restricted to parts of the Arabian peninsula and Afghanistan IINM).

This removes it from the religious to the cultural-political sphere (along with FGM and honor killings) at which point the women in question have no more justification to hide their faces from state authorities than naturists do do run around naked everywhere.

It should be noted that those societies that do practice face covering are about as far from western style civil society as it's possible to be so I'm all in favor of them staying well away from the ballot box.

If you want to live in a western civil society then do not hide your face like a person with no honor. Period. No exceptions. Ever.

Posted by Michael Farris | September 9, 2007 5:29 PM

"I'm not even sure rural Alberta is like that any more."

It is.

Posted by Ian | September 9, 2007 5:30 PM

Everyone knows that veils are a symbol of a regressive movement within Islam. Secular societies have no duty to humor this retreat from tolerance.

I would agree they have to think of another way to identify themselves if they want to vote. Beyond that, though, any demand that anyone's customs be changed by government fiat is liable to the darkest suspicions. (Especially when you are essentially proposing to pull off a woman's clothing by force.) You defeat "regressive movements" by setting an example of openness, not aggression.

Americans. Will they ever learn that there are problems that can't be solved by using a heavier hammer?

Posted by sunsin | September 9, 2007 5:30 PM

If you want to live in a western civil society then do not hide your face like a person with no honor. Period. No exceptions. Ever.

Who gave you the right to set rules of honor for western societies?

Fortunately, the Canadian Charter of Rights will probably settle this one in favor of the Islamic women. And we'll hear all sorts of fools say that that will be the end of the world. Just like it was with gay marriage, eh?

More likely, without outside pressure, in a generation or two it'll be the end of veiling. But I don't think the opponents really want that. They just want someone to hate and look down on.

Posted by sunsin | September 9, 2007 5:35 PM

See, Matt, as soon as you start talking religion, all the Zionist and Christian and racist freaks come out of the woodwork.

Half the posts here are from people who basically hate Muslims.

As a radical atheist, I don't like religious people of any stripe (with the sole exceptions of "spiritual philosophies" like Taoism, Buddhism, and even some elements of neo-paganism and Satanism.) But I don't despise Muslims more than Christians or Jews.

However, the only thing I despise equally is the state.

And anywhere the state can be told to butt out is a good thing.

As the article said, if there is no good reason to suspect an incidence of voter fraud based on veiled women, it's ridiculous to make a bureaucratic rule that requires everyone INCLUDING veiled Muslims to have their faces uncovered.

There are NUMEROUS places in the law and in practice where exceptions are made to accommodate religious preferences. This is no less and no more than another such which is perfectly reasonable. There is nothing about such an act which implies endorsement of a "repressive religion". It is merely the extension of a convenience to a religious minority to enable participation in the host society.

Those who complain do so for ignoble motives.

I'll amend that - they're fucking racists and intolerant religious freaks themselves.

And they make up about thirty percent of the US population - which is why this whole country is screwed.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 9, 2007 5:44 PM

"Who gave you the right to set rules of honor for western societies?"

If you're not a muslim (or male regardless of religion) perhaps you should cover your face as you go about your daily business and record the reactions.

If you are a muslim, you should be aware that most non-muslims regard face-covering as a sign that the face-coverer is ashamed or hiding something (for purposes of deception).

I have nothing against hair/throat covering, but again, most Muslim women do not cover their faces, it's not an inherent part of the faith anymore than honor-killing is. It's a cultural, not a religious practice.

Posted by Michael Farris | September 9, 2007 5:53 PM

sunsin,

I can see you are totally unfamiliar with the contemporary politics of Quebec. "Religious accommodation" is one of the biggest electoral issues there, and had a lot to do with the collapse of PQ support among franchophones.

Not that you are unusual among English Canadians.

Posted by Pithlord | September 9, 2007 5:53 PM

sunsin,

I can see you are totally unfamiliar with the contemporary politics of Quebec. "Religious accommodation" is one of the biggest electoral issues there, and had a lot to do with the collapse of PQ support among franchophones.

Not that you are unusual among English Canadians.

Posted by Pithlord | September 9, 2007 5:53 PM

Oooh!!! Could we vote while dressed up as a dinosaur? We could, like, have a "Walking With Dinosaurs" voting bloc!!!

Posted by El Cid | September 9, 2007 5:56 PM

The Pope framed it well. The West is pretty tolerant, but we cannot accept the false religion of Multiculturalism that obligates it's believers to tolerate the intolerant - nor can Christianity diminish itself in submission whenever another religion demands it be deferred to.

We cannot tolerate Minneapolis Muslim taxicab drivers that are intolerant and will not stop for "immodestly dressed women infidels lacking veils", infidels with dogs, alcohol, or who have haram groceries that cannot be put in the trunk of the cab.
We cannot tolerate a religion that demands we accept mosque and all-Islamic school building everywhere in the West while new churches and non-Muslim sectarian schools are prohibited from Muslim countries.
We cannot tolerate repressed Muslim women that demand their driver's license be taken of them in a black tent with eye-slits - who will attack or ostracize any Muslim women that makes friends with any infidels.
We cannot tolerate Muslims who tell us the "rules" are that any infidel woman is ronatic and sexual "fair game" for a Muslim man, but that their religion of conquest and the Holy Qu'ran itself forbids the opposite. That no Muslim woman can "soil" herself and "disgrace her family's honor" with death a possible punishment - by having a friendship or relationship with an infidel man or a "heretic" like a Shiite or Sufi.
Nor can we accept the menacing posture of Muslim "activists" that bellicosely rant that conflict against a Muslim people anywhere by an infidel people, or a Muslim person "victimized" anywhere by profiling, job issues - obligates a violent response from Muslims everywhere.

Islam would be better served to look at the Muslims in Malaysia, Dubai, and Libya meeting the modern world, working with it, and flourishing in it.

Posted by Chris Ford | September 9, 2007 6:13 PM

Oh for Christ's sake.

You folks have lost it. You are totally buying into the Republican meme re: voter ID.

Used to be you showed up at the polls, signed your name and voted. No ID required. Or, at a minimum you just showed your voter registration card that you got in the mail, which also has no photo. Since when is a photo-ID check of moslem women necessary? We don't need to be photo ID-checking anyone.

I don't have any particular desire to accommodate extremist religious behavior. If there are public safety or security reasons to limit overt displays of religious extremism so be it. For me the example that comes to mind actually has nothing to do with moslem women but rather the Amish. That they are allowed to drive buggies at night on public highways without proper warning lights is criminal. I'm also opposed to a lot of the fundamentalist home schooling that is accommodated, especially in the bible belt.

But voting while veiled? I really don't understand what the issue is.

Posted by Kent from Waco | September 9, 2007 6:23 PM

Ted Kennedy should have declared himself a Muslim woman back at Harvard. Then, nobody would have been allowed to look under the veil and notice Ted had hired a ringer to take his Spanish test.

Posted by Steve Sailer | September 9, 2007 6:37 PM

What if Muslim voters dressed up as Confederate re-enactors?

Posted by El Cid | September 9, 2007 6:41 PM

No offense, but why do they cover their faces? None of the muslim girls I know do, they just wear scarves.
As for quebec, those french losers are desperate for immigrants which is why they accept riff-raff.

Posted by Rebel | September 9, 2007 6:43 PM

Canada's finest, sunsin, says: FGM and polygamy are illegal.

Why is completely voluntary polygamy illegal? If we've determined that any form of polygamy should be illegal, then perhaps we should also come up with rules relating to veils.

Posted by TLB | September 9, 2007 6:48 PM

It seems that some commentators are confusing two discussions: whether wearing the veil is in some morally problematic, even "voluntarily," and whether it is a behavior that justifies exclusion from the public sphere.

It seems, arguably, that there is something problematic about the practice morally speaking, given its general context of oppression and patriachy.

But it seems like there is a very strong presumption against excluding an individual from the public culture as a result of their comprehensive conception of the what the good life might be, as long as that person doesn't act in such a way as to violate the rights of others.

Posted by Patrick | September 9, 2007 7:04 PM

There is, of course, no principle involved here. It's good old-fashioned electoral manouvering. Non-francophone immigrants, in general, do not support Québec separatism. It's therefore preferable they do not vote. Putting obstacles in their way is therefore a feature, not a bug.

Posted by jim | September 9, 2007 8:18 PM

I will admit that when I observe women with their face covered, it makes me uncomfortable.

To be perfectly honest, it makes me a bit uncomfortable as well, but in a free society, that's first and foremost my problem, not hers.

I see Steve Sailer's gone from inserting random bigotries into the conversation to inserting random Ted Kennedy bashing. On a grand moral scale it's an improvement, but you're going to lose originality and creativity points.

Posted by djw | September 9, 2007 8:27 PM

"I will admit that when I observe women with their face covered, it makes me uncomfortable."

To be perfectly honest, it makes me a bit uncomfortable as well, but in a free society, that's first and foremost my problem, not hers.

And yet no one has been willing to side with my girlfriend's right to go out in public naked. Make love not war!

Posted by Dan the Man | September 9, 2007 8:56 PM

I think that, as a general matter, we should make reasonable accommodation for religious practice. Reasonable accommodation means, "allowing things that we don't really have a good reason to forbid in the first place", not making religion a "get out of complying with rationally justifiable laws" card.

We've got a good justification for not letting people vote, or do anything else where identities matter, with their faces concealed. Most of the laws where we accommodate religious practice are poorly justified to begin with.

Does this mean that people with sincere religious beliefs will sometimes have to decide between complying with the demands of their religion, or complying with the law? Yeah, who ever said that being devout had to come free?

Posted by Brett Bellmore | September 9, 2007 9:17 PM

Large Muslim organizations in Canada do not want this. This was dreamed up by an elections Canada official. I saw an interview on the national news here in Canada with a veiled woman who is quite happy to lift her veil for a polling ID check.

This is a classic case of GWLs accommodating when it was neither asked for nor desired.
From a CBC report:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/09/09/harper-veil.html

Sarah Elgazzar, a spokeswoman for the Canada Council on American-Islamic Relations, said Election Canada's accommodation for Muslims was not something they wanted. Of the roughly 200,000 Muslims in Quebec, no more than 50 wear the full head covering, she said.

"If anybody had actually bothered to ask the women that are actually concerned, and we are talking about a very small minority of women, they would have told them that they always take it off to identify their faces," she said. "And they do it at the bank, they do it at border crossings, they do it at the airport."

CJJ

Posted by Chris J | September 9, 2007 9:19 PM

"What one wants to do, however, is encourage minority groups to participate in mainstream practices and institutions -- voting being high on the list."

No, what one wants to do is encourage minority groups to participate in mainstream practices such as not treating women like second-class citizens.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | September 9, 2007 9:32 PM

jim,

Your theory falls on the fact that the current government of Quebec is not separatist, and depends on the immigrants and Anglophones ("money and the ethnic vote" to coin a phrase).

Posted by Pithlord | September 10, 2007 12:02 AM

Dan, just head over to amanda's place. Just recently they were up in arms because an airline asked a passenger to pull her miniskirt down enough to cover her ass.

Posted by yoyo | September 10, 2007 1:34 AM

"And yet no one has been willing to side with my girlfriend's right to go out in public naked. Make love not war!"

I am to the rescue here! She can go naked in public! Works for me (unless of course she's fat and ugly!)

Actually I don't care about the looks of nude people. Nothing wrong with public nudity but the reaction from the moralists.

The posts on this thread kill me. Supposedly most of these clowns are "progressives" (or what are they doing here at Matt's blog?). Threaten their smug little notions of what is right and proper and see how quickly they turn into racist, reactionary neocons!

Fucking statist trash, the lot...

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 10, 2007 2:33 AM

It's not a question of race or intolerance. The main thing is, Québec is strongly secular. You know, the alliance between the Christian extremists and the political far right slowly building up in the US? We lived through that, big time, in the first half of the past century. At that time, the clergy dominated every aspect of life here. Public education was centered around the Bible, women were baby factories, non-Christian literature was censored, etc. In the 1960's, the intellectual class overthrew the religious right for good and since that time, Québécois are extremely weary of any resemblance of religious oppression. We do not see veiled women as strangers attacking our White values (or whatever...), we see them as being oppressed. Accomodating those practices only justifies them.

Posted by vialiy | September 10, 2007 3:16 AM

Geez. The common-sense answer is that you figure out what are "must-haves" and your reasons for them. If you have good reasons for certain laws, or for say, work or school policies, it shouldn't matter what a person's religion is--that person will need to make the accomodation or not participate.

But there is an awful lot that is not covered by laws or rules, and there are no safety or other needs and where people doing things a certain way is just by custom. When that happens, it seems reasonable to accommodate people, even if their custom seems "odd".

For example, if your religion forbids you from drinking alcohol and you want a job as a wine taster, that's not going to work. Or if your religion requires beards, but beards have been proven dangerous or unsanitary in a certain job, that wouldn't work. I'd go as far as to say that it's fair to ask people to have their faces photographed if they want a driver's license or passport. Having either is a privelege, after all, not a right. However, if, for example, wearing a headscarf or other form of religious dress poses no practical detriment, why ban it? If a person has to take off certain days from work for religious holidays, but can still work the same amount of time in total as everyone else, why would there be a problem? At that point, the issue is not practicality or safety, but a desire for conformity for the sake of conformity.

Posted by JMS | September 10, 2007 10:02 AM

We do not see veiled women as strangers attacking our White values (or whatever...), we see them as being oppressed. Accomodating those practices only justifies them.

Exactly right. The anti-feminist position (i.e., Matthew's and Scott Lemieux's position) is, at heart, justifying oppression. I don't advocate any change in the law to justify oppression.

Posted by Al | September 10, 2007 10:06 AM

Scott Lemieux also writes:

But people are fooling themselves if they think that forcing Muslim women to vote with their faces uncovered does anything for gender equality. In cases where Muslim women in relatively egalitarian relationships with men are forced not to be covered, the regulation represents a diminution of women's freedom. In cases where women are coerced in some way to wear facial covering to symbolize their subordinate status, the gain to women's freedom of compelling them to remove their facial covering every few years to vote are trivial.

Scott Lemieux is wrong on this count. First of all, Muslim women in "relatively egalitarian relationships with men" will not be covering their face. Presuambly, in that case, Lemieux would argue that the woman has no given in to oppression, but has merely made a choice to cover herself. But if a woman makes a "choice" to cover her face, that "choice" is dictated by societal demands to do so, and as such, the "choice" is no choice at all. It is simply giving in to oppression.

Second, in cases where women are coerced into covering their faces, the parties involved (both women and men) should know that we as a society disapprove of their oppressive relationship. Even if it is simply through a mostly sybolic measure, such as this, we as a society ought to be taking every opportunity to state that oppression is wrong, and these types of oppressive relationships have no place in a progressive Western society.

Frankly, I don't see how anyone calling themselves a feminist could ever agree with Matthew's and Scott Lemieux's position on this.

Posted by Al | September 10, 2007 10:14 AM

It's a silly misapplication of the law by elections Canada. In any case Parliament has spoken and the law now states that visual identification is required. Period.
CJJ has it right.

The only troubling element to me is how naively the government goes about enabling the most regressive elements of new immigrant communities in Canada. We've seen this before with the Sikh community in BC and Tamil community in Toronto in the 1980s. By being accomodating the federal government enabled extremists to run these communities. It's similar to what the White hand did to the American Irish in the 1870s or the Mafia with the Italians in the 1920s, but you would think that we would have learned to identify these 'bad' elements and deport them so that the immigrants can start new lives as free individuals. Maybe it's not possible and only a changing of the generations works.

Posted by Northern Observer | September 10, 2007 11:52 AM

Wow, listen to you, our country considers itself to be free. Those who come here are looking for new opportunity. What happened, to all of you? Maybe not all but to those who refer to one walking around in a gorilla suit? Come on? What ever happened to the simple saying “treat someone how you would like to be treated?" didn't your mother ever tell you that? Obviously religions like polygamy are very bizarre to many as well as to me. I don’t agree, but I don’t bash. If it wasn’t for all the immigrants, travelers, our country wouldn’t be what it is today. But yes this is a very complicated subject; it will be very complicated and difficult to find a solution that will be most efficient and effective. But when did you all become just racists. Take a look at your self. Grow up. Who are the adults around here? I know I’m not one, but looking at some of these comments, they’re just so low.

Posted by Louis | September 21, 2007 2:28 PM