When In Rome

Cum Romanum venio, ieiuno Sabbato; cum hic sum, non ieiuno: sic etiam tu, ad quam forte ecclesiam veneris, eius morem serva, si cuiquam non vis esse scandalum nec quemquam tibi.         translation:   When I go to Rome, I fast on Saturday, but here [Milan] I do not. Do you also follow the custom of whatever church you attend, if you do not want to give or receive scandal.  St. Augustine, Letter to Januarius, 390 a.d.

Simply put, any woman who wears a face covering is expressing hostility to Canadian traditions and values, and rejecting the social contract of equality and liberal pluralism. If a woman deliberately chooses not to reveal her face to other people, she is by that very act committing herself to separation, choosing to be anonymous and disinterested in social discourse with others around her, for who would approach with confidence and the wish to be friendly, let alone silently acknowledge the presence of someone who advertises herself to be unapproachable?

Zunera Ishaq, still from video

Because it is an act of rejection, it is hostile in the sense that people do feel rejected and feeling that way react accordingly. Openness invites openness, while a closed face invites rejection in return. The yardstick for evaluating the mood of another human being is unavailable. The invitation is to turn away. Moreover, there is a threatening aspect of observing a human being shunning contact with others in the most obvious way of shielding their reaction -- usually available in a reading of their features -- toward others.

Canada has been treated to a situation where convention has been challenged by controversy; when a woman of Pakistani background pursuing citizenship in Canada declined to remove her niqab during the citizenship ceremony. Zunera Ishaq decided to take her insistence on wearing her face covering while taking part in the citizenship ceremony which required her to remove the niqab, to Federal Court, challenging that requirement. The Federal Court decided in her favour.



Prime Minister Stephen Harper, among many others, held that her disrespect of Canadian custom and practise was undeserving of citizenship. He has declared his opinion, in reflection of the broad opinion held by most Canadians, that the niqab is symbolic of an 'anti-woman' culture. One decidedly not welcome in Canada. Those who usually defend any critics of Canadian values came to Ms. Isaq's defence, including the official political opposition parties.

Those demanding special privileges for minorities who claim that their religion dictates they must do certain things that excuse them from integrating fully with Canadian values and customs are not perhaps ideal candidates for citizenship to begin with, particularly when, as in Ms. Isaq's case, face coverings are not required in Islam. It is a custom of tribal tradition, nothing more. And it is viewed as illiberal, a manifestation of male domination. As a tradition social custom usually forces it upon women.

Rather than accept Canadian values, rather than  seek to become involved with Canadian customs, rather than determine to integrate into Canadian society, many immigrants who worship Islam make demands that their heritage customs be recognized and respected and then the conundrum raises itself; how far should accommodation go, and should not immigrants make an effort to accommodate themselves to being fully Canadian?

An interview with this woman is quite revealing; far more so than her facial features hidden behind her niqab. She decided it would be best to leave Pakistan because it was insufficiently Islamic for her liking. In an interview she stated she considered Pakistan a Muslim country, but not an Islamic one, since it was "not obeying the laws in, like, whatever Islam has told us to do", exampling in particular co-education where male and female students are permitted to attend school without separate classrooms.

"They are not following this rule back home ... it's been coeducation", she stated disapprovingly. There are "a lot of ... fields" in the workplace, she insists, where separation of genders should be accommodated "but there is no separation". She was being interviewed by Negar Hashemi, a government lawyer who enquired of the woman why she preferred to live in Canada rather than "a country with Islamic laws that includes  your religious views".

When Mr. Hashemi asked whether she would like to have the genders separated during Canada's citizenship ceremonies, she responded by saying that such a situation would "definitely give me something more than I asked"; that her main point in challenging the request that she remove her niqab for the ceremony was to be permitted to keep her face covered while declaring the oath of citizenship.

"But if after that they can do for me some separation, it's more than - yes, I do appreciate for this, too." Zunera Ishaq at one juncture in the interview did acknowledge that she had unveiled herself to obtain her driver's licence photograph and the photo had been taken in a public space. Since, after all, she objects to revealing her naked face in a public space; never venturing outside her home without a niqab firmly in place in reflection of her religious belief.

"I would suggest to you that it does not take much longer (to say the oath) than the time it took to take your picture", the government lawyer put to her. Not quite the same, to Ms. Ishaq, since the purpose of unveiling for the driver's licence was for identity and security, not the case when taking the citizenship oath.

Among other things we should be concerned about is this woman driving a vehicle, wearing a niqab. Her defenders would state that the niqab would not interfere with her sightlines, making it perfectly safe for her to drive with her eyes clear, and the rest of her personage under wraps. Suitable for citizenship? Hardly.