On saving face, losing face, two-faced. . .Quebec's niqab ban.

So they've gone done and done it - banned niqabs in Quebec that is.

"We are in a free and democratic society," said Quebec Premier Phillipe Couillard upon announcement. "You speak to me, I should see your face, and you should see mine. It's as simple as that." Couillard is clearly a proponent of video phones.

Do I have to look at his face? 

In all seriousness though, I would be far more impressed if this law, often cited as necessary to protect women, was something called for by any prominent women's group. Or if niqab-wearing women actually represented a large and powerful lobby. (Interesting how the government isn't going after the billionaire tax dodgers in Panama, or the mobsters running Quebec's construction business). As is, according to Statistics Canada, Muslims of any kind (niqab or none) make up an overwhelming 2.3 % of the Canadian population and 1.52% of Quebec, prompting me to wonder just how pressing a problem this was.

Make no mistake, I have no time for the niqab. I find them the very emblem of dehumanizing misogyny. But I would never try and remove one by force: only the person wearing the thing can make that decision. Surely a cornerstone of the "free and democratic" societies Couillard evokes is the ability of individuals to worship as they see fit, without nudging from the state. Religious dress-codes exist because people honestly believe that's what God wants them to do, and if they think their very soul is at stake, well, who are we to interfere? Indeed, I see it as an issue of fashion as much as anything: the state has no place in the wardrobes of the nation.

(Or do I expect too much of Quebec, the province that measures the size of letters in bus advertising?)

Now suppose for a minute that the women in question aren't making the decision of their own volition - well, they certainly won't be now, but supposing they weren't to begin with? Supposing their men were forcing them to? If their homelives are really so repressive, do you really suppose they'll be allowed out now? Do you suppose any man who could or would force his wife to wear a niqab would allow her to go around without it? So now we've got tiny enclaves of embattled women who can't leave their homes. 

Did anyone think about that?

I am reminded of the ridiculous berkini ban in France, in which government regulators decided
Muslim women should be showing more skin on the beach. Nevermind the farcical spectacle of middle aged white men wandering French beaches telling women to take their clothes off, the offensive garb in question looked like wetsuits, which until didn't seem to bother them until Muslim women put them on. What we had was an innocuous compromise by which a marginalized group thought they could participate in the larger society while staying true to their own values. But even this miniscule accommodation was too much for some, who clearly interpret the égalité part of le Tricolore to mean uniformité. 

However they may veil it (ha!), Bill-64 amounts to a government cracking down on a tiny segment of the population who lack the clout to strike back. (Sure, the bill apparently bans hockey masks from public services as well, but were hockey masks in public really a concern?) This is never a good thing. It won't help the women involved: instead of reaching out to help, we've just shoved them further into darkness. Somehow I doubt that helping them was ever the idea. Rather, there are enough voters who don't like them to make targeting them expedient. Attacking minorities for votes: we can be better.