Article content continued

We are left, then, with a classic case of the majority imposing its values on a minority. This does not mean that the debate about reasonable accommodation is illegitimate or that opponents of the niqab are necessarily racist. Jason Kenney is undoubtedly correct that we should avoid cultural relativism; from a social and values-based perspective, there is nothing inherently wrong with privileging some values (like gender equality) over others. But using the coercive force of the state to impose majoritarian values on individuals in a context where the individual’s practices do not harm others is contrary to democracy.

In the midst of such troubling anti-Muslim sentiment, policies that target minority groups in this fashion are irresponsible

Justin Trudeau was not wrong to point out that there is a deeply troubling, corrosive element to this debate. (Full disclosure: I was asked to read a draft of his speech on this topic and provide non-partisan feedback.) The recent incident of a Quebec judge denying access to a woman wearing a hijab (head scarf) was deplorable. The judge denied someone access to justice on the basis of her identity, and should be removed from the bench for such a flagrant violation of her role and of the constitution. In the midst of such troubling anti-Muslim sentiment, policies that target minority groups in this fashion are irresponsible.

The policy also speaks to an ignorance about Canada’s success with social integration. Second-generation immigrants in Canada tend to do extremely well in comparison to their counterparts in many other countries on measures like intergenerational social mobility and language acquisition. There is no reason to think the niqab issue is any different; a tiny minority of Muslim women in Canada choose to wear it, and it is highly unlikely their daughters will. Opponents of the niqab might ask themselves, again, whether government intervention is even necessary on this issue. Of course, they might also stop to ask themselves if there aren’t other reasons why a woman would wear one, as opposed to just “oppression,” and why their allegedly “pro women” position requires telling women what they can’t wear and when.