Hey there, time traveller!

This article was published 12/3/2015 (2018 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Opinion

It was almost enough to warm the cockles of this old feminist's heart. Imagine, my prime minister standing up in the House of Commons to speak out against the niqab as being anti-women and anti-transparent.

The big bogeyman in Canada right now is terrorism and the scapegoat seems to be Muslims. On Tuesday, Prime Minister Stephen Harper stood up in the House to defend his government's stance on banning the niqab, ostensibly during citizenship ceremonies.

His government has already lost the first round in its bid to invoke a ban, but is appealing to the Federal Court of Appeal. Harper said Tuesday: "We don't allow people to -- to cover their faces during citizenship ceremonies. And why would Canadians, contrary to our own values, embrace a practice at that time that is not transparent, that is not open and, frankly, is rooted in a culture that is anti-women. Mr. Speaker, that is unacceptable to Canadians, unacceptable to Canadian women."

Wait. What? So the prime minister with the worst record supporting women and a decidedly dodgy record on issues of transparency is beating up devout Muslims because they wear the niqab? That's a bit rich.

This is a political party that seems ready to tout out the idea of libertarianism at the drop of a hat (or maybe burka) espousing the belief that individuals should have more freedom of expression, unfettered by government control, but now seems awfully interested in ensuring that certain individuals don't get that right. Surely, the libertarian segments within the Conservative party would argue that if women come to Canada and still wish to wear the niqab, the government should not be stopping them. Or are they just libertarian when it comes to their own personal individual freedoms?

SEAN KILPATRICK / THE CANADIAN PRESS FILES Edmonton-Sherwood Park Conservative MP Tim Uppal

Harper's quite right in his assertion that many Canadian women are uncomfortable with the niqab. Indeed, for many feminists, the niqab seems archaic and patriarchal. But that doesn't mean I'll impose my sentiments on another woman and I certainly won't do it as a white woman, telling a woman of colour what she can and cannot do.

In a research study done in Quebec, political scientists Brenda O'Neill, Elisabeth Gidengil, Catherine Côté and Lisa Young found that a majority of women do view the niqab as a symbol of oppression for women. But many of these same women believe that freedom of religion means that women have a right to wear the head covering. As O'Neill explains, attitudes on the issue are very conflicted. Their study found that younger women and other women were more tolerant toward the niqab "in part because they are more willing to see it as women's choice and as an issue of freedom of religion." On the other hand, "opposition is driven in part by seeing it as a symbol of oppression (although this is the weakest of the belief's drivers) and because it makes you uncomfortable." O'Neill cautions the study was done in Quebec only, and thus "extrapolating the findings to provinces that haven't experienced the same issues related to multiculturalism and protecting one's culture, and you would likely get slightly different results. How different, is an interesting question."

And really, if you ask women in Canada today what is the top-of-mind issue affecting them right now, I don't think they'd say it's the very small percentage of women wearing the niqab. It's things such as child care, accessible health care or the economy. So, this is all just a bit too over the top for folks like me to see the prime minister claim he's defending women. Stand up and call for a national daycare program and then I'll believe you.

You don't have to go very far back in Canada's memory to recall a similar story about head coverings, full of emotional over-the-top rhetoric tied to Canadian history and values. In the early 1990s, some members of the Canadian RCMP and certain Canadian legions were taking a stance against Sikh turbans. Legions did not want to allow turbans inside their building as there was a ban on all head coverings worn by men at the legion. In the case of the RCMP, there was opposition to changing the RCMP uniform to incorporate the Sikh turban. At that time, the Reform Party policy chief called it a needless concession to a Canadian minority. That policy chief's name? Stephen Harper. We now have Sikh turbans in the RCMP and the legions seem to have dropped their fight. People have come to accept the turban as a religious symbol of devout Sikhs. And if you look really carefully at the news footage of our prime minister talking passionately against the niqab, you'll see Edmonton-Sherwood Park MP Tim Uppal nodding in agreement with this passionate stance, resplendent in a bright blue turban.

Is it just me, or is there more than just a bit of irony in that?

Shannon Sampert is the Free Press perspectives and politics editor.

shannon.sampert@freepress.mb.ca Twitter: @PaulySigh