RSS FeedWhy Québéc Cannot and Should not Ban the Niqab
An article jointly written by David Shulman and Lawrence Gridin
Last week the government of Québéc announced that it would restrict female Muslims from covering their faces with the niqab. This article is about the fundamental freedoms that we enjoy as Canadians and human beings, and the power of the government to encroach upon those freedoms.
The legislation proposed in Québéc will prevent a woman wearing a niqab from being able to access public services, including consulting doctors at a hospital or attending classes at university. It also prevents all government employees from wearing a niqab, including those employees who have no contact with the public. More details can be found here.
Prime Minister Harper and Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff have announced that they support the ban, and a large (if not overwhelming) majority of Canadians agree with them.
A Primer on Freedom
Let’s begin our discussion with a review of the Ann Coulter affair, which bears some analogues to the Québéc niqab issue.
We cannot think of another person whom we personally disagree with more on virtually every dimension than Ms. Coutler. We have difficulty thinking of anyone else who spews out as much vile hate, ignorance and prejudice as Ms. Coulter. We’re bothered by the fact that there is any demand — outside of perhaps morbid curiosity — for her wares at all.
Here are three pieces, taken from Ms. Coulter’s repertoire, that support our opinion:
“They’re [Democrats] always accusing us of repressing their speech. I say let’s do it. Let’s repress them. Frankly, I’m not a big fan of the First Amendment.”
- University of Florida speech, October 20, 2005.
“I have to say I’m all for public flogging. One type of criminal that a public humiliation might work particularly well with are the juvenile delinquents, a lot of whom consider it a badge of honor to be sent to juvenile detention. And it might not be such a cool thing in the ‘hood’ to be flogged publicly.”
- MSNBC, March 22, 1997.
“I think [women] should be armed but should not vote…women have no capacity to understand how money is earned. They have a lot of ideas on how to spend it…it’s always more money on education, more money on child care, more money on day care.”
- Politically Incorrect, February 26, 2001.
Despite our profound disagreement with her views, we would fight vigorously to protect Ms. Coulter’s right to express them. The right to freedom of expression is guaranteed by our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We would proudly defend her right to freedom of expression in any court with every ounce of our ability and integrity, just as vigorously as we would defend our own right to criticize and disagree with her views.
Why?
CUPE Seeks to Ban Israeli Academics from Ontario Campuses
In the latest idiotic move by CUPE, the union representing striking York University graduate students and contract faculty, the university workers committee will be lobbying in favour of banning Israeli academics from Ontario campuses due to the escalating crisis in Gaza.
Sid Ryan, president of CUPE Ontario, said that:
“Israeli academics should not be on our campuses unless they explicitly condemn the university bombing and the assault on Gaza in general. It’s a logical next step, building on policy adopted by our provincial convention in 2006.”
The previous policy that Ryan refers to is Resolution 50, which favored divestment and boycotting of Israeli and Israel-related companies (like Caterpillar and Hewlett Packard?).
According to a press release published on January 5, the union now seeks a ban on “Israeli academics doing speaking, teaching or research work at Ontario universities.”
Ryan, who failed to see the irony in his own words, told the Globe and Mail that:
“Attacking an institution of learning is just beyond the pale. They deliberately targeted an institution of learning. That’s what the Nazis did.”
The solution that CUPE proposes to this “attack on an institution of learning” is, of course, to attack academic freedom.
Prof. Costanza Musu, who presently teaches International Relations courses at the University of Ottawa, points out the obvious absurdity and academic harm inherent in CUPE’s position:
As professors we have a duty to teach our students to think autonomously, analyze information critically and listen to others’ opinions. As someone who teaches the Arab-Israeli conflict I cannot think of any more useful pedagogical tool than integrating in my classes lectures (as well are readings, or should articles and books be boycotted too?) by people from both sides in order to expose students to different points of view and narratives… I cannot fathom how I would be fulfilling my duty as a professor if I decided to stop inviting Israeli speakers and to prevent students from listening to them and form their own opinion.
…
What about those who might teach information technology, or neurosciences, or astrophysics? They would have to stand in front of their audiences and start their talk with a short speech in condemnation of the Government of Israel?
Prof. Emanuel Adler, chairman of Israeli Studies at the University of Toronto, echoes Musu’s concerns:
“Students should receive the message that the situation is very tragic for both Israelis and Palestinians, but the conflict and the violence should not be brought inside the university… If there is a place that some solution should come out of other than government it should be a place where creativity can lead to a peaceful resolution of conflict.”
The other problem with CUPE’s proposal is that they seek to ban academics on the basis of national origin. Fortunately, CUPE has no actual power to hire or fire academics on University campuses. If they did, this would smell like a human rights violation.
For now, this just smells like stupidity.
Say what you will about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; unions should stick to representing their workers, not meddling in international politics.
h/t to Eivor Cormie at the University of Western Ontario.
Water Bottle Ban on the Horizon
Bottled water must be the most brilliant marketing ploy ever conceived.
Some marketing reps decided to take regular tap water, run it through a filter, and then package it in attractive bottles designed to somehow set their product apart from basically identical competing brands. Through clever advertising about the dangers of tap water and the pure, delicious, refreshing nature of bottled water, these reps built a multi-billion dollar industry.
Specifically, according to Wikipedia, bottled water products poured 60.9 billion dollars into the coffers of mostly large bottlers like Coca Cola in 2006 alone, and that number is only expected to grow.
All the reps could do now was slap each other on the back, laugh, and watch the money flow — like, well, water from a tap.
That is, of course, until you consider the environmental impact.
Environmental Impact
Earlier this year, Phil Woolas, the UK’s Environment Minister stirred up headlines when he said that consumption of bottled water bordered on immorality.
The carbon footprint involved in producing a bottle of water and then transporting those bulky bottles to the consumer is a significant contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. According to The Times, “a Swedish study calculated that the environmental impact of bottled water was 90 to 1,000 times greater than tap water, and could be higher.”
The manufacturing process takes approximately 5 liters of water to produce a 1-liter finished product. In addition, once the water inside them is consumed, most of those plastic water bottles end up in landfills (or in gutters).
Peter Ainsworth, an MP and outspoken environment critic, backed up Woolas:
“Huge amounts are imported from other countries — some now ludicrously from the Far East. This is an ecological nightmare and it doesn’t make economic sense either. It certainly raises questions about the basis on which we have constructed our economic lives. By any rational standard it’s crazy to be importing water from countries far away when there’s perfectly good water in our taps.
“It looks like the epiphany [sic?] of any unsustainable human activity. I think as consumers we should consider the impact we have on the environment. If they think about it they might change their behaviour.”
Towards a Ban
The city council of London, Ontario this week voted overwhelmingly in favour of a ban on bottled water.
The move will make London one of the first major Canadian cities to institute such a ban, which is expected to go into effect on September 1.
The phased-in ban will begin by limiting the sale of bottled water at municipal buildings and city facilities. By the end of next year, the sale of those ubiquitous plastic water bottles will be prohibited at golf courses and city parks as well.
Only three councilors opposed the measure, on the basis that it undermines choice. The London Free Press quotes councilor Paul Van Meerbergen as saying:
“It’s one more brick in the construction of a nanny state.”
Nevertheless, the tide seems to be turning in favour of greater regulation.
According to the Canadian Press, Mayor David Miller of Toronto is now considering following London’s example. I’ve noticed advertisements against bottled water popping up on Toronto bus shelters, and the City of Toronto will be looking at a ban as part of a larger strategy to curb waste.
Other Canadian cities like Vancouver, Ottawa, St. John’s, Kitchener, and Windsor have all been considering municipal bottled water ban measures.
My View
In Southern Ontario, we are blessed with some of the cleanest and safest drinking water courtesy of the Great Lakes. Even though there are water fountains readily available, I see people spending $1.50 for a 591mL bottle of Dasani on my university campus. That’s double the price of gasoline. Personally, I’m not even sure how one can justify spending money on what is essentially free and abundant.
There’s something to be said for our municipal government taking small steps to show the public that it frowns on absurd consumer practices. Drinking a bottle of water might one day carry the same social stigma as smoking a cigarette. If it can help change consumer attitudes, I’m all for the bottled water ban.
