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?
Don’t hate, U of O Provost warns U.S. pundit
When the University of Ottawa Campus Conservatives invited U.S. political pundit, Ann Coulter, to speak, they had to know she would attract attention. Coulter has always been outspokenly controversial with her political positions. But it’s unlikely that she, nor the Campus Conservatives, expected that her anticipated visit would provoke words of warning from the University of Ottawa Provost.
In a letter to Coulter, Vice President Academic and Provost François Houle wrote the following:
I understand that you have been invited by University of Ottawa Campus Conservatives to speak at the University of Ottawa this coming Tuesday. We are, of course, always delighted to welcome speakers on our campus and hope that they will contribute positively to the meaningful exchange of ideas that is the hallmark of a great university campus. We have a great respect for freedom of expression in Canada, as well as on our campus, and view it as a fundamental freedom, as recognized by our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
I would, however, like to inform you, or perhaps remind you, that our domestic laws, both provincial and federal, delineate freedom of expression (or “free speech”) in a manner that is somewhat different than the approach taken in the United States. I therefore encourage you to educate yourself, if need be, as to what is acceptable in Canada and to do so before your planned visit here.
You will realize that Canadian law puts reasonable limits on the freedom of expression. For example, promoting hatred against any identifiable group would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges. Outside of the criminal realm, Canadian defamation laws also limit freedom of expression and may differ somewhat from those to which you are accustomed. I therefore ask you, while you are a guest on our campus, to weigh your words with respect and civility in mind.
There is a strong tradition in Canada, including at this University, of restraint, respect and consideration in expressing even provocative and controversial opinions and urge you to respect that Canadian tradition while on our campus. Hopefully, you will understand and agree that what may, at first glance, seem like unnecessary restrictions to freedom of expression do, in fact, lead not only to a more civilized discussion, but to a more meaningful, reasoned and intelligent one as well.
I hope you will enjoy your stay in our beautiful country, city and campus.
Sincerely,
François Houle
Vice-recteur aux études / Vice-President Academic and Provost
Université d’Ottawa / University of Ottawa
Given Coulter’s colourful history, I would think she would be grateful to learn more about a foreign country. However, even in Canada, some have been quick to criticize the letter. And in the National Post, Prof. Ed Morgan reminds us that, as far as hate speech goes in Canada, we criminalize only words conveying “emotions that belie rationality.” After all, even in Canada, we wouldn’t want to approach anything resembling censorship, now would we?
Speaking of getting “tough on crime”, how about “hate”?
When a local Georgian Township man, Trevor Middleton, was convicted of assault and criminal negligence in December, 2009, friends and family of the victims were hopeful that justice was served.
The Toronto Star
During the case, the jury had heard how Middleton and his friends had engaged in the practice of “nip-tipping” – that is, they would push into the water individuals who were fishing and who were of visibly Asian descent. This would be on the pretense that such people were fishing illegally, without licenses, or catching more fish than they were allowed to.
As well, the jury had heard how, after this altercation, Middleton had pursued the victims in his F-150 pick-up, how he had rammed their Civic with his truck, and how the victims were forced off the road and into a tree. The jury also had heard how one of the occupants, Shayne Berwick, suffered severe brain injury and is now confined to a wheelchair.
As a result, the jury had taken all of three hours to find Middleton guilty.
