Muslim Group Seeks to Ban Woollen Socks

By: Contributor · October 29, 2009 · Filed Under Civil Rights, Humour · 2 Comments

special contribution by Faraz Siddiqui

Toronto, Oct 28th: In what seems to be a rising fad, a Canadian Muslim organization has asked the federal government to ban woollen socks from public spaces.

According to a statement released yesterday by the Islamic Taskforce Against Oppression (ITAO, also known as the Taskforce Against Islamic Oppression), “mosques are full of the oppressive smell of woollen-clad feet, and the situation is expected to worsen with the arrival of snow.”

The authors of the petition argue that there is no religious basis of wearing wool. Tay Rick of Phaeta, ON who chaired the taskforce said, “The Koran does not say ‘Thou shalt wear wool to prayers.’ In fact, the practice of wearing socks made of wool is rooted in Arab culture.”

Woollen socks first became popular in the deserts of Arabia where there was no rain, snow, or—importantly—cotton. It is no surprise then, that wool is worn mostly by Canadians of Middle Eastern origins.

The cause has found support even outside Canada. This Friday, ITAO is launching an international Save the Sheep campaign, featuring Ban Di Wool, executive director of of Sockless Dojos, a non-profit organization based in Japan.

Sockless Dojos are the self proclaimed fashion police in Japan. Getty Images®

“Research shows that smelly feet further marginalizes those members of society that are already prejudiced against due to their poor hygiene and ultra-conservative sense of fashion,” Di Wool said. “The discrimination needs to be stopped.”

However, critics argue that foot hygiene and education can prevent pungent mosques, but Mr. Rick doesn’t agree. “Education? Why educate when we can eliminate.” Others believe the petition is just a publicity stunt by ITAO, who have recently had little work to do.

Moreover, a recent human rights group survey shows that 1 in 5 Canadians are allergic to cotton, the natural alternative to wool. Mohamed, a generic respondent for providing such quotes was worried. “I hope they don’t ban woollen underwear. Cotton undies give me rashes on my [buttocks],” he said. “What about my comfort?”

However, Mohamed confessed he will not be wearing wool when crossing a border or getting a passport picture taken. “I always have long delays and am asked to remove my shoes. Come on, my name is Mohamed!” His friend Ahmed agreed. “The foul smell might irritate Customs officers. My right to wear woollen socks end where your nose starts,” he said.

In other news: Terrorist caught trying to steal one sock out of all your laundry baskets

(It’s satire folks, we do that here occasionally, so you can stop freaking out – see the “Humour” tag)

Post tags: burqa, Faraz Siddiqui, hijab, Islamic Taskforce Against Oppression, MCC, Muslim Canadian Congress, niqab, Tarek Fatah

Sarkozy Wants to Ban the “Burqa”

By: Law is Cool · June 30, 2009 · Filed Under Civil Rights, International Law, Law Career, Legal Reform · Add Comment

French President Nicolas Sarkozy stated this past week that he is interested in banning the “burqa,”

The burqa is not a religious sign, it’s a sign of subservience, a sign of debasement — I want to say it solemnly. It will not be welcome on the territory of the French Republic.

But Sarkozy is not really talking about the burqa, he’s referring to the niqab. His nomenclature is borrowed from his selected exposure via media to the Afghan chadri, which is almost never worn outside of Afghanistan or neighbouring countries. It may seem like semantics, and some neo-cons have argued banning both.

Ignorance over terminology is not the only issue here. It’s premised on the assumption that it’s involuntary, and not a bona fide religious requirement.

There are certainly disagreements among Muslims about the use of face-coverings, and certainly those that believe it is mandatory.

The assumption that these garbs are forcibly imposed on women by men living in France reflects its own type of paternalism about the empowerment and ability of minority women.

If there are cases where women are being forced, it would not be upheld under any human rights standards. But for women who are being forced, is not the most likely outcome that they would now be forced to stay inside: leading to further disempowerment?

For women who are choosing to dress in this way, Sarkozy’s ban would have a difficult time justifying necessity or protection of rights and freedoms under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights,

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

If his ban was to proceed, it would likely receive a challenge to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). If brought by women wearing a niqab out of their own volition and a belief that it is part of their religion, any such uniform ban is unlikely to succeed.

Post tags: Afghan chadri, Article 9, European Convention on Human Rights, Frumka, Jeremiah ben Shalom, Jeremiah bin Salaam, Jewish burqa, niqab, Sarkozy

What’s Behind the Veil of Justice?

By: Contributor · February 4, 2009 · Filed Under Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Evidence, Legal Reform · 4 Comments

Veils and justice

February 04, 2009
Faisal Kutty

Here they go again. Muslims just don’t give up trying to change our values and roll back hard fought rights of equality and justice. Though this time, we may have nipped it in the bud early – but should we?

Ontario Court Justice Norris Weisman’s “admittedly difficult decision” to force a complainant to testify without her niqab, or face covering, in a sexual assault case has unleashed a torrent of discussion and debate. Again, the usual suspects with too little knowledge, appreciation or understanding of the complexities of the issue have jumped into the fray.

The ruling once again brings to the fore questions surrounding the limits of accommodation in a liberal multicultural society. But this time, in a novel twist, the clash pits a person’s religious right with the right of a defendant in a criminal trial to due process and procedural fairness; namely that of being able to face his or her accuser in open court. Obviously, both are important rights in a liberal democracy.

The niqab – which a small fraction of orthodox Muslim women use to cover their faces, and not to be confused with the hijab or head covering – is attacked by some as a symbol of oppression. By others as a badge of political Islam. By others as a public-relations nightmare for their “moderate” or more palatable versions of Islam. By others as something that should be compromised in the two-way dance of accommodation. And still by others as not compulsory or even totally unnecessary from a strict Islamic legal point of view.