# Another Niqab Controversy \[Quebec "defense" of French too far?\] **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 3, 2010, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-niqab-controversy-quebec-defense-of-french-too-far/531074 "2010-03-03T01:59:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2010, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-niqab-controversy-quebec-defense-of-french-too-far/531074/81 "2010-03-06T19:11:07Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > That’s very true, but two wrongs don’t make a right. And yet, that seems to be the basis of your entire argument: that if we find an individual’s personal beliefs sufficiently distasteful (but not actually harmful) it is acceptable to discriminate against them. That, in the interest of protecting our egalitarian society, it is acceptable to treat some classes of people differently than others. Which, to me, is as clear a case of burning down the village to save it as I’ve ever seen. ---
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2010, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-niqab-controversy-quebec-defense-of-french-too-far/531074/82 "2010-03-07T04:05:05Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > So the say-so of some two-bit teacher’s good enough to deny someone a government sevice? Over say, you? Certainly. You weren’t sitting in the classroom and don’t know what the actual issues were. > [@](#): > > We live in a pluralistic society. The onus should be on the school to prove WHY a veil is disruptive, and “because we say so” isn’t good enough. Let’s hear a real reason. They gave reasons. You don’t think they were valid. They do. You blame them for discrimination. The only discrimination in that classroom that I can see is her not wanting to interact with men. > [@](#): > > The (stupidly, blindingly obvious) difference between a motorcycle helmet law and a law against headscarves is that the former law has a genuine public purpose related to public safety and has nothing to do with religion. What public purpose? Who cares if someone cracks their head open? It is their business isn’t it? Yeah, the rest of us have to pay for their care if they turn up a vegetable, but that could be resolved by a simple declaration on the driver’s license that if they don’t follow the laws of the road they don’t get coverage. Their god will protect them, won’t he? > [@](#): > > The other is passed by shitheaded bigots to pick on Muslim women. As opposed to the culture that put into place a practice that forces women to hide themselves from half the population and limits their movements? A practice based upon women being seen as property? This is the practice that you want to protect? I think it is you who don’t have a clue what you are talking about. This really isn’t about whether someone can wear the clothing they want to, but upon a practice designed to subjugate women and whether that is something that a society like Canada should condone by its tolerance. That she wants to wear the equivalent of a gimp suit really doesn’t matter to me, what does is that by her practicing her ‘right’ that she allows men to force other women who don’t want to wear the gimp suit into doing so. So, a tall blond German dude puts on a full SS uniform and goes to the same class. No problem if he won’t stop doing it? The other students should just suck it up? > [@](#): > > Yes, many Muslim women don’t wear veils. So what? Some want to. Give me a good reason why they shouldn’t be allowed to or get out of other people’s business. Because some don’t want to and allowing the practice to continue only allows those who force them to continue it. And because she is taking her complaint to the Human Rights commission saying she is discriminated against because of her religion. It has nothing to do with her religion as I’ve pointed out. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2010, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-niqab-controversy-quebec-defense-of-french-too-far/531074/83 "2010-03-07T04:25:29Z")
> [@Uzi](#): > > As opposed to the culture that put into place a practice that forces women to hide themselves from half the population and limits their movements? I don’t care about people’s culture. That’s their business and their call. It’s not my place to tell other people their business unless it affects me. What I do care about is the GOVERNMENT, because their business is my business. If someone chooses to adopt a culture that discriminates, well, shit happens. If it’s their personal business we can tut-tut their choices but there’s no practical way to stop it. If I don’t wanna date black chicks, there it is. That’s discriminatory, technically. So what? But when the government tells people what to wear, they best have a good reason, because that’s the law in this country. > [@](#): > > This really isn’t about whether someone can wear the clothing they want to, but upon a practice designed to subjugate women and whether that is something that a society like Canada should condone by its tolerance. Ah, see, now the truth comes out. You just don’t like them and what they choose to wear. ---
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2010, 5:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-niqab-controversy-quebec-defense-of-french-too-far/531074/84 "2010-03-07T05:47:01Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > I don’t care about people’s culture. That’s their business and their call. It’s not my place to tell other people their business unless it affects me. Some people’s cultures still have slavery. If they immigrate to Canada should we do something to help the slave if they bring him, or should we just throw up our hands and take your attitude? What if the slave likes being a slave? Should we still do nothing? Is slavery against the law? Is that the government’s business? Should the government act to free the slave even if he doesn’t want that help? Well, so is protecting women from subjugation, another form of slavery, imho. > [@](#): > > Ah, see, now the truth comes out. You just don’t like them and what they choose to wear. My liking someone has no bearing. But, I’d prefer people who deem women to be property not bring their archaic culture and practices that perpetuate such ideas to my country. If you choose to look at it as bigotry, that’s your problem. Mark me down as a bigot against people who view and keep people as property. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2010, 6:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-niqab-controversy-quebec-defense-of-french-too-far/531074/85 "2010-03-07T06:56:46Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > What I do care about is the GOVERNMENT, because their business is my business. If someone chooses to adopt a culture that discriminates, well, shit happens. If it’s their personal business we can tut-tut their choices but there’s no practical way to stop it. If I don’t wanna date black chicks, there it is. That’s discriminatory, technically. So what? But when the government tells people what to wear, they best have a good reason, because that’s the law in this country. We have standards of dress in all manner of public and private institutions. Breaking these standards under the guise of religion would bring everything from [complete nudity](http://abcnews.go.com/Business/video/nude-church-pastors-bares-soul-9932175) to leather masks with a dog collar and chain (insert imagination here). A completely cloaked student is an anathema of social standards in the educational system of a free country. Part of any person’s education is a normal interaction with other people. A veil destroys the facial communication between other students and teachers. IMO it amounts to child abuse in the way it restricts basic social interaction. In this instance, the government is not telling people what to wear, it is telling people what they cannot wear. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2010, 12:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-niqab-controversy-quebec-defense-of-french-too-far/531074/86 "2010-03-07T12:59:00Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > A completely cloaked student is an anathema of social standards in the educational system of a free country. Why? You SAY it interferes with education, but unless the veil stops someone from talking, I see no reason to think it does. Who’s being hurt by this? > [@](#): > > In this instance, the government is not telling people what to wear, it is telling people what not to wear. Oh, well, then, that’s totally different… no, wait, it really isn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Whisperer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cat_whisperer/32/4839_2.png) [@Cat\_Whisperer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Whisperer)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2010, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-niqab-controversy-quebec-defense-of-french-too-far/531074/87 "2010-03-07T20:52:28Z")
> [@Uzi](#): > > \ This really isn’t about whether someone can wear the clothing they want to, but upon a practice designed to subjugate women and whether that is something that a society like Canada should condone by its tolerance. That she wants to wear the equivalent of a gimp suit really doesn’t matter to me, what does is that by her practicing her ‘right’ that she allows men to force other women who don’t want to wear the gimp suit into doing so.\ This is what makes this issue so very hard - how tolerant of intolerant religious practices should we be? A Muslim woman raised in a different, Muslim country is raised to be a second-class citizen, but we try hard not to treat women like that in Canada. Is it intolerant of us to try to raise women up from second-class to equality when they come here (whether they want it or not)? ---
**Author:** ![chappachula](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/d2c977/32.png) [@chappachula](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chappachula)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2010, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-niqab-controversy-quebec-defense-of-french-too-far/531074/88 "2010-03-07T21:01:22Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > Why? You SAY it interferes with education, but unless the veil stops someone from talking, I see no reason to think it does. The veil doesnt stop her from talking–it stops her from behaving normally. It prevents her from carrying out normal intercourse\* under the social contract which all people in any culture are expected to obey. Western culture is based on the assumption that human dignity is based on equality. \*I use the word intentionally, to make a point.There is a type of intercourse you do in the bedroom. And there is a type of intercourse do in public. In each case, you dress appropriately, or become a social outcast. Society has are rules, and if you violate them, you’re gonna get kicked out of French class. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2010, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-niqab-controversy-quebec-defense-of-french-too-far/531074/89 "2010-03-07T22:19:57Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > Why? You SAY it interferes with education, but unless the veil stops someone from talking, I see no reason to think it does. Who’s being hurt by this? much of social communication is done with facial expressions. > [@RickJay](#): > > Oh, well, then, that’s totally different… no, wait, it really isn’t. As has already been pointed out, dress codes are prevalent in institutions. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2010, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-niqab-controversy-quebec-defense-of-french-too-far/531074/90 "2010-03-07T23:25:18Z")
> [@chappachula](#): > > The veil doesnt stop her from talking–it stops her from behaving normally. > It prevents her from carrying out normal intercourse\* under the social contract which all people in any culture are expected to obey. Western culture is based on the assumption that human dignity is based on equality. I see nothing here that doesn’t essentially amount to you saying “I do not like the way she dresses.” Again: Too bad. This is a free country and our society is inherently pluralistic. People are, and should be, permitted to live their lives in ways you might not like. Whether or not her behaviour is “normal” in your opinion is not something government should enforce. It’s not “normal” to do lots of things nobody seems to have a problem with. What’s normal about turbans? What’s normal about yarmulkes? What’s normal about any of the various stupidities Christians engage in? What’s normal about emo outfits, bad hairstyles, or Crocs? Nothing at all, but nobody’s getting kicked out of school for wearing them, because of course those aren’t scary Moozlim things. [QUOTE=Magiver] As has already been pointed out, dress codes are prevalent in institutions. [/QUOTE] Indeed they are. And dress codes specifically designed to exclude certain ethnic, racial or religious groups are quite correctly viewed as illegally discriminatory in this country. Hiding behind bullshit like “dress codes are prevalent in institutions” is deflection of the most obvious sort. Basic requirements for receiving service in a retail store are also prevalent, but if I came up with one designed to forbid certain ethnic groups, like “We Do Not Serve Anyone Wearing Yarmulkes” or “Turban Means No Service” I’d be sued, I’d lose, and I’d deserve it. Criteria for hiring people to certain jobs is not just prevalent but common to almost all hiring, but if I set criteria like “No women allowed” or “No blacks” I’d be raked over the coals for it. Dress codes are fine if they have some sort of purpose that isn’t “let’s exclude certain kinds of ethnicities,” and the courts have well established that if such things do happen to discriminate they’re often allowable. This dress code was nothing of the sort. It was pretty clearly cooked up solely to stop Muslim women from wearing veils. ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Fight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/90ced4/32.png) [@Cat\_Fight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Fight)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2010, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-niqab-controversy-quebec-defense-of-french-too-far/531074/91 "2010-03-08T00:13:14Z")
However you feel about the issue, you have to admit that there’s some humor and irony in this woman’s advice (from a [Montreal paper](http://www.montrealgazette.com/health/Niqab+heats+rights+controversy/2634519/story.html)). > [@](#): > > Manal Karime, 21, a second-year finance student, said covering one’s face is a personal decision. Karime wears a hijab, but not a face veil. > > “We don’t want to make problems, but we value our beliefs much more than everyone around us,” she said. > > It would have done no harm to allow the woman to take the class with the veil on, she said. “Have a big smile on your face, welcome them and understand,” she urged non-Muslims. Yes, nothing beats a smile for communicating warmth and human kindness! ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2010, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-niqab-controversy-quebec-defense-of-french-too-far/531074/92 "2010-03-08T00:29:20Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > Indeed they are. And dress codes specifically designed to exclude certain ethnic, racial or religious groups are quite correctly viewed as illegally discriminatory in this country. That’s simply not true. Schools and business dress codes are certainly discriminatory if viewed based on a demographic criteria. This has nothing to do with the society adapting to a religion, this has to do with religion adapting to society. There is an unending level of nonsense we would have to put up with if religion is given free reign to dictate acceptable behavior. If people want to subjugate women to different standards then men in the confines of their place of worship that privilege is not extended by fiat to society in general. > [@RickJay](#): > > Hiding behind bullshit like “dress codes are prevalent in institutions” is deflection of the most obvious sort. Basic requirements for receiving service in a retail store are also prevalent, but if I came up with one designed to forbid certain ethnic groups, like “We Do Not Serve Anyone Wearing Yarmulkes” or “Turban Means No Service” I’d be sued, I’d lose, and I’d deserve it. Stores have every right to restrict access based on the ability to identify customers. That greatly reduces the ability to verify identity. Banks routinely require fingerprints and photo ID to cash non-member checks. This is not about dress or fashion, this is about the covering of a person’s face. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2010, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-niqab-controversy-quebec-defense-of-french-too-far/531074/93 "2010-03-08T02:09:12Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > And yet, that seems to be the basis of your entire argument: that if we find an individual’s personal beliefs sufficiently distasteful (but not actually harmful) it is acceptable to discriminate against them. That, in the interest of protecting our egalitarian society, it is acceptable to treat some classes of people differently than others. It is acceptable to treat some **religious practices** differently than others. Sure, that means that we’re discriminating against certain religious practices, and thus against those who practice them. This is unavoidable. Freedom of religion doesn’t mean freedom to do absolutely **anything** you choose, as long as it’s in the name of religion. As other posters have cogently pointed out, if we were really obligated by our egalitarian principles to tolerate **all** religious practices equally, we’d have to cope with everything from public nudity to ritual murder to chattel polygyny. Ain’t gonna happen. We pick and choose the religious practices (not personal beliefs, but practices) that we’re willing to accept in our public sphere by weighing the importance of religious freedom against the importance of other fundamental principles. Sometimes religious freedom wins out, but sometimes it’s outweighed. Saying “it’s discriminatory to discriminate against people for discriminating” is like the old chestnut about its being intolerant not to tolerate intolerance. It seems like a gotcha on a superficial level, but it doesn’t really contain any useful insights. ---
**Author:** ![Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ccd318/32.png) [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paul_in_Qatar)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2010, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-niqab-controversy-quebec-defense-of-french-too-far/531074/94 "2010-03-08T02:45:15Z")
> [@chappachula](#): > > The veil doesnt stop her from talking–it stops her from behaving normally. > It prevents her from carrying out normal intercourse\* under the social contract which all people in any culture are expected to obey. Western culture is based on the assumption that human dignity is based on equality. > > \*I use the word intentionally, to make a point.There is a type of intercourse you do in the bedroom. And there is a type of intercourse do in public. In each case, you dress appropriately, or become a social outcast. > Society has are rules, and if you violate them, you’re gonna get kicked out of French class. So people wearing what they want to wear are not behaving normally? I had presumed Western civilization was based on the idea that people ought to be generally free to do as they wish to do. But you maintain this right only extends to normal behavior? ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2010, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-niqab-controversy-quebec-defense-of-french-too-far/531074/95 "2010-03-08T04:21:15Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > That’s simply not true. Schools and business dress codes are certainly discriminatory if viewed based on a demographic criteria. What protected class is discriminated against by a business dress code? “Slobs” are not a protected class under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms or any human rights code I am aware of. > [@](#): > > This has nothing to do with the society adapting to a religion, this has to do with religion adapting to society. Well, gosh, when did we start expecting this of religions? We grant tax-exempt status to the Catholic Church, which is one of the most openly sexist and homophobic organizations in Canada and has the added fun of having engaged in mass conpsiracy to cover up heinous criminal offenses. I mean, just as long as everything’s even. If we’re going to start pushing out religious stuff that doesn’t follow modern, secular Canadian sensibilities, why don’t we go after the big targets first? ---
**Author:** ![chappachula](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/d2c977/32.png) [@chappachula](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chappachula)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2010, 4:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-niqab-controversy-quebec-defense-of-french-too-far/531074/96 "2010-03-08T04:32:22Z")
> [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](#): > > So people wearing what they want to wear are not behaving normally? I had presumed Western civilization was based on the idea that people ought to be generally free to do as they wish to do. But you maintain this right only extends to normal behavior? yes, exactly. Society has norms, and expectations that everyone will live by them. If you want veiled women, that’s fine. You are free to live in Qatar. If you want stark naked Sadhus, and cows wandering the street,you are free to live in India. I’ve only lived on three continents , but every time I moved, I learned the language,and behaved and dressed according to local customs and rules.. Western rules are based on personal freedom, but also on showing respect for those around you. A smile is normal, and necessary for communication. A veil is not normal, and prevents normal communication in the West.. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2010, 4:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-niqab-controversy-quebec-defense-of-french-too-far/531074/97 "2010-03-08T04:38:35Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > Well, gosh, when did we start expecting this of religions? We grant tax-exempt status to the Catholic Church, which is one of the most openly sexist and homophobic organizations in Canada Don’t you also grant tax-exempt status, for example, to mosques in Muslim denominations that support the sexist and misogynist practice of mandating the wearing of the _niqab_? We do in the US. But this isn’t about the tax status of religious bodies. This is about _requiring a baseline of social equality in our secular public sphere, even for members of religions that reject such equality in their own private religious beliefs._ IMO, it would be at least as discourteous and unfair for, say, a Catholic student to refuse to allow gay students to look at him when he’s giving an in-class presentation as it is for a Muslim student to refuse to allow male students to look at her in the same circumstances. So I’m not really seeing a double standard here. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2010, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-niqab-controversy-quebec-defense-of-french-too-far/531074/98 "2010-03-08T04:45:53Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > But this isn’t about the tax status of religious bodies. This is about _requiring a baseline of social equality in our secular public sphere, even for members of religions that reject such equality in their own private religious beliefs._ _But this has never been expected of any other religion._ We don’t force the Amish or Mennonites to allow their women to wear pants or not wear bonnets. It’s only suddenly now that we want to prohibit religious wear in public, and with this one group. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2010, 5:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-niqab-controversy-quebec-defense-of-french-too-far/531074/99 "2010-03-08T05:05:31Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > But this has never been expected of any other religion. We don’t force the Amish or Mennonites to allow their women to wear pants or not wear bonnets. Nor are we supporting forcing Muslims in similar circumstances to abandon, say, wearing of the _hijab_ (headscarf) by women, or the kufi cap by men. All such garments still permit the wearer to abide by our society’s principle of fundamental social equality when interacting with other people. So nope, still no double standard here. The problem is not specifically with clothing that proclaims the wearers’ religious affiliation or signals a fastidious standard of modesty, like Mennonite bonnets or Muslim _hijabs_. The problem is with _refusing to accord different groups of people equal respect and courtesy when interacting with them in the public sphere._ If religious dictates about modesty require their followers to violate that principle of fundamental social equality, we as a society are not obligated to give them an exemption from it. ---
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2010, 5:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-niqab-controversy-quebec-defense-of-french-too-far/531074/100 "2010-03-08T05:08:45Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > What protected class is discriminated against by a business dress code? “Slobs” are not a protected class under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms or any human rights code I am aware of. Why aren’t slobs a protected class? What makes the religious more special or deserving than a slob? Slobs at least don’t bang on your door and ask you to convert or donate. > [@](#): > > Well, gosh, when did we start expecting this of religions? We grant tax-exempt status to the Catholic Church, which is one of the most openly sexist and homophobic organizations in Canada and has the added fun of having engaged in mass conpsiracy to cover up heinous criminal offenses. I’m glad we agree. Take away their tax exempt status. Why should an openly sexist and homophobic organization have a special tax status? They shouldn’t! > [@](#): > > I mean, just as long as everything’s even. If we’re going to start pushing out religious stuff that doesn’t follow modern, secular Canadian sensibilities, why don’t we go after the big targets first? Christianity is #1, Islam is #2. I mean, to be fair, #2 isn’t far off #1, so there is no reason not to address both of their houses at once. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-niqab-controversy-quebec-defense-of-french-too-far/531074.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-niqab-controversy-quebec-defense-of-french-too-far/531074.md?page=6)