# The threat about niqabs **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [May 15, 2020, 5:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-threat-about-niqabs/853839 "2020-05-15T05:32:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2020, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-threat-about-niqabs/853839/61 "2020-05-23T20:23:10Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > Such “reflex” actions become a sickness when it becomes impossible to delineate evil without someone trying to inflict guilt on those who point it out. I’m not “trying to inflict guilt” on anybody. If thinking about the persistence of sexist gender norms in our own society makes you feel guilty—even if nobody else is trying to guilt you with any exaggerations or false equivalences about the severity of sexist gender norms in our society versus some other societies—then that’s your issue to deal with, not anybody else’s. I’m sorry if you feel uncomfortable about this, but you don’t get to evade your discomfort by trying to pretend that I’m saying something that I’m not. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2020, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-threat-about-niqabs/853839/62 "2020-05-23T20:46:11Z")
> [@saucywench](#): > > More gobbledygook! Does your “supporting the rights of individuals,” (women in this case) also include the women getting a choice, as to whether or not they want to wear these contraptions? Or are you speaking for them? […] > > You speak of freedom, yet your gobbledygook never includes said women having the “freedom” to choose whether or not, they want to wear these hot, ugly, evil-looking, antiquated garments. :rolleyes: If the things I’ve clearly stated look like “gobbledegook” to you, that says more about your reading comprehension abilities than about my statements. If you were reading more carefully, you’d have noticed that I very definitely indicated, more than once, that I support women having the individual freedom to choose what they want to wear. That applies equally to whether they’re choosing to wear niqab/burqa or choosing not to. > [@Kimstu](#): > > Well, I sure don’t have anything good to say about the innate sexism of mandatory veiling for women, or the abuses and tyranny that many veiled women are subjected to by rabidly patriarchal ideology. […] > > Yes, we should absolutely take action against illegal coercive measures used in many patriarchal communities to force women into compliance with their sexist norms. But **saucywench** , your personal opinion (or anybody else’s) about whether niqab/burqa garments seem “hot” or “ugly” or “evil-looking” or “antiquated” doesn’t have jack-shit to do with the rights of individuals in a free society to choose to wear them or not. You seem to be having a really tough time here with separating out the fundamental matter of principle—namely, the right of the individual not to be coerced (at least beyond the most minimal requirements such as anti-nudity laws and the like) into following some gender-discriminatory imposed dress code—from your own personal aesthetic and/or xenophobic reactions. That’s why I initially raised the issue of some more familiar kinds of sexist dress norms in our own culture that got **Jackmanii** so upset. I think it’s worth reminding ourselves that **our support for individual rights involving, say, clothing choices should not be influenced by whether we personally consider the clothing in question to be “normal” and attractive versus “strange” and icky.** Or even “ugly” or “evil-looking” or “antiquated”, for that matter. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2020, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-threat-about-niqabs/853839/63 "2020-05-24T00:08:10Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > I’m not “trying to inflict guilt” on anybody. If thinking about the persistence of sexist gender norms in our own society makes you feel guilty—even if nobody else is trying to guilt you with any exaggerations or false equivalences about the severity of sexist gender norms in our society versus some other societies—then that’s your issue to deal with, not anybody else’s. Whatever “guilt” exists is yours, honeychild. Having you postulating in all seriousness that there are Western social norms compelling women to get breast enhancements and wear high heels to go out to a pizza joint with their families mostly sparks incredulity that a usually reasonable poster has gone so far off the deep end.\* \*there’s a minor quotient of hilarity as well. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2020, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-threat-about-niqabs/853839/64 "2020-05-24T02:31:02Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > Whatever “guilt” exists is yours, honeychild. 😕 First you complain that I’m “trying to inflict guilt” on people who criticize sexist practices of mandatory veiling, and then when I point out that I’m not doing any such thing, you respond by directly trying to inflict guilt on me, for no clearly articulated reason and with a side order of sexist condescension. I really don’t get why this conversation is bothering you to the point of such overreaction. > [@Jackmannii](#): > > Having you postulating in all seriousness that there are Western social norms compelling women to get breast enhancements and wear high heels to go out to a pizza joint with their families :dubious: But I didn’t postulate any such thing. The point I was making about “Western social norms”—which, I repeat, I very clearly acknowledged right from the get-go provide far more latitude for individual choice than social norms in a lot of Islamist-extremist societies—was simply that “there’s never a totally bright line between an individual choice and a socially conditioned gender norm or expectation”. If you insist on misrepresenting that as any kind of claim on my part that women in Western societies are literally being “compelled” to “get breast enhancements and wear high heels to go out to a pizza joint with their families”, then as I said, you’re just flailing at a strawman. ---
**Author:** ![saucywench](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/85e7bf/32.png) [@saucywench](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/saucywench)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2020, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-threat-about-niqabs/853839/65 "2020-05-24T14:25:36Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Well, I sure don’t have anything good to say about the innate sexism of mandatory veiling for women, or the abuses and tyranny that many veiled women are subjected to by rabidly patriarchal ideology. Great! Sounds reasonable. > [@](#): > > But I think we tend to forget that a lot of other gender norms are similarly rooted in “patriarchal display of backwards beliefs”, but we just don’t notice them because they’re so familiar. Maybe some people don’t notice, and others just don’t care about certain “gender norms,” because once again…the woman is not being forced to submit to them. > [@](#): > > For example, suppose you saw a similar family walking out of a pizza joint on a hot day. The man and little son are dressed as you describe, in comfortable clothing with comfortable shoes, and utilitarian short haircuts. Hobbling along behind them is the wife, elaborately dressed with tight high-heeled shoes and constricting shapewear. She’s clearly had cosmetic surgery for breast augmentation and facelifting. She’s very hot in her fancy clothes and elaborate hairstyle and jewelry, but she can’t even wipe away the sweat for fear of messing up her carefully applied makeup. > > Would you feel angry with that husband? Would you feel like calling him out on his patriarchal backwardness in assuming that he and his son are entitled to live in public in their natural appearance with casual comfortable clothing, while he expects his wife to subject herself to constant discomfort (not to mention painful and risky surgical procedures) to look how she’s “supposed” to look? No, and no. > [@](#): > > You’ll naturally respond… If you’re a mind reader, why bother with fora. > [@](#): > > _“Oh, that’s different! Our society isn’t **making** the wife do that to herself! It’s her own **choice**!”_ And you’ll have a point, to some extent: women in most liberal-democracy societies nowadays have a lot more latitude about what constitutes a socially acceptable way for them to present themselves in public than women in several Islamic theocracies do. People respond that way because it’s true. > [@](#): > > But there’s never a totally bright line between an individual choice and a socially conditioned gender norm or expectation. I disagree! There is a big, bright line between having freedom of choice, or being forced to submit to something. > [@](#): > > A lot of veiled Muslim women living in western liberal democracies argue that they’re freely choosing to wear the veil and should be allowed to do so. Whose individual choice deserves to be respected? What is “a lot?” Have you spoken to all these women, or are you just speaking for “the women” again? ---
**Author:** ![thorny\_locust](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thorny_locust/32/431_2.png) [@thorny\_locust](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thorny_locust)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2020, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-threat-about-niqabs/853839/66 "2020-05-24T15:25:14Z")
No adult in the USA is being literally forced to wear a niqab, either. The police won’t enforce it, and any adult can legally leave their family if their family insists on it. Of course people in some social circles may feel forced into it by their family members and/or neighbors. What Kimstu is pointing out, quite accurately, is that people in other social circles may feel forced into constricting and even physically damaging clothing of other types by their family members and/or neighbors; and that many people tend to notice this social pressure when it takes a form unfamiliar to them but not to notice it when the uncomfortable clothes seem normal to them. The reason women can’t go topless in public (which is societally enforced in the USA even in most areas where it’s technically legal) is because of the remains of Christian modesty requirements. Christian missionaries went around the world telling women (among other things) to cover up their bodies. We no longer think of modern Western dress standards as being religiously influenced, but they are. And as far as the OP: I had also noticed objections from some people, before the epidemic, to anyone’s covering their faces in public; not just in situations where genuine security reasons might arguably require showing one’s face, but just while walking down the street. And I had also noticed that the same objections weren’t being made about face masks. Some people object to face masks because they want the freedom not to wear them – but this is comparable to wanting (far more reasonably) the freedom not to wear niqab; it’s not comparable to wanting to deny others the ability to do so. Limbaugh seems to object to face masks on the grounds that they remind people that the epidemic exists; if that’s comparable to anything, it would be to an objection to anyone wearing clothing that appears to make a religious statement – but the people complaining about niqab don’t appear to complain about distinctive clothing worn by Old-Order Mennonites, or about crosses worn as jewelry or Christian religious imagery and slogans on t-shirts. There are multiple reasons to legitimately object to any requirement to wear hijab. And nobody in this thread is supporting any requirement to do so. But some of the objections to people choosing to wear hijab are indeed due to religious prejudice; and an insistence that while the breasts must be covered the entire face must be visible may well be from religious prejudice. Sometimes of course it’s just a matter of ‘everybody ought to bare what we’re used to seeing, and conceal what we’re not used to seeing!’ – a sort of force of habit and discomfort with the unusual. ---
**Author:** ![saucywench](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/85e7bf/32.png) [@saucywench](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/saucywench)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2020, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-threat-about-niqabs/853839/67 "2020-05-25T14:21:53Z")
> [@puzzlegal](#): > > Yup. I, too, would rather wear the lumpy covering clothing than high heels and fake boobs with fancy makeup. Lucky you! You don’t have to make a choice between the two, and you have the freedom to choose neither option. > [@](#): > > Can I just wear a hijab? Silly girl! Of course you can. Unlike other women, you have the choice to wear what you want. > [@](#): > > Because that always struck me as a happy medium between modesty and freedom. And some of them look attractive and comfortable. Happy medium between modesty and freedom, attractive and comfortable…I’ve got something just for you. It’s called a scarf. Wear one of those if you want, and you can avoid making stupid, flippant comments like, “Can I just wear a hijab?” ---
**Author:** ![puzzlegal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puzzlegal/32/3827_2.png) [@puzzlegal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puzzlegal)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2020, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-threat-about-niqabs/853839/68 "2020-05-25T14:33:53Z")
Actually, I hate scarves. And I think it would be culturally inappropriate for me to wear a hijab, despite them not having the features I hate about scarves. But that’s not really the point. No one is forced to wear niqab or fake boobs or a hijab in the US. It’s true that both men and women are often required to cover their crotch, and women are often required to cover their bosom in the US, but these don’t feel very oppressive to me. (Nor does a cultural requirement to cover your hair, fwiw.) And I agree that a cultural requirement to cover your face -because modesty- IS oppressive. BUT … I don’t see outlawing those garments as especially helpful to those being oppressed. Quite the contrary. I’d be curious if the opinion of women who grew up in cultures that required them to be covered, however. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2020, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-threat-about-niqabs/853839/69 "2020-05-25T15:08:49Z")
> [@thorny\_locust](#): > > …The reason women can’t go topless in public (which is societally enforced in the USA even in most areas where it’s technically legal) is because of the remains of Christian modesty requirements. Christian missionaries went around the world telling women (among other things) to cover up their bodies. We no longer think of modern Western dress standards as being religiously influenced, but they are. This is overstating the case. I don’t doubt that Christianity influenced prudishness, but covering the breasts is widespread convention that is not _solely_ attributable to Christianity. > [@thorny\_locust](#): > > …But some of the objections to people choosing to wear hijab are indeed due to religious prejudice; and an insistence that while the breasts must be covered the entire face must be visible may well be from religious prejudice. Sometimes of course it’s just a matter of ‘everybody ought to bare what we’re used to seeing, and conceal what we’re not used to seeing!’ – a sort of force of habit and discomfort with the unusual. And I think this is false equivalence, or false cultural relativism. We use the face to communicate, to express emotion, all human interaction involves picking up subtle cues from facial expressions. Unlike any other part of the body, covering the face carries a distinct message of prohibition or limitation in interaction with other human beings. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2020, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-threat-about-niqabs/853839/70 "2020-05-26T01:42:12Z")
[WOMEN IN NIQAB SPEAK: A STUDY OF THE NIQAB IN CANADA](https://ccmw.com/women-in-niqab-speak-a-study-of-the-niqab-in-canada/) I expect that most of you will be surprised as to who in Canada wear a niqab, the various reasons why they wear a niqab, how they feel wearing a niqab, and what they think about exposing their faces for security reasons. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2020, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-threat-about-niqabs/853839/71 "2020-05-26T01:53:45Z")
Deleted duplicate message. ---
**Author:** ![puzzlegal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puzzlegal/32/3827_2.png) [@puzzlegal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puzzlegal)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2020, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-threat-about-niqabs/853839/72 "2020-05-26T02:05:15Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > …And I think this is false equivalence, or false cultural relativism. We use the face to communicate, to express emotion, all human interaction involves picking up subtle cues from facial expressions. Unlike any other part of the body, covering the face carries a distinct message of prohibition or limitation in interaction with other human beings. I agree with this. I was joking about the hijab, because I think that “you must cover a woman’s hair” is pretty comparable to “you must cover a woman’s breasts”. But I, too, draw a line at covering the face, and think that’s fundamentally different. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2020, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-threat-about-niqabs/853839/73 "2020-05-26T02:06:00Z")
Here’s the study referred to in the CCMW’s overview linked to above. [http://ccmw.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/WEB\_EN\_WiNiqab\_FINAL.pdf](http://ccmw.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/WEB_EN_WiNiqab_FINAL.pdf) ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2020, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-threat-about-niqabs/853839/74 "2020-05-26T17:09:42Z")
> [@saucywench](#): > > I’d like to know what the women think about having to wear such hot, cumbersome, ugly garments? They’re really quite practical. In most Arab countries, traditional dress for men is not much different other than the face covering. For example, [Omani men](https://quod.lib.umich.edu/a/ars/13441566.0047.013/--omani-mens-national-dress-displaying-personal-taste?rgn=main;view=fulltext) wear a disdasha and one of several variants of a turban or hat. These people may be repressive, but they aren’t stupid. A burka is actually much more comfortable in hot climates than, say, pants and a shirt. Of course, whether the garments are ugly is rather in the eye of the beholder. I take no position on whether the practice is unfair to women. ---
**Author:** ![Omar\_Little](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omar_little/32/269_2.png) [@Omar\_Little](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omar_Little)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2020, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-threat-about-niqabs/853839/75 "2020-05-26T19:39:08Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > That’s my point. If it really was necessary for identification purposes, then they’d still be necessary during the pandemic. > > So far, I’ve seen absolutely no one argue that as a reason people even need to take off their mask temporarily. Suddenly that supposed concern disappeared. > > If something is a necessity, it remains so at all times, even in emergency situations like a pandemic. So they were lying. [https://www.tsa.gov/travel/security-screening/whatcanibring/items/medical-masks](https://www.tsa.gov/travel/security-screening/whatcanibring/items/medical-masks) TSA will require you to temporarily remove your mask for identification purposes when going through airport screening. ---
**Author:** ![saucywench](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/85e7bf/32.png) [@saucywench](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/saucywench)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2020, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-threat-about-niqabs/853839/76 "2020-05-29T16:11:26Z")
Iranian man arrested over so-called “honor killing” of his 14 year old daughter. She was beheaded by her father with a sickle while she was sleeping. > **[Iran arrests man over ‘honor killing’ of 14-year-old daughter](https://www.al-monitor.com/originals/2020/05/romina-ashrafi-iran-arrest-father-honor-killing-rouhani.html)** > > According to local media, 14-year-old Romina Ashrafi was beheaded in her sleep. Maybe she forgot to don her niqab before she fled the house. ---
**Author:** ![thorny\_locust](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thorny_locust/32/431_2.png) [@thorny\_locust](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thorny_locust)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2020, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-threat-about-niqabs/853839/77 "2020-05-29T18:56:28Z")
> [@saucywench](#): > > Iranian man arrested over so-called “honor killing” of his 14 year old daughter. She was beheaded by her father with a sickle while she was sleeping. What on earth has that got to do with women wearing niqab in the USA or Canada? ---
**Author:** ![saucywench](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/85e7bf/32.png) [@saucywench](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/saucywench)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2020, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-threat-about-niqabs/853839/78 "2020-05-29T19:06:54Z")
It ties into the bigger theme of the oppression of women in certain cultures. ---
**Author:** ![thorny\_locust](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thorny_locust/32/431_2.png) [@thorny\_locust](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thorny_locust)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2020, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-threat-about-niqabs/853839/79 "2020-05-29T19:59:07Z")
> [@saucywench](#): > > It ties into the bigger theme of the oppression of women in certain cultures. The perpetrator’s in jail on a murder charge. And from your own cite: > [@](#): > > The killing has prompted outrage nationwide So that hardly sounds like general cultural acceptance to me. Plus which: not only are we not talking about murder, which people of all religions and cultures unfortunately occasionally go in for. We’re not even talking about women being forced to wear niqab, which nobody on this thread is in favor of. We’re talking about women in USA and Canadian culture choosing to wear niqab. That somebody’s in jail for a murder that he gave a religious excuse for has nothing to do with it. I could give you cites of Christians giving religious reasons for having murdered their children, if you want them. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2020, 8:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-threat-about-niqabs/853839/80 "2020-05-30T08:04:05Z")
> [@saucywench](#): > > More gobbledygook! Does your “supporting the rights of individuals,” (women in this case) also include the women getting a choice, as to whether or not they want to wear these contraptions? Or are you speaking for them? _Well let’s see what they say for themselves._ Here’s a link to a study commissioned by one of Canada’s leading feminist organizations for just that purpose. For folks who don’t have the time to download and read it in full (a riveting 75 pages that is well worth the time), here are some paragraphs from it that get to the gist of it. _The bottom line is that women in Canada who wear a niqab do so of their own free will because they want to for various reasons._ > [@](#): > > **WOMEN IN NIQAB SPEAK: A STUDY OF THE NIQAB IN CANADA > The Canadian Council of Muslim Women (CCMW)** > [http://ccmw.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/WEB\_EN\_WiNiqab\_FINAL.pdf](http://ccmw.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/WEB_EN_WiNiqab_FINAL.pdf) > . . . . > This study can be seen as a response to this growing national conversation and a reflection of CCMW’s values and continued commitment to the plurality of Muslim communities. It represents an attempt to cast light on the existing agency of and provide space for Canadian Muslim women who wear the niqab to speak for themselves. > . . . . > The findings of this report authored by Dr. Lynda Clarke of Concordia University paint a dynamic, engaging picture of Canadian women who wear the niqab and challenge many of the mainstream presumptions and stereotypes that are presented in the media, policy circles and the wider public. > . . . . > The reasons for why Canadian women wore the niqab, as the author notes were “highly personal and individual” with a mixture of responses and rationales. Yet, “religious obligation” including attaining a deeper stage in one’s religious development and “expression of Muslim identity” featured prominently in participants’ explanations, with sub-themes such as self-study/religious role models, appropriate gender-relations, confidence/self-esteem and freedom from the pressures of fashion also playing a determining factor. Present in only a minority of rationales for wearing the niqab were husbands and families as many of the participants came from families where they faced opposition for wearing it, often taking on the practice without consulting their families. While a small number of women cited spousal encouragement for why they wore the niqab, many women indicated facing spousal opposition and explained that their larger struggle was with soliciting spousal support for their decision. > . . . . > Very few pieces of faith based clothing in Canada have ignited as much impassioned debates as the Muslim practice of the niqab. Covering the woman’s body and hair and leaving only the eyes visible, the niqab has often been problematized as a symbol of Islamic extremism, women’s oppression and lastly the failure of Muslims to integrate. The Canadian Council of Muslim Women (CCMW) is no stranger when it comes to addressing the very issues that affect Canadian Muslim communities, including debates concerning Muslim women and their choice of dress. Committed to the equality, equity, empowerment and diversity of Muslim women and their voices, for more than 30 years the national organization has delivered community based projects and advocated on behalf of Muslim women and their families. CCMW has previously issued position papers about the niqab and also presented our statements to government bodies. This has resulted in the media, policy officials, community organizations and other inquiring minds asking the Council to weigh in on the debate. > . . . . > This study can be seen as a response to this growing national conversation and a reflection of CCMW’s values and continued commitment to the plurality of Muslim communities. It represents an attempt to cast light on the existing agency of and provide space for Canadian Muslim women who wear the niqab to speak for themselves. This study is not intended to dwell upon the religious or theological basis of the practice itself, but rather it is first and foremost about the lived experiences of the women and the diverse narratives that they have shared in their responses. The niqab itself is a complex issue and raises many questions for Muslim communities and the wider Canadian population itself. These questions do not yield simple answers, but they must be explored through open and honest discussion. > > The findings of this report authored by Dr. Lynda Clarke of Concordia University paint a dynamic, engaging picture of Canadian women who wear the niqab and challenge many of the mainstream presumptions and stereotypes that are presented in the media, policy circles and the wider public. A total of approximately 81 women who wore the niqab participated in this study, 38 of whom responded to online surveys, 35 that participated in focus groups in Mississauga, Montreal, Ottawa and Waterloo and 8 who participated in in-depth individual interviews. > > Keeping in mind the limitations of the sample, based on available data in the study the typical profile of woman in niqab is that of a married foreign-born citizen in her twenties to early thirties who adopted the practice after arriving in Canada. Most of the women possessed a high level of education, having attended university, graduate school, community college or some form of vocational education. The majority of the participants were homemakers, while others were self-employed or worked in a range of fields including Muslim communities, consulting, engineering and web design. Those that did not work expressed a desire to in their lifetime, but were concerned with the exclusion they would likely face in the workplace. > > In terms of religious orientation, the majority of the respondents in the study adopted what can be viewed as a “conservative” approach to Islam. For instance, the majority of respondents did not agree with the practice of dating and did not believe that homosexuality was an acceptable practice. Yet the presence of a conservative religious outlook amongst participants did not translate into a uniformity of attitudes towards the niqab itself and whether it was a religiously mandatory practice. 44.7% of those surveyed established that it was necessary for a Muslim woman to wear it; while 47.4% indicated “Not necessary, but advisable” and 6.4% indicated that it was not, illustrating the variety of religious understandings concerning the article of dress amongst the participants themselves. > > The reasons for why Canadian women wore the niqab, as the author notes were “highly personal and individual” with a mixture of responses and rationales. Yet, “religious obligation” including attaining a deeper stage in one’s religious development and “expression of Muslim identity” featured prominently in participants’ explanations, with sub-themes such as self-study/religious role models, appropriate gender-relations, confidence/self-esteem and freedom from the pressures of fashion also playing a determining factor. Present in only a minority of rationales for wearing the niqab were husbands and families as many of the participants came from families where they faced opposition for wearing it, often taking on the practice without consulting their families. While a small number of women cited spousal encouragement for why they wore the niqab, many women indicated facing spousal opposition and explained that their larger struggle was with soliciting spousal support for their decision. > . . . . > In response to religious accommodation and access to government services, including social, legal and health, all of our participants indicated that there would be situations when it was necessary to uncover or show their face including airport security, ID cards, accessing hospital services or even driving. As one interviewee indicated, “It’s part of our religion to cooperate with the government, so we have to.” When asked if it was appropriate to show their face in accessing government services, most of the participants indicated “Sometimes.” While many of the respondents indicated a preference for female service providers (physicians), some of the participants did not oppose receiving services from men. Interestingly, rather than describing their access to services as problematic, most of the women in the study expressed that their niqabs did not affect their access and relayed positive sentiments. Similar views were expressed when asked about access to education, where the majority of participants expressed comfort and acceptance in their educational programs. > . . . . > This larger trend of tolerance and accommodation within Canada is reflected in the optimistic attitudes that the women in the study expressed towards Canadian society as a whole. While some participants relayed their negative experiences which ranged from physical assault to verbal harassment, not a single participant in the study described her overall experience in Canada as being negative. Participants described these harmful experiences as reflecting a minority of the Canadian population and instead relayed a strong affinity to Canada, praising its multiculturalism, its respect for human rights, its freedom and life changing opportunities. > . . . . [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-threat-about-niqabs/853839.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-threat-about-niqabs/853839.md?page=5)