The Niqab in Politics

        

 

 

 Comments.    Considerations.     Questions.

                     

                            by Kenneth Bagnell

              

 

 

 

 I can’t remember a more disconcerting and depressing election campaign than the one we’re now about to end. I only hope that we never again see such a cynical, almost nihilistic campaign strategy as the Harper Conservatives display in the transparent exploitation of a piece of cloth worn by a tiny minority of Muslim women: the niqab. Little wonder Calgary’s distinguished Mayor Naheed Nenshi said: “I am deeply troubled by the language of divisiveness we hear in Ottawa these days.” I may often regret many things that are somebody else’s full right to wear.  Zunera Ishaq has been Canada’s clearest and courageous example.

      One positive aspect of Zunera’s experience: in life, bad things are often accompanied by good things. That’s so on this matter. One good thing is simply this: the major (and thereby most influential) newspapers, have been confident enough and courageous enough to expose this tactic for what it was: a cynical and divisive exploitation which may well have led to a permanent rupture in our very important multicultural character.  The claim that Muslim women ought to remove the niqab when taking the citizenship oath is a false setup: only a tiny minority wear the niqab when seeking citizenship. They remove it before a government official prior to taking the oath. The fuss raised around the matter is a falsification. (I am thankful that, a few days ago, the citizenship people themselves saw to it that she indeed took the oath, and in fact wore her niqab during it. (The rhetoric surrounding the issue has ebbed but the issue isn’t fully resolved).

        Teacher Zunera Ishaq, a well educated wife and mother of four girls, like some Pakistani women, decided some years ago to wear the niqab given her understanding of her faith. It was her decision; nobody forced it. In fact her father -– a noted scholar and economics professor — was reluctant in accepting her decision. She thereby became part of a minority of Islamic women. But in Canada, with our long democratic tradition and our multicultural practice she is — as she should be — free to wear what she wants to wear. It’s painful for her, but as I wrote above, bad things are often accompanied by other and good things. Thus the airing of this specific issue, in ultimate context, is good for the long term future of Canada.     

     For almost a year now she has been the center of a controversy she did not expect and certainly did not want. A few days ago on CBC Radio, she told broadcaster Anna Maria Tremonti of the verbal abuse she was getting on the street and the worry she had over the controversy the Harper government ignited over her niqab, even though the court has accepted her right to be granted citizenship. I may indeed have some personal regrets surrounding the niqab. Why? Because we humans speak not just with our voices but with our faces. Hence the niqab intrudes on person-to person-communication. For example: a niqab wearing-lawyer pleading a serious case before the jury. Or else, a psychiatrist seeking to understand and help a niqab-wearing patient. But I repeat: Zunera’s precious democractic right is most important. And not just to her but to us all. It thereby trumps Mr. Harper’s zealous hope of banning it. Zunera is bright enough to see what’s behind it all: “I’m still wondering,” she says, “why this has become such a big political issue. It never has been. Until now. It has been made one deliberately.”

        I know that, Zunera. So do many Canadians. Anyway, it all comes from the political attitude of a stern taskmaster for whom Canada’s democracy is, for now, not overseen but run. He’s a man with an iron hand, a rigid view and to informed Islamic scholars, a fearful ethic. The distortion of Islamic history and culture is a political strategy, overseen by his servant strategists. Its rhetoric has driven a highly dangerous wedge between Islam and our mostly Anglo culture. That wedge has damaged our multicultural cultural cohesion. Even the most prudent of editorialists, the Globe & Mail’s columnist of many years, Jeffrey Simpson, is deeply critical – -mild when compared to The Toronto Star — of the Harper oversight referring to its “weak cabinet” as a reflection of that style: “The Conservatives have the weakest cabinet in living memory, deepened by the death of Jim Flaherty… the Conservatives have a painfully thin back bench … and they have the poorest lot of local candidates in this election.”  Much of this he puts down to the Harper one-man style of governance. In other columns the ever-prudent Simpson alludes to the current governance as reflective of “friendly dictatorships.” Maybe some people, financial investors for example, are comfortable with that approach.

    (Incidentally this must be a profound indignation to former Progressive Conservative leaders, including Brian Mulroney, Joe Clarke, and two who were my friends: the late Robert Stanfield and John Diefenbaker. The latter might well be the most indignant of all since before he entered politics he was – get ready – a civil liberties lawyer remembered above all for his dedication to human rights !  I’m still shaking my head over what was allowed to happen to a great Progressive Conservative party. I shake my head over those in the party who fostered it.)

    A bit of historic background will help throw light on the social cultural evolution that led to the Harper political technique. The pragmatic aspect of its development is the social culture which began evolving in the middle 1900s. It’s what the late and noted Christian philosopher Jacques Ellul of the 1960’s and 1970’s, explored in his book called, “Technique: The Formation of Man’s Attitudes.” Ellul foresaw the emerging use of propaganda as a controlling method of manipulation over individuals … an emerging propaganda reinforcing an individual’s way of life. He also predicted the coming social culture as one in which the highest human value would be “the sacred nature of efficiency.” As he continued:  “In the end technique has only one principle — efficient ordering.” In the context of politics that translates into “what works best is best.” Ethics would be surrendered to efficiency. (Please note this evolution is nobody’s deliberately contrived strategy; it’s simply the evolution of the public culture, hence the political culture which, in turn is inevitably a reflection of ourselves.) That’s why we should know that when most politicians — specifically here, Mr. Harper – touches on, say, Arabic issues, they do what we now have come to call, “code.” Why? Because it fulfills Ellul’s prediction and social ambitions by doing so with as little verbal provocation as possible. Please note much of the broad public is innocently manipulated by this technique. For example:

      In early September, the Harper team did something that not long ago would have raised high indignation. They decided, in the midst of the campaign, to engage a man from Australia, Lynton Crosby, to oversee the current and ever loyal campaign director. The reason was simply a sag in the campaign and the sparkling track record of Crosby. He’s worked magic to get leading politicians elected to the highest office in, for example, England and Australia, more than once, plus the city of London. The decision to choose an Australian to virtually oversee a Canadian Prime Minister’s campaign, didn’t provoke the serious criticism it should have. It’s insulting. It leaves the implication that no Canadian could do the job.   Think.   I am reluctant to believe that Pierre Trudeau or Paul Martin, Brian Mulroney or John Diefenbaker, would ever accept this utterly blush-making strategy. Never mind, it just fulfills the late Jacques Ellul’s prediction: the evolving culture is virtually directed by pragmatism to the exclusion of principle, thereby devoid of values.

    For example: a few days ago the following news appeared on the front page of the country’s largest newspaper, The Toronto Star: “The Globe and Mail reported that the Prime Minister’s Office intervened in the processing of Syrian refugees and declared that all applicants through the United Nations would require Harper’s approval. Such files are normally handled by Citizenship and Immigration Officials. Hence I quote this reference: “CTV News, quoting Citizenship and Immigration insiders reported Thursday night that the PMO went through Syrian refugee applications to ensure that religious minorities such as Christians were accepted over applications from Shia and Sunni Muslims.” If this is accurate, (error is always possible though improbable) it’s disgraceful.

    Incidentally, the following may be of interest at least to some: Mr. Harper years ago left the United Church of Canada for an evangelical denomination since he felt the UCC wasn’t reflecting the true Christian faith he sought.  I wonder if this change helped him to (as CTV reported) “ensure that religious minorities such as Christians were being accepted over applications from Shia and Sunni Muslims.” I’ve never encountered, in my theological study and interviews with many major theologians, the acceptability of picking Christian immigrants over others. That crude strategy is utterly unacceptable to Christians with backgrounds in credible theology. The life of Jesus and his teachings define Christianity. That’s it. Thereby they trump the callous and crude exclusionary views of Mr. Harper.  (In fact his new evangelical denomination is hard at work sponsoring as many Syrian refugees as possible. Good for them!)  

      In further fulfillment of the cultural change predicted by Ellul, politicians, including above all, many of the leaders, have revised the rhetoric language in their messages when campaigning. They speak in what is now called “code”.   No politician in Ottawa is as prompt and smooth at this as Prime Minister Harper. When dealing, as he must, with media people — even though insiders say he intensely dislikes competent journalists –- he is masterful. He would never suggest that such and such an immigrant group might be a veiled terrorism threat. No, no. He just wants everyone “to observe Canadian values.” That’s code for no niqabs and maybe many other things we know nothing of. Yet, as I write this, my computer has delivered its daily report from the Religious News Service, including a story on a forthcoming anti-Muslim conclave. It begins: “Muslim leaders and anti-bigotry activists are girding for a weekend of protests by groups known for their anti-Muslim views.” Guess what the event is called?  “Global Rally for Humanity.” A perfect example of the fulfillment of Ellul’s prediction and today’s fulfillment of the word “Code.” Beware.     

      I often think these days of those families who may be dreaming of coming to our once very appealing multicultural country from, say, Afghanistan, or Algeria, or Azerbaijan or even Bangladesh. If they do manage to navigate the now puzzling and uncertain maze, they maybe be assured that if Mr. Harper’s government survives, it will find a place for them to “fit in.” They may well find that room in what we used to call, “The Back Pew.”                         

 

                                         30

All past blogs are archived on my website: your comments are welcome there: www.kennethbagnell.