Author: Tareq Shahwan

What are the reasonable limits to freedom of expression in liberal democracies?

By looking at newspapers and mainstream media outlets in Canada, one can notice that the issue of the niqab is occupying significant space. Some could even argue that this particular debate has played a pivotal role in changing public opinion about certain candidates in the federal election.

By closely observing public opinion polls and statements from politicians I found the tenor of discourse presented by the people against the niqab ban to be quite troubling. Therefore I see  a need to present better arguments to better inform the public about this issue.

The first major rejoinder that is presented when asked about the niqab ban is that people should be able to wear what they wish. I find this particular argument very weak, both morally and logically because it treats people in society as if they were isolated entities living in separate worlds. I believe that some symbols in society reflect ideologies and creeds that are beyond the limits of freedom of expression because they could be offensive to other people when shown in public. Clear examples of this can be wearing a shirt with a swastika on it or a slogan that justifies rape culture.

The second major argument is that wearing the niqab is a personal choice. I think this argument is fallacious. I am rather ambivalent about the concept of personal choice when talking about religion. If I told someone that not wearing something will result in damnation, I would expect them to defend their choice about that, if it is one of their core beliefs. The process of formulating beliefs is very complex, sometimes based on fear, and is not based on decisions made in a vacuum or an objective, rational, educated selection.

The previous point leads me to my third argument: why should a man tell a woman what to wear? I’m not sure if the majority of the people (politicians or not) who support a niqab ban are men. All that I know is that the ideology that urges women to wear the niqab and hijab was written by a man, or God—if you believe—who is always referred to as a male.

I also find it troubling that when someone expresses support for the ban of a religious symbol, they are often referred to as a racist. I would like to emphasize that religion is not a race but an ideology, and ideologies should not be free from criticism in a society that purportedly cherishes freedom of expression.

Moreover, criticizing the niqab does not make you a conservative, because where I come from (the Middle East), progressive, socialist, anti-imperialist movements have also tried to ban the niqab in certain public spaces because they claim that it poses a challenge to equality in society. In the 1950s, Abdel Nasser’s reformist regime in Egypt pursued this kind of public secularism with the support of prominent feminist movements, and it was largely successful until the 1970s.

I would like to see an enhanced level of discourse about the niqab in which the undertones are less judgmental, accusatory, and superficial and less based on an extreme concept of individualism. If this happens, the debate will become more productive and public opinion can be better shaped by a logical and educated discussion.

Do you agree or disagree with this article? Contact opinions@theconcordian.com to write a rebuttal for next week’s issue.

The Montreal university’s gym segregation pushes us backwards, not forwards

The demand of two McGill law students for women-only gym time is strikingly reminiscent of the separate (but equally legal) doctrine that legally justified racial segregation—in this case, let’s call it “gender segregation”. The reasons behind this demand are that some students feel uncomfortable around men in the gym due to instances of sexual harassment, or, due to religious values whereby a woman’s body and hair is a source of sin (and therefore men are not allowed to see it). For some, maybe it is a mix of both. But the solution put forward here is disastrous and, if anything, will further exacerbate the problem.

Segregating genders in universities emulates the model used in many ultra-religious societies. This model proved its complete failure to bridge the gap between genders, and contributed to the prevention of gender equality and led to the subjugation of women. Real gender issues—such as harassment and intimidation—are rarely, if ever tackled, and no one learned how to respect the other gender.

The best course of action depends on understanding the reasons behind this demand. For those who demand women-only hours for religious reasons, I think the case is settled. If we are aspiring to create a healthy environment in our universities, we cannot inject sexist and old religious values in our educational institutions, such as the sexualization and inferiority of the female body and—most importantly—the view that women and men cannot be at the same place at the same time because it challenges “religious commandments”.

Yes, every individual is entitled to his/her own religion and should be respected for it, but religion cannot be part of university policy. It would marginalize the non-religious students and students of other faiths, and impose on them an orthodox a lot of students will likely disagree with.

On the other hand, for those who demand women-only hours due to instances of harassment and intimidation, then I think instead of separating the gym and burying our heads in the sand, McGill University has to impose stricter regulations to fight these practices and continuously educate its students about gender equality.

I also think that it is very important not to conflate religious requirements with feminist demands, as many of the proponents of this resolution are doing, as the moral justification for both is widely different. Also, this conflation can be smartly and intelligently used to pass some religious ideas on our campuses, under the guise of social justice. I find this has been heavily employed by the religious parties who opposed the charter of values , yet drew sympathy by playing on this conflation . However, if you look at their history, you will find it is void of any involvement in social justice actions.

At the end, I hope that this proposal will be struck down, either by the student union and/or by the university’s administration. Otherwise, our future will be going backwards as opposed to progressing forwards, and the gender gap will be widened.