The right to bare arms

by Ed Morgan

Recent weeks have seen enough debate over headscarves and the like that people around the world could be forgiven for scratching their collective skullcaps. France, Singapore, Turkey, Germany, have all debated whether they can create a more cohesive society by requiring religiously mandated headgear to come off or permitting it to stay on.

In an interesting twist, the CRIF (Conseil representatif des institutes juifs en France) has come out in support of the French government's initiative banning the hijab in schools. Although this potentially impacts on Jewish children who wear a kippah, French Jews have determined that the rise of Islamic radicalism warrants a policy of compulsory Francification for the country's religious minorities -- themselves included.

The attitude in France contrasts with the long-standing policy of Canadian Jewish Congress. Here, the umbrella Jewish community advocacy organization has intervened to support the rights of Muslims, Sikhs, and Jews to cover up in the face of regulations in schools, courtrooms, workplaces and legion halls that have required them to expose their heads to the elements.

In addressing religious tolerance, the late chief justice Brian Dickson once remarked that all religions share similar values but display them in different ways: a Christian takes off his hat when he enters a church, a Jew puts his on in a synagogue. But when it comes to the enforcement of religious norms around the world, this Canadian liberalism may be a touch naive. Societies may not all be the same under the rim.

Last week Saudi religious leaders lashed out against a prominent female speaker not for what she said on the issue of women in Islam, but for making her point at an academic forum where she gave a bareheaded public address. In Malaysia's northern state of Kelantan, where the Islamic movement runs the government and its education system, the Chief Minister has gone on a tirade against Muslim girls who may wear the tudong (Malaysian-style headscarf) but who accompany it with tight jeans and lipstick.

From the viewpoint of liberalism, there is something wrong with this picture. The Saudi establishment -- the gatekeepers of the religion's holiest places -- require headscarves for everyone when thousands of their co-religionists are marching down the Champs Elysee demanding freedom of choice. Malaysia's Islamic party derides girls wearing Western clothing to school at the very time Malay Muslims in neighbouring Singapore are seeking the right to wear long dresses and Islamic headscarves in place of the short skirts and short sleeves that go with school uniforms.

It should be obvious that the right to bare arms in Muslim societies and the right to expose them in Western ones are two sides of the same coin. But that is only if the liberal value of free choice prevails. In Canada we assume this to be the case. In France, where the large Islamic community is confronted not with liberalism but with forced secularism, the fire of the dissentient community is being fought with the fire of coercion in an effort to bring them into the fold.

It may be that both the Canadian and the French positions are "right." Last week the spouse of Ahmed Khadr, Canada's most renowned al-Qaeda fugitive, told this newspaper that Islamic societies, even violent and unstable ones like Afghanistan, are better for children than Canada, where teenagers "take drugs and have casual sex." As Woody Allen might reply, that's the best we have to offer! If decriminalization and sexual freedom don't get young people to buy into our society, it's unlikely they'll like anything else about liberalism either.

Muslims are not all represented by the Khadrs, of course, and the Islamic community in Canada no doubt embraces and rejects freedom of choice in percentages that are similar to other religious groups. The point is that there is good reason to defend the rights of even those who do not share the liberal society's values. It may just be the right thing to do. If so, hats off to those advocates.

But one must always take care that the ideology of liberalism does not itself impede free thinking. There are some contexts in which rights advocates have to head for cover. What would Canadian tolerance say, for example, about a community that required young girls to wear not just the hijab to school but a full top-to- bottom, face-covering burka? It turns out that freedom is weighed on a very sensitive scale. That extra cloth may tip the balance from religious liberty to religious oppression. Our society should be free for headcoverings, but we must ensure that our ideology doesn't itself pull the wool over our eyes.