By Beryl Wajsman
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
It is ironic that the latest Canadian controversy over Islamic law and tradition conflicting with western values occured in the same week as we commemorated the sixth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. The attack was not just a physical one, but a challenge to western values. That is why the controversy over veiled voting matters. Western liberal values matter.
The bedrock of a free society is the acceptance by its citizens of participation in the free and transparent battleground of ideas. Any abridgment or compromise of this principle must be rejected.
Much ink has been spent this week examining how the federal Election Act is faulty for not directly addressing the issue of veiled voting. The ink has been badly spent. The real question is why Elections Canada chief Marc Mayrand did not respond in a different manner to the question that began this controversy.
The Elections Act demands photo ID. It is obvious that in order for that ID to be effective you need to have facial recognition. It was disingenuous at best for Mayrand to state that veiled voting is permissible because the Act does not specifically forbid it. Indeed, legislators should have made it specific. But the photo ID requirement surely makes it clear to any reasonable mind that facial recognition is a prerequisite to casting a ballot.
Our ready acceptance to descend into any debate diminishing our values, as long as we seem politically correct, has led to some ludicrous suggestions on this issue over the past week. Two commentators actually put forward the idea that we allow identification by fingerprint as they do in Muslim countries. It is debasing that we should even consider lowering our mature, pluralistic, political traditions to those of nations still ruled by state faith and Sharia law.
We pride ourselves on being an open and accessible society. We think that we can reason with anyone and that our pluralism will be greeted with like-minded tolerance. Yet we often tolerate the intolerant and end up mired in self-censorship and floundering in naivet.
In the midst of this latest veil debate, British Islamist apologist Yvonne Ridley, who is the London correspondent of Ahmadinejad's Press TV, spoke in Montreal for the Canadian Islamic Congress. This is the same Congress whose President, Mohammed Elmasry, said two years ago that all Israelis were legitimate targets for homicide bombers because Israel had a civilian army. Despite this, the evening was attended by leaders from civil society. Too many in our public life have forgotten what Elmasry, and the Congress he leads, stand for.
The Montreal Gazette reported on Ridley's remarks criticizing the veil debate as putting up a roadblock to Muslim participation in the democratic process. What The Gazette did not report were several other comments she made, including one where Ridley stated that Canada could be called truly multicultural when there were thousands of women wearing veils. And herein is the heart of a great deal of our problems as we continue to be hoisted on our own petard.
It has been proposed by some this past week that Canada should accommodate the veil because we are "a multicultural democracy" They are wrong. Multiculturalism is not a club that can beat a democracy into different shapes pleasing to different groups. A democracy can be many things. It can be constitutional; it can be parliamentary; it can be republican; but there is no such political construct as a "multicultural" democracy. The phrase is in and of itself oxymoronic because it implies that allegiance to particularistic prejudices is morally equivalent to loyalty to universal principles of justice and equity.
Freedom of religion has never implied, and should never imply, the elevation of any aspect of religious sacrament to the level of secular right. It is simply not appropriate for the state to validate, encourage or finance faith-based demands in the public arena.
That every individual has a natural, moral, right to submit to canonical doctrine, undertake religious education or indulge in religious lifestyles is not in question. But on no account should we allow their demands for support, whether legal or financial, to prevail upon the patrimony of civil society by forcing that society to legitimize separateness and exclusivity in any area of its public law.
State submission to special interests will do nothing more than heighten irrational feelings of superiority and strengthen unreasonable commitments to particularity. Rather than encouraging social peace, it will incite further irritation between religious and secular as our legal system struggles to accommodate the inevitable explosions of legislation, regulation and exception.
Prime Minister Harper was right to call on Marc Mayrand to reverse his interpretation of the Elections Act. A democracy can accommodate many demands, but if it does not have the bold resolve to separate state and faith it will very quickly see the undoing of the freedoms which form the foundation upon which it stands.
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2024 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2024 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement