The niqab, that ever-enduring symbol of religious oppression and imposition in the Western world, is often perceived as an easy target because most people, regardless of political or ideological leaning, share a visceral scorn for that piece of cloth. Criticisms of the Muslim face veil – whether it be on the basis of public safety, concern for the plight of Muslim women, or the protection of cultural and societal values against foreign pressures – frequently serve as an easy cover to mask one’s discomfort with Muslims as a visible minority. It is an easy choice, for it is only a minority that sees fit to wear the niqab – a minority that is often not comfortable in the limelight and thus unlikely to cost anyone the vote.

So it is that politicians and commentators of every stripe found it convenient to attack the suggestion that veiled women could vote in Canada without showing their faces. Earlier this week, Marc Maynard of Elections Canada announced that Muslim women could do so in response to a hypothetical question posed by a journalist. The outrage and political posturing that spilled out of that announcement took on a consistently negative and inflammatory tinge.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper took time out of a press conference at the APEC summit in Australia to publicly rebuke Maynard. The role of Elections Canada is not to make its own laws, he insisted, but to put into place the laws that Parliament has passed. All of the other party leaders followed suit, insisting that the chief electoral officer had overstepped his role and subverted the democratic process. Fear-mongering organizations put in a word too, insisting that the electoral system had been bent to shariah demands. The criticisms reached a feverish pitch last week, when Maynard was called before a parliamentary committee to explain his actions and was in turn advised to reverse his announcement on the grounds that it was contrary to the democratic will.

Trouble is, it isn’t - and those politicians and commentators who have been speaking out so confidently against Maynard have been quietly setting a higher standard for veiled women than is required for any other citizen under Canadian law.

The Elections Act – which underwent reform in 2006 – says little about visual identification and even less about the niqab. In fact, the debates in Parliament and in the committee proceedings do not mention the niqab at all despite the extensive discussions about which groups might be affected by the reforms. Bill C-31 only lists the multiple ways in which an individual can vote at the polls: with photo identification, with two other pieces of identification approved by the chief electoral officer; or by being vouched for by another voter by way of an affidavit. That visual identification is not stipulated as a requirement for voting should have been evident not just to Prime Minister Harper and his team, but to all of the other political parties on the federal scene too.

What is even more peculiar, however, is that mail-in voting and proxy voting are – and always have been – permitted by law, though both are susceptible to abuse. Mail-in voting, an option that 80,000 Canadians took avail of in the last federal election, is conducted within the confines of one’s home. There is no official present to check the voter’s face, and neither is there any foolproof method of confirming that in fact the signing individual, and not a domineering family member, is responsible for filling out the ballot. Given that mail-in voting is allowed, it makes little sense that all of the parties are now fussing over visual identification.

There are two aspects of any electoral process that are crucial to the maintenance of a wholly democratic system. One, the election must be free of fraud. Two, citizens must be given every opportunity possible to vote. These two components together help ensure that the principles of majority rule, accountability and consent of the governed are upheld, but the two must be balanced against each other. If the rules are such that each individual must appear at the polls with visual identification, then voter participation, which is already on the decline, will simply slip even more. This is likely the reason the legislation was not tightened to include visual identification as a requirement of voting.

In any case, a government-issued document, even without photo identification, means that an individual’s identity has already been verified by a government body. Thus it should be proof enough that a voter is properly identified. And if naysayers are concerned that a voter must show his or her face so that it registers with the voting official, thus limiting the possibility that the voter can cast another vote in the same election, then the obvious response is that voting officials cannot, given the large amount of people who make it to any given polling station on elections day, remember what specific individuals look like.

Some commentators, Muslim included, have critiqued the Elections Canada’s announcement out of fear that it would stir up the ‘reasonable accommodations’ debate that has been simmering for quite some time in Quebec. Preoccupied with the protection of its cultural and linguistic identity, the province has taken an increasingly negative stance towards the increase in visible minorities and the subsequent need for greater cultural and religious accommodations. Controversy first arose last year when Muslim girls wearing the headscarf while engaging in soccer and tae kwon do were suddenly thrust into the media spotlight, and since then, La Belle Province has been far from sympathetic towards its Muslim community.

That this controversy might once again stir up unwarranted resentment against Muslims is a legitimate concern, particularly since Muslims have not asked for accommodations at the polls. In fact, some niqab-wearing women have spoken out against the allowance, insisting that they are comfortable showing their face to an official if it were done in a discreet and contained manner. Many simply do not care for the controversy, whether it is because they do not intend to vote or because they are already accustomed to removing their face coverings to verify their identity in a number of circumstances, air travel being just one of them. Furthermore, under Islamic law, women are permitted to uncover their faces while participating in certain public functions (e.g.) whilst testifying in court and engaging in business transactions. In light of this religious allowance, some Muslims have complained that there were no consultations before Elections Canada announced that women in niqabs would be permitted to vote.

This criticism is premised on an unfair assessment of Elections Canada as the body responsible for the furor. Elections Canada was neither violating nor re-interpreting the law. It was merely explaining the law as it had been set by those in power. Rather, it is Prime Minister Harper and indeed all of the parties chiming in that deserve considerable blame for playing on the public’s disgust for the niqab. Yes, it is legitimate to ask whether or not veiled women must identify themselves at the polls. What makes little sense, however, is for the politicians who have themselves passed the law to subsequently critique those who then enforce it, thus leaving an already-beleaguered community deliberating over whether or not to support what is right even when it is not politically opportune to do so.

What/where is the Islamic requirement to cover one's face in public -- is it based on Sunnah, Hadith, Qur'an or cultural tradition?

Ninjas, eh? In the headlines again. Yep, ninjas are a perennial sore thumb for Canadian society trying to move towards legalizing full frontal nudity in public. Imagine ninjas taking over the Caribana and Fag festivals. Holy cow, the economy will collapse. Americans atleast have weapons of mass destruction manufacturing to fall back on, Canadians do not have such luxury.

Of course, if they were to channel all this negative energy in the right direction and start a separate ninja festival, or maybe somekind of annual salafi conference, who knows, the sky could be the limit. A bad thing could all of a sudden be turned into an economic contribution to society.

Oh cry me a river. Niquaab is a bad idea in almost all situations, period. Anything that keeps a person from being identified, it's a problem in most public situations.

As for people who argue for the religious requirement of hijab, I've heard it argued from all of those sources Tarik. The logic of many of those arguments, however, I find almost incomprehendable if not just silly.

Niqaab is an individual choice that applies to most public situations and warrants constitutional protection. I think that the right to use it and the responsibility of others to respect it is inherent in any free democratic nation. And that the resistance to it is purely cultural ... people with too little cover violate public decency codes .. people with too much on just need extra strong anti-perspirant.

I'm all for individual choice AND for the Constitutional protections under Freedom of/from Religion. I'm not sure where the line of hijab vs. Niqaab gets crossed. A woman should have the right to cover her hair - protection under a clear religious doctrine. I don't understand why the same extension should be granted for covering one's face. Who is to say that the Niqaab is a religious requirement? Isn't that the argument?

Bismillahir Rahmanir Rahim

As Salaamu Alaikum wa Rahmatullahi

Dear Muslims:

Those of us who wear niqab are usually very far away from participating in the politics of our western world. Most of us do not see western politics as a viable place to put our time and efforts. So u won't see many niqabi's voting. As for whether it is sunnah, or cultural to wear niqab is definitely sunnah a good and powerful sunnah one that is backed up by the Qur'an and Hadith. However like any sunnah it comes from doing what you think you have to do for your relationship with Allah Subhanah wa Ta'ala. What worries me is what niqabis do when they have the better than attitude-that scares me for the niqabi and the non-niqabi wearing sister. NO ONE is better than any other Muslim - except the one who has the most taqwa and only Allah Ta'ala can make that distinction. May Allah Ta'ala help us to be unified on the haqq and to treat each other with respect and kindness-Amin

Ukhti fillah
Ummakkah

As a muslim woman who is a judge in american voting polls, I would also have to ask any voter to identify themselves.

I wish more niqabi- or hijabi or non-hijabi muslim women WOULD take an inerest in the political spectrum of their homes.

I find it socially irresponsible to benefit from a society without making an effort to contirbute to its enhancement.

As Salaamu Alaikum

Dear Sister Mrs. A:

Why would you want us to identify ourselves when you have not identified yourself. As for me I would not under any circumstances participate in the politics of this decadent society hell bent in killing the Muslims and putting out the light of Islam. Ana Mujahidah min amiriki

Sis Umm Makkah Sakinah bint Hyman

sister umm makkah sakinah-

well, when you go into an american voting polling place- the people who sit there and check ID, help people vote, are called judges.

since i usually sit at the entrance where the information desk is, im the first person you encounter when you vote.
its my small job to direct people to the right table based on the simplest of info- their names and identities.

im already identified by the sticker with my name on it-

thats my actual purpose- to identify people to make sure they are who they say they are so that the system of one vote for one person remains somewhat intact.

if a lady wearig niqab came into vote ( i wish) id ask her discreetly to show me her face.

many places dont require photo ID, but that is changing now.
in that case, i wouldnt care.

When asked who deserved our charity, the Prophet(pbuh) stated, (may ALLAH forgive my paraphrase) "first your (nuclear) family, then your (extended family)- then your neighbors."
when pressed to elaborate on who ones neighbors are, He said,"4 houses in each direction EWNS-"

you can not participate if you like-
but you run the risk of letting others speak for you and also define you.

dont you want to define yourself, and your and your familys right to exist in society?

who else will do it if you dont?
pat robertson?

dont give others that power over your life.

ok , peace- i hope you understand that i wouldnt ask anyone to identify themselves arbitrarily- but only under those specific conditions i posted as my own experience

as salaamu alaikum

dear sis Mrs. A:

please contact me off this site I would love to engage you in more conversation however this does not seem to be the forum for this. when I enter places and I am wearing my niqab I will unveil privately for a woman security, or "judge" when asked. At the bank when a new teller requests (a woman of course) I will unveil. Why would you want to participate in a vile unislamic system of government and call yourself a "judge" for that system that has been trying to destroy Islam since Islam began. This is the western arm of the wholy (no typo I mean wholy) roman empire. To take on a position in there world and represent them in their destruction of our way of life what does that say about you. As for my neighbors believe me they know my ma'un to them they see it everyday. As for voting it has nothing to do with the paraphrased Hadith you mentioned. Islam defines me Allah Ta'ala will give me what HE wants me to have and never will that change by casting my vote.

.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

Ukhti Fillah

Umm Makkah Sakinah bint Hyman
Ana Mujahidah min Amiriki

wa alaikum a salaam

well, i dont have a choice- its my home- i was born in this vile system, grew up happily and lovingly and had the choice to become muslim too.

its not 'their' world, its my world too.

i dont know how representaive i am of 'their' destruction, ive gone to prison (not jail) for what i believe in-

i dont call myself a 'judge'. its the title given to people who volunteer to work in the polls

ive been volunteering to help my fellow man since i was 14, also my choice.

you really think america has been trying to destroy islam since it began?
i dont think america has really paid any attention to islam until oil was discovered in islamic countries

besides, where on this planet is an islamic system of government anyway?
there isnt one- so whats the alternative?

im certainly not going to hate my own countrypeople-

certainly voting, taking an interest in how my society treats its members and my neighbors is very relevant to the hadeeth
ok then ill contact you privately
peace

As salaamu Alaikum

Sister

I will let you have the last word. If this is how you feel then Al hamdulillah

May Allah Ta'ala guide us all Amin

Ukthi Fillah

Umm Makkah

SISTER- WELL THANK YOU FOR THAT!

NOT MANY PEOPLE ARE BIG ENOUGH TO DO THAT!

If you're living in America, you pay taxes. If you work in America, you pay taxes. If you shop in America, you pay taxes. Taxes go to pay for government services, such as sidewalks, streets, police, fire, defense, water, light and power. In essense, your comment that you "would not under any circumstances participate in the politics of this decadent society" is a moot point because YOU ARE participating, like it or not. If you say nothing in a democracy, you are saying you like things the way they are.

Either you are participating to making the society better or making it worse. To say that this is part of the Roman Empire is simply washing your hands of any responsibility. The Prophet taught us to leave this earth better than how we found it, not to literally or figuratively hide behind a veil.

Peace be upon you.

As Muslims we should greet each other with the greeting of Salaams
As Salaamu Alaikum wa Rahmatullahi

Dear TarikwithaK:

Note that as a person born in the united snakes of amerikkka I have paid to watch many horrible things happen to people of this country and others. That is unfortunate and may Allah Ta'ala forgive me for my sins "those I know, those that I don't know and those that are unitentional" Amin. No one who has ever known would tell you anything but good when it comes to dealing with issues of the society. I WILL NOT COMPROMISE MY DIN NOT NOW NOT EVER MAY ALLAH SUBHANAH WA TA'ALA PROTECT FROM THAT FORM OF SHIRK AMIN.

I am not saying this is the western arm of the wholy roman empire history tells us this. Read your Islamic history recent and past. Know your din all of us know our din. You can do nothing as a Muslim in doubt - so learn this perfect way of life and live it. Society will get better when we know, practice and spread this din and not before.

Ukhti Fillah

Umm Makkah

i have to be honest tarik- ive been really nosiy and said alot in my life- but i cant remeber it ever having any benefit

i dont think the sister is hiding- just going her path a different way-

an inter5esting aside- i was watching billl moyers interview (thomas?) cahill the other day- he asked him what comaprisons could be drawn between the decline of the roman empire and americas precipitous status right now-

mr cahill stated that the event he would lien is that the decline of rome began its descent when the rich no longer bore a tax burden and it was shifted on to the working people (which there existed then)

well, it got me thinking

sister sakinah certainly has passion and faith and drive and i do respect that

peace

as salaamu alaikum

dear sister MRS.A

we have embarked on a friendship that I believe will forge further on many fronts may Allah reward you and your kindness and may HE guide us all AMIN

ukhti fillah

umm makkah sakinah

whoo hoo!