Canadian Muslims: Veiled voting

Last updated on: September 17, 2007 at 12:00 pm by Safiyyah Ally

Canadian Muslims: Veiled voting 2007-09-17T12:00:00-04:00 Safiyyah Ally

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Don’t shoot the messenger

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.

Safiyyah Ally is associate editor of altmuslim.com and a Ph.D student in Political Science at the University of Toronto. She is the host of “Let the Quran Speak,” a television show that airs Saturdays at 4:00 pm on VISION-TV in Canada.

Commentary

Safiyyah Ally

Previous Post

September 15, 2007

Reporting about Islam: How not to cover Ramadan

Next Post

September 18, 2007 Muslims in Texas: Divine submissions

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category 2012 Elections 30 Dayd 30 Writers (2017) 30 Days 30 Writers 30 Days 30 Writers (2015) 30 Days 30 Writers (2016) 30 Days 30 Writers (2018) 30 Days 30 Writers 2017 Ali Asadullah Ali Eteraz Alper Bilgili Arthur Richards Asides Asma Uddin Black History Month Briefings Charles Turner Commentary Cyrus McGoldrick Eman H Aly Fatimah Popal Hajj Hajj and Dhul Hijjah Hesham Hassaballa Hisham Hellyer Ibrahim Abusharif Inas Younis Irfan Yusuf Jalal Baig Junaid Afeef Laila Alawa Laila Alwala Mas'ood Cajee Muqtedar Khan Nakia Jackson Newsmakers Parvez Ahmed Podcasts Rabia Chaudry Rafia Zakaria Ramadan Reviews Safiyyah Ally Saud Inam Shahed Amanullah Svend White The Opinionated Oncologist Visions Wajahat Ali Zahed Amanullah Zahir Janmohamed Zainab Khan

Select a Month November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 November 2002 October 2002 September 2002 August 2002 July 2002 June 2002 May 2002 April 2002 March 2002

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who was the wealthy woman who supported Jesus and the apostles?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Tabitha (Dorcas) Lydia Priscilla Phoebe