The issue of protecting religious freedom and the controversy surrounding the face veil, known as the niqab, has been a long-standing topic of discussion. Many scholars and authors have shared their perspectives on this matter. In Heather Mallick’s essay “A Modest Proposal,” she discusses the negative consequences of wearing the niqab. However, I believe her essay does not effectively address the topic. During my research, I came across other interesting accounts that address the same issue, such as Gilmour’s “Niqab debate: What should Canada do?” and “Freedom of Religion and Accommodating Religious Dress in Schools” by Harris, Wendy, J. QC., Ackah, & Audrey (2011). These accounts stand out due to their logical reasoning and approach to supporting their claims. Mallick’s essay, on the other hand, is ineffective and biased due to her heavy reliance on subjective opinion. For example, she writes, “Women in niqab look like scary black crows as they flutter along Canadian sidewalks” (2010, p. 80).
Additionally, Mallick compares wearing niqab to cutting oneself with scissors in her essay. She argues that there is no difference between hurting oneself in private or hurting oneself in public, as both actions make one scary and invisible. She believes that the second option not only harms oneself but also impacts others (Mallick, 2010, p. 82). However, I hold the opinion that wearing niqab is not a form of self-harm and this statement reflects Mallick’s personal views rather than taking into account the perspectives of women who wear niqab.
By assuming things about Ahmed without hearing her side of the story and by urging all Canadian women to conform to Western norms of dress, Mallick may appear to exhibit prejudice against Middle Eastern women. However, Harris, Wendy J., QC, Ackah, and Audrey offer a more legitimate argument against wearing niqab compared to Mallick’s assertions in her essay. In their article “Freedom of religion and accommodating religious dress in schools,” they mention that the Bill addresses face coverings by stating that it is a common practice for individuals providing or receiving services to show their face. They also indicate that accommodations may be denied if security, communication, or identification reasons are applicable (2011, p. 212). This pragmatic and logical approach encourages readers to consider the issue of wearing niqab thoughtfully instead of basing their opinions on arbitrary trivialities. Furthermore, the use of personal anecdotes in the essay has proven ineffective as they do not effectively support the thesis.
In her essay, Mallick discusses a biographical incident that does not relate well to the topic. She recounts her experience traveling on the TTC and compares it to the situation in Egypt. Specifically, she mentions asking her male bus driver to drop her off at her front door instead of the regular stop. She praises the bus driver for being accommodating, but contrasts this to the situation in Cairo where someone like Ahmed would not feel safe riding a bus at night (Mallick, 2010, p. 82). This digression may divert readers from the main thesis, as it focuses on comparing transit systems and social situations in two different countries, rather than addressing the topic of wearing the niqab.
In the essay “A Modest proposal”, Mallick has a harsh tone at times, stating, “Ahmed wants Canada to give way and revert to an era of cruelty, nay perversion. Canada asks that she concede. Inevitably, both sides will adjust. But someone has to decide where it stops, and I believe niqabs are it” (2010, p. 83). Maggie Gilmour shares this perspective on banning niqabs in her essay “Niqab debate: What should Canada do?”, stating, “Banning the niqab would undoubtedly be considered by many to be an outrage against religious freedom and freedom of expression, not to mention the potential of such a move for further stigmatizing Muslims in Western culture. But ban it we must, and face the consequences” (2010). Conversely, Sheema Khan expresses a different viewpoint in her essay “Hate it if you want, but don’t ban the niqab”, urging, “Hate the niqab all you want. But banning it is not a Canadian value” (2010).
While it is understandable that everyone can have their own perspective, what is intriguing is the language employed by Mallick in her essay. The utilization of words such as “cruelty” and “nay perversion” has the potential to adversely affect readers, as it implies bias and prejudice towards Ahmed due to her choice of wearing a niqab. In contrast, Gilmour shares the same viewpoint as Mallick in advocating for the ban of niqab, yet her choice of words appears more professional and appropriate, aligning better with the overall thesis.
Furthermore, the text emphasizes the author’s support for the ban on niqab, despite considering the negative consequences. This highlights the author’s strong desire to prohibit wearing the niqab. In comparison, Mallick shares the same perspective but struggles to effectively articulate it due to her choice of words. However, one positive aspect of Mallick’s essay is her use of logical reasoning, which aligns with the thesis. Mallick asserts, “In Canada your face is your fortune.”
According to the author (2010, p.81), clothing and speech are not only ways of assessing someone quickly, but also of finding ways to socialize. The essay encourages deep thought on the subject and provides strong arguments against wearing the niqab in Canada. Additionally, it mentions the positive contributions that immigrants have made to Canada, indicating that the author is not against immigrants but rather against the practice of wearing the niqab. In summary, this essay fails to convincingly sway readers towards a negative view of wearing the niqab.
Mallick’s essay lacks effectiveness due to her excessive use of subjective opinion and choice of words. The absence of quotations from Ms Ahmed herself about her personal experiences and thoughts on niqab is a notable flaw. Additionally, why should it matter if someone prefers a dress sense different from the societal norm? The negative assumptions and hatred surrounding Ahmed’s version of modesty seem unreasonable. If wearing the niqab is her choice, why is there such an exaggerated fuss? To improve the essay, Mallick should have conducted an interview with Ahmed to provide a more balanced discussion.
References
Gilmour, M . (2010, December 17). Niqab debate: What should Canada do?. The Star. Retrieved from http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/article/909157-niqab-debate-what-should-canada-do/
Harris, Wendy, J. QC. , Ackah, & Audrey. (2011). Freedom of Religion and Accommodating Religious Dress in Schools. Education Law Journal, 20. 3, 211-242.
Khan, S. (2011, December 14). Hate it if you want, but don’t ban the niqab. The Globe Mail. Retrieved from http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/hate-it-if-you-want-but-dont-ban-t
