Menstruation and Canadian values
Telling people what they may believe offends basic principles
Let us now discuss what polite conversation had once avoided like the plague — a peculiar reaction, really, considering that it’s a condition affecting about 334 million people a day.
Up for discussion: menstruation — a physiological process that most accept as no more shame-inducing than men’s whiskers but which, for reasons ranging from ignorance to religious devotion, still creates issues for some.
At one end of the spectrum are distasteful louts like U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump, who mocked broadcast personality Megyn Kelly — he disliked her questions — with his now infamous “Blood coming out of her wherever” quote, insinuating that her menstrual cycle must be causing a nasty disposition.
At the other, Zunera Ishaq, the devout Sunni Muslim who became a flashpoint for nationalist passions when courts upheld her right to wear the niqab, a veil covering most of her face, while taking her Canadian citizenship oath.
During one recent inter- view, Ishaq said she believes in strict segregation of the sexes, opposes homosexuality and abortion, believes women are “unclean” when menstruating and that Muslims must obey Islamic commands.
“The patriarchal values that Ishaq favours bring to mind MP Kelly Leitch’s campaign theme for the Conservative Party leadership, which is to ensure newcomers adhere to Canadian norms,” one thoughtful analysis observed. It drew attention to a recent survey finding that 67 per cent of Canadians agree immigrants should be screened for anti-Canadian values.
That’s where it gets interesting. Is an orthodox Muslim’s belief that women are “unclean” during menstruation an anti-Canadian value?
Personally, I think such perception descends from more primitive times — people believed quite recently that women shouldn’t play basketball because jumping might dislodge the uterus or that “self-abuse” caused blindness. Some still proselytize the debunked belief that vaccinations cause autism.
Nevertheless, tying a minority belief some find extreme or distasteful to anti-Canadian values and then associating it with an entire religion creates a conundrum.
Some Christian Canadians, those who hold to the literal word of laws expressed in the Old Testament, are told by scripture that menstruating women are unclean.
Orthodox Jews obtain similar ritual injunctions from scripture. And there are similar prescriptions in orthodox Hindu practice. Many religions impose prescriptive dress rules.
What is clear is that certain beliefs regarding women, their conditions, how they should dress and whether they should be segregated either when menstruating or from men in general for ritual purposes occur in a number of religions in Canada.
What’s common is that they tend to be practised most enthusiastically by those who adhere to the strictest, most fundamental orthodoxies — the mainstream might say at the margins; adherents might argue the core — of their religions.
So, why would it be uncanadian for a strictly orthodox Muslim woman to believe that menstruating women are “unclean” when other Canadians — some of whom swear official oaths to uphold Canadian values using a holy book that also says menstruating women are “unclean?”
Would supporters of Leitch’s views on screening immigrants favour asking Christian newcomers to Canada whether they think Old Testament views on menstruation are acceptable? Should they be screened for their views on homosexuality? Abortion?
If it’s un-Canadian for a tiny minority of Muslim women to believe they should cover their face in the interest of modesty, is it un-Canadian for a few Christian women to believe that they should cover their bodies entirely, but for face and hands, in the interest of modesty? Is this an attack on women’s freedom? Or is the Canadian value actually that people have the right to choose their dress, association and religious belief, however unusual or distasteful others may find those choices?
Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms says: “Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: (a) freedom of conscience and religion; (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression.”
It follows that Ishaq — and the rest of us — have a right to believe as we please, however unpleasant or irritating some may find those beliefs; to speak freely of those beliefs however much others disagree; and to dress as desired however much others express offence at those choices, whether bikinis or burkas.
Isn’t telling people what they may or may not believe, what they must or must not say, and how they must or must not dress the antithesis of that fundamental Canadian value we supposedly hold sufficiently dear to put it right at the top of our charter of rights?
Just asking.