Niqab debate and dangers of wedge politics
Leadership should unite us, rather than pit us against each other
At 11 weeks, this federal election campaign will be the longest in modern Canadian history. It has also been one of the most disheartening at times, particularly for some of us in Quebec who feel as though we’re reliving the divisive politics that characterized the Charter of Values debate last year.
Wedge politics — the exploitation of social difference, division and prejudice for electoral gain — is a dangerous political tactic. Given the central role that immigration and religious, cultural and linguistic diversity have played in building this country, it is also a particularly odious one. This is why seeing issues like the wearing of the niqab and rhetoric like “barbaric cultural practices” positioned at the very core of this campaign has been troubling.
As Postmedia columnist Andrew Coyne wrote last week: “Most political campaigns attempt to exploit some fear or another. It just so happens that at this moment in Canadian history the fear of choice is Muslims.”
His words bear highlighting. Why? Because context is important. It would be a mistake to neglect or dehistoricize the interplay between the current debate over the niqab, for example, with the real rise of Islamist extremism and threat of terrorism (including the attacks in Ottawa and St-Jean-sur-Richelieu by radicalized Canadians), the ongoing war against the Islamic State and the conflict in Syria.
I get it. But we also need to prevent fears about terrorism and national security — some founded, some not — from having a damaging effect on the rights of religious and racialized minorities in Canada, the vast majority of whom are peaceful and lawabiding.
Like many Canadians, I’m deeply uncomfortable with the niqab. I oppose the ways it is used by state and religious structures to control and oppress women in certain countries.
But I still reject the idea of the Canadian state imposing restraints on the individual liberty and religious freedom of women who choose to wear it here.
I was also offended when, in the heat of an election campaign, the Conservative government proposed a tip line to report what they call “barbaric cultural practices.”
We live in a country with an established criminal justice system. What is the purpose of a separate instrument deliberately designed to put certain religious minority groups — let’s say it openly, Muslims — under their very own cloud of public suspicion?
Canada, like most liberal democratic nation states, will always grapple with how best to affirm both national citizenship and diversity. Critics will always ask: If more and more minorities are accommodated, what’s to stop Canada from completely falling apart? What’s to keep our social cohesion from eroding entirely? Will the “centre hold?”
None of these questions is new, and all are valid starting points for political debate. However, the baseline must be a common commitment to civility and respect, even for those with whom we fundamentally disagree.
This is why I feel the need to speak out on the ugly turn toward wedge politics we’ve seen in this campaign. It doesn’t serve Canadian democracy and it doesn’t serve Canadians.
We can choose not to descend into politics that exploit social division and prejudice.
Our world is experiencing a period of profound social, economic and geopolitical transformation. Canada needs to realign itself in a way that meets this new, complex, globalized century with courage and acumen. This starts at home by rejecting divisive politics.
With less than a week to go before we hit the polls Oct. 19, here are a few questions to consider: What kind of Canada do we want? What kind of Canada does the world need right now? What kind of leadership and governance should point Canada’s way forward in the early 21st century? Now more than ever, I’m convinced that we need political leadership that unites us, rather than pits us against one another.