The better answer to the niqab issue

Columnist Barbara Kay doesn’t want to see women in Canada wearing the niqab. Neither do I. But her conservative solution to the problem would be to enact more laws, while my libertarian solution would be to repeal some of our existing laws — laws that have actually created and continue to aggravate the problem.

Specifically, the so-called “human rights” codes in this country forbid people like me, Barbara Kay and everyone else from exercising our rights to freedom of association, freedom of contract, private property rights and freedom of expression.

This means that if we are employers, we can be forced to hire niqab-wearers in order to comply with the law, even though our natural inclinations might be to avoid such applicants. And we may have to accommodate other demands that that they claim are connected to their religion, such as time off to pray, or space to pray in, even though it makes them less productive than other employees and costs us money. If we are landlords, we can be forced to rent premises to niqab-wearers, even though we’d rather shun them. If we own a store or service business, we can be forced to sell goods or services to niqab-wearers even though we’d rather not. And when we write newspaper columns, we have to be careful about what we say lest we be charged under some provinces’ “human rights” laws with a “hate speech” offence.

Niqab-wearers under our current phony “human rights” laws can reject Canadian customs and norms with impunity. They can hold their employers, their landlords, their storekeepers and their garage mechanics in contempt for not sharing their religion, while nevertheless forcing all those people to deal with them and conceal their own antipathy toward face coverings. In fact, the “human rights” laws frequently reward complainants with financial compensation for feeling offended and injured, so why should we be surprised when they claim that they are?

The solution, which I have advocated for many years, since long before the current niqab controversy erupted, is to repeal the phony human rights laws and restore freedom to all Canadians.

If niqab-wearers found that their garb created problems for them in getting jobs, shelter, goods and services, most of them would eventually see the advantages of abandoning the headgear that so annoys and alienates almost everyone around them. If niqab-wearers who hadn’t yet ar-

Conservatives, oddly, want the government to write more laws and be more intrusive. Why not try the libertarian approach?

rived in Canada knew the kind of opposition they’d face, many would decide not to come. The ones who did choose to come would have to arrive prepared to make changes to themselves, not to the society they’d be joining.

My grandfather immigrated from England more than a century ago knowing full well the discrimination he’d face as a Jew. There were no phony human rights laws back then, so he did what most Jewish (and other) immigrants did in order to become accepted in society: he assimilated and conformed to Canadian customs. He adopted an anglicized surname for a while. He worked on a farm and even went to church with the farm family to avoid being conspicuous. Eventually, as he saved his earnings, he was able to establish a better life without having to hide his identity any longer.

I, for one, am extremely grateful for the accommodations my grandfather made. He did the rational thing, and I have benefited from it. I would advise niqab wearers to do the same.

It’s a pity I’m not legally free to act upon my convictions and show niqab wearers by my conduct toward them what I expect them to do in order to gain my acceptance.