Auch die französischsprachige Provinz Québec debattiert leidenschaftlich über ein Verbot der Vollverschleierung im öffentlichen Leben.
Letzte Woche hat Jean Charest, der Premier der Provinz, einen Gesetzesentwurf eingebracht, der das unbedeckte Gesicht zur Pflicht machen will. Merke: Dies ist kein Kopftuchverbot, sondern ein Nichtverhüllungsgebot. Ehrlich gesagt: Damit könnte ich mich anfreunden. Wenn, ja wenn es denn nötig wäre, ein solches Gesetz…
Aus dem Toronto Star:
Bill 94 effectively bars Muslim women from receiving or delivering public services while wearing a niqab. According to the draft law, they would not be able to consult a doctor in a hospital, for example, or even attend classes in a university. „Two words: Uncovered face,” Charest told reporters during a press conference in Quebec City. ”The principle is clear.” However, Charest reaffirmed the right to wear other religious symbols, such as crosses, skullcaps or headscarves, which was met by some as evidence of hypocrisy and discrimination…
Charest explained that the legislation, Bill 94, demands a face in plain view, for reasons of identification, security and communication. He further clarified that even public-service employees who do not interact with the public – the majority of the provincial bureaucracy – would also not be permitted to wear the niqab…
The legislation doesn’t stop at driver’s licence or health card offices. It encompasses nearly every public and para-public institution as well, including universities, school boards, hospitals, community health and daycare centres.
Kritiker sehen das freilich ganz anders und schäumen regelrecht:
How many times does it have to be said that gender equity is about giving women the right to make their own choices? If a woman’s choice is to wear a niqab, BARRING her from wearing one by removing access to work, childcare, healthcare and education is the absolute opposite of gender equality.
I cannot say enough how disgusting and dishonest this is. If this bill was motivated by a real concern for women made to wear the niqab against their will, wouldn’t it make more sense to partner with organisations for Muslim women and/or organisations for women fleeing abuse and violence?
Instead, this legislation is being championed primarily by white men and women who are not Muslim.
(Komisches Argument: Abolitionisten waren auch mehrheitlich weiß und männlich. Hätten sich die Schwarzen etwa komplett selber befreien sollen? Sollen die Frauen unter dem Nikab, die nicht freiwillig drunter stecken, etwa alleine dagegen angehen? Und ja: ich weiß, dass das nicht dasselbe ist – Sklaverei und Totalverhüllung.)
Die Frage bleibt, ob man wirklich ein Gesetz braucht angesichts der wenigen Fälle. Es ist eine Tugend, keine unnötigen Gesetze zu machen für Konflikte, die niederschwellig gelöst werden können. Der Toronto Star schreibt in dem oben zitierten Artikel, „only 10 of more than 118,000 visits to the health board’s Montreal office in 2008-09 involved niqab-wearers asking for special dispensation“.
10 von 118.000 Fällen!
Eine Kommentatorin aus Québec hat denn auch das Gefühl, dass ein solches Gesetz hauptsächlich Identitätspolitik für die Mehrheit ist, nicht so sehr Minderheitenschutz, wie behauptet:
However, it is much more a reaction to a growing feeling of unease in the Québec population with questions of national identity. We feel a strong need to define and assert who we are as a nation and a culture in order to stave off assimilation. To understand the Québécois, one must be aware that the Quiet Revolution – the period of unprecedented social development where we threw off the shackles of religious oppression – made us probably the most ardently secular state in North America. It happened just over 40 years ago. Before that, the Québecois were firmly under the heel of the Catholic Church. Protection of the French language, secularity of the society and the primacy of the equality between men and women are three subjects of great importance to most Québécois. Unfortunately, the debate around these subjects most often centers around immigrants, especially those whose religion dictates some forms of expression which go against the principles of secularity and equality between men and women.