German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, claimed recently in a bizarre twist of logic that “multiculturalism” did not work in Germany. Really? When exactly did Germany have a commitment to “multiculturalism”? Does she really believe that their labour market strategy of getting cheap labour from Turkey without offering those workers a status, let alone equality, in Germany is multiculturalism?

France, another mythical bastion of “multiculturalism,” recently passed a law to impinge on such personal freedoms like the right to choose what one wears, and then paraded it as the triumph of multiculturalism and secularism? So now the hegemony of state defined secularism that puts limits on fundamental rights of only some of the people in a multicultural society like France is supposed to be the promise of the republic? Does any one see the blatant  and perverse contradiction of this logic?

Oh my! Will Kymlicka’s unshakeable faith in multiculturalism as a core principle of Western liberalism and therefore one that cannot be separated from it, must seem a little dodgy right about now. It seems Western liberalism is not as liberal as he thinks when the first thing that gets dispensed with is multiculturalism in spite of the fact that it is a demographic reality. And I have not even mentioned Netherlands, Denmark, and Norway yet. This essentially means to Western liberalism, some people are more equal than others — welcome to Animal Farm!

At a time of such inane convulsions of logic, it is gratifying that in Canada we have a more nuanced and profound understanding of our “multiculturalism.” The recent Ontario Court of Appeal ruling on the issue of a Muslim woman seeking the right to wear a Niqab while testifying at the trial of two male relatives accused of sexually assaulting her is a creditable example of balancing multiple rights in a society that is diverse. The decision stated: the woman cannot be forced to take off her Niqab, that she should be allowed to explain the connection between her religious beliefs and the wearing of the Niqab and that the request to have witnesses show their face must be considered on a case-by-case basis because the subject does not lend itself to any “bright line” rule.

Hence, by being flexible and making any decision “context specific,” the three Justices showed the possibility of multiculturalism in practice and reinforced the principle of “fairness” which ought to define our values in the first place. Essentially the ruling puts the onus on both parties. It says to the person seeking religious accommodation:

(a) show that this accommodation is integral to your faith;

(b) show that the accommodation is significant and necessary to you exercising that right. But it also says to the legal system: (a) balance multiple rights that are at play in any trial situation — right of accommodation vs right of defense; (b) depending on the context, establish which one is more significant than the other. Sounds like a very sophisticated and fair resolution to a very complex issue — multicultural reasoning at its best!

Of course, the issue got played out in the mainstream media and amongst self-flagellating Muslims as OMG the “barbarians are at the gate.” But we need to ask: why does one Muslim woman seeking accommodation in one aspect of her case suddenly gets construed as threatening the very fundamentals of Western civilization? Are they really that weak? Furthermore, why are we not saluting the woman for striking a blow for Canadian feminism? A Niqab wearing Muslim woman has had the guts to take two male members of her family to Canadian courts for sexually assaulting her and we can find no cause to celebrate her Canadian-ness?

It is a good thing that she appealed to the Court of law and not the court of public bashing. At least there both the raising of the issue and its resolution provides many more positive lessons for Canadian society and our multiculturalism.

This is not just a Muslim issue. The reason Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association supported the Woman’s (known as N. S.) request, is because multiple other issues are raised in this case.

(1) It speaks to an age-old issue of women’s vulnerability in any trial situation dealing with sexual assault, rape etc. where women are made to re-live the trauma and be violated in public in the interest of ‘fairness’ to the accused (usually a male) while testifying. Hence, wearing a Niqab offers that safe space from which a woman can participate in the legal process without being re-victimized.

(2) There is precedent in our legal process where children and women have been allowed to give testimony from behind a screen precisely for the reasons mentioned above. In fact, even police and security officers have been allowed to use a screen in cases where they have to retain their anonymity.

(3) The right of the accused, the defense counsel and jury to see the face of the person testifying is based on the belief that one can gauge the veracity of a person’s testimony by seeing their facial expressions. However, there is ample social science research debunking this theory and showing that there is no necessary connection between the two.

Canada is muddling through its own multiculturalism but it is clear we have nothing to learn from Europe. We have a long way to go build an equitable and justice society for all the diverse people who call this a home now and it must be done by reconciling our understanding of multiculturalism to the reality of our First Nations’ struggles but we are a lot further than people give us credit.