Reasonable accommodations debate

unionist, I have a physical - computer - problem being on babble. I keep getting logged off. Otherwise I'd visit more often.

Unionist, you, admirably, are concerned with equality, but I'm not sure that equality is what is at stake here. It seems most babblers look at the niqab and interpret it as proof of the inequality of men and women--what's more, the inequality of men and women in Islam. Perhaps you're right. Perhaps the niqab does prove that men and women aren't treated equally. I don't know about you, but I've never needed much "proof" that both genders aren't treated equally anywhere in the world.

Nevertheless, the niqab presents a problem: it is a conspicuous manifestation of the inequality of the sexes, propped up by traditional patriarchy and old-school religion. I think you are arguing that her niqab affects others in the class because it is an ominous statement of persecution and oppression. Fair enough. Of course, such statements are all around us: cheerleading at football games, magazine stands, T4 slips, Engineering faculties. We could go on. We do go on, in fact. Which is to say, I'm not arguing that those who are objecting to the right to wear the niqab here aren't concerned or active with these other, more local, causes--but that the public response--indeed, "outrage"--is signally disproportionate to the symbolic message of the veil. To wit, that women aren't equal to men.

I would argue that what gives this story the extra oomph is not that a university-educated, urbane Muslim woman living in Canada who chooses to veil herself is being oppressed, but that her otherness, her foreignness, draws a line under her received inequality. That's what I mean when I say that the West fetishizes the veil--we know we are not whole, but staring at the niqab allows us to ignore our fissures and shortcomings, illuminating the fault, the plight of the Other--as all of ours fall dark.

Sometimes I think that the West's recently developed obsession with the veil stems from some sort of cognitive, if unconscious, link with our culpability and complicity in the sufferings of Middle Eastern women, through our wars, our addiction to petroleum, our appetite for opiates. What we really object to is that the niqab walking around in our comfortable, commodity-strewn Western world, shortens the chain of this link, makes it plain. It is as if the Niqab, like Picasso to the Third Reich when asked if he was "responsible" for painting Guernica, responds to our question thusly: No! You are responsible! This is the result of your politics!

Inequality makes a democracy itch; but it's accusations of complicity that makes us rage.

Catchfire wrote:

 It seems most babblers look at the niqab and interpret it as proof of the inequality of men and women--what's more, the inequality of men and women in Islam.

I couldn't get past this sentence. I don't know how "most babblers" "interpret" the niqab. This particular woman was prepared to reveal her face to women, but not to men. Some of the evidence (if it is to be believed) meant that this need of hers would import gender inequality into the classroom - alter seating arrangements - have a student orating with their back to others' faces - etc. That's what I have a problem with. Not some piece of cloth.

And what, exactly, does Islam have to do with anything here? We're talking about covering one's face and requiring "accommodation" in that regard which affects other people and affects society. I told you I know some people won't dine with Gentiles. Are we going to say that that's about [b]Judaism[/b]?

I have no clue why this particular individual wants to cover her face - it's really her business - or what if anything it symbolizes.

I'll read and respond to the rest of your post when I have a moment.

I don't want to distract from this discussion, Unionist, because I think the rest of my post after the sentence you quoted is the more important part, but I want to point out that you are involved in an interpretive exercise. Whether or not you think you are interpreting the niqab, you are interpreting that "altering seating arrangements" as "importing gender inequality into the classroom." I'm not saying if you are right or not--all I'm saying is that such an exercise is by no means objective or literal: it's a culturally and socially mediated act of interpretation.

And I have to also agree with remind's assessment of your Jews-at-the-dinner-table anecdote.

Quote:

It wasn't about "Islam".

While I see what you're saying, how do we reconcile the fact that whether veiling is or isn't an authentic component of Islam, this is sure to be presented as such for the purposes of ensuring accomodation? I mean, if it's not about Islam then it's no different from a restaurant with a No Rollerblades policy. It's the religion that gives it whatever legs it's got.

Religion is a social construct. The rules vary from day to day and place to place, their BS rhetoric of universal principles notwithstanding. There's no one Islam or one Judaism.

But there are specific interpretations of Judaism, Islam etc. For those Jews who refuse to dine with other gentiles, it is about their own personal version of Judaism, just like for that women it's about her own personal version of Islam.

You may counterargue that these social constructs don't exist in isolation, and that's true, but they still exist, and they take on an irrational life of their own.

Catchfire wrote:

think we ascribe disproportionate weight to the patriarchal practices of Muslim women than we do, say, the fact that Canadian women (Christian, Jew, Muslim, Atheist) don't get paid as much as men.

That sounds like a harder problem to solve.

Catchfire wrote:

Oh, I see. I was confusing why the Orthodox Jews refused to sit with gentiles (which, I agree is rooted in xenophobia upheld by religion) to why I would object to it (which, would turn me off Orthodox Judaism). The same reason I think we ascribe disproportionate weight to the patriarchal practices of Muslim women than we do, say, the fact that Canadian women (Christian, Jew, Muslim, Atheist) don't get paid as much as men.

Catchfire, your analogy is really flawed. We're not talking about [i]de facto[/i] gender discrimination, which of course plagues our society. The appropriate comparator would be an employer who says: "For religious reasons, I cannot pay my female employees more than 70% of what I pay the men." Such an employer would, hopefully, be told to take his religious beliefs and store them in a poorly-lit location.

Or hang on a minute - does anyone here believe we should have a discussion with such an employer to see if there can be a relatively harmless accommodation of his beliefs?

Likewise, it's not the "practices of Muslim women" that are in question here. It is the demand that others embrace gender inequality - in even the slightest way - in order to spare the feelings or customs of someone who won't show their face in public. That demand is not acceptable to my bourgeois proprieties. Nor, I would say, is it acceptable in Canadian or Québec law. And if the law is ambiguous, as I have said, it ought to be made crystal clear.

Unionist wrote:

Likewise, it's not the "practices of Muslim women" that are in question here. It is the demand that others embrace gender inequality - in even the slightest way - in order to spare the feelings or customs of someone who won't show their face in public.

Of course it's about the practices of Muslim women--because that's what determines which gender inequality we choose to target. Indeed, I'm not even sure what the inequality you seem to be objecting to. That women wear niqabs and men don't? That hardly needs a French class to nip in the bud, does it? Perhaps you should return to my argument at post #54 and I might be able to understand your objections better.

Catchfire wrote:

 Indeed, I'm not even sure what the inequality you seem to be objecting to. That women wear niqabs and men don't?

I thought I had made that clear in my very early posts. The "inequality" I'm objecting to is based on the admittedly conflicting and partial news reports - here's what I'm talking about:

Quote:

Toute cette histoire a commencé en février 2009, lorsque cette immigrée égyptienne s'est inscrite à un cours de français au cégep Saint-Laurent. Elle avait alors le statut de résidente permanente au Canada. Pour s'inscrire, elle a fourni une photo sur laquelle son visage est découvert et elle a rencontré, sans niqab, l'évaluatrice des services de francisation.

Jusque-là, tout va bien. Les problèmes surgissent toutefois dès les premiers cours parce que quelques hommes sont dans la classe et qu'elle refuse de se dévoiler en leur présence.

Conciliante, l'enseignante offre, avec l'accord de la direction du cégep, de s'isoler avec elle dans un coin de la classe pour faire les exercices de dialogue. Pour ces séances particulières, l'élève accepte de retirer son niqab.

Cet arrangement bancal se heurte toutefois rapidement aux objectifs mêmes du cours, qui veut favoriser les échanges entre élèves, les exposés oraux et les mises en situation. En outre, la femme refuse de plus en plus souvent de se conformer à l'entente conclue avec son prof. Cette dernière, de même que la direction du cégep Saint-Laurent, lui rappelle que, pour des raisons pédagogiques, il est essentiel de voir le visage des élèves dans les échanges afin de pouvoir corriger leur élocution et de voir leurs expressions faciales.

À un moment, on pousse même l'accommodement jusqu'à permettre à l'élève de faire un exposé oral au fond de la classe, de dos, parce qu'il y a des hommes dans la salle.

Les rapports entre l'élève musulmane et son enseignante, mais aussi avec le reste de la classe se corsent à la limite du conflit ouvert. On atteint finalement le point de non-retour lorsque la dame, après une pause, demande à trois hommes de se déplacer parce qu'ils lui font face dans la classe, aménagée en U par l'enseignante pour, justement, faciliter les échanges. Les hommes et l'enseignante y consentent, mais la situation est devenue intenable et on se dirige clairement vers un affrontement.

If anyone wants a quick translation, let me know - and again, I have no idea whether the facts as reported above are true, false, or somewhere in between. But if a person asks men to change their seats so that they can't see her, I'm happy to draw the accommodation line right in that particular pile of sand. Whether she does it because Allah or Jesus or her mother-in-law told her so is of absolutely no interest to me.

I really would appreciate a greater effort to understand the point I'm making, instead of vulgarizing it into "well, you're more indignant about Muslim degradation of women than about Judeo-Christian-atheist-Western degradation of women".

skdadl wrote:

I do not understand this paragraph. How can you equate the way that people dress with the way that they are paid? We do (and should) make laws about the ways workers are paid. (And those laws could be a lot better, o' course.) But why the hell should we legislate what people wear?

Who's "legislating"? And what "legislation" has anyone proposed in this thread?

There is no Charter right nor human right to dress as you please when you show up to work or to class. It is not subsumed under "freedom of expression", as some have tried to suggest here. There is, however, freedom of religion, which may trigger a duty to accommodate particular forms of dress if those are required because of a person's sincerely held religious beliefs. In that case, what is required is every reasonable effort short of undue hardship. Based on some of the allegations about this case, the accommodation required represented undue hardship in my estimation - among others, they would require other female and male students and teachers to play distinct roles in the class based solely on their sex. That is intolerable.

I recognize this is a borderline case. That's why I asked you whether you would take two coed classes and turn them into two men-only and women-only classes to accommodate someone whose religion prevented them from sitting in coed classes. Is there a duty to accommodate in that instance? If no one is "harmed", why not? My answer is that the entire society is harmed by turning that wheel of history backwards to segregation and gender inequality.

I do not believe in accommodating religious beliefs if that requires a "recognition" or entrenchment of gender inequality in any fashion. I'm not talking about the individual seeking accommodation. They can believe and practise whatever they please. They cannot demand that others act out according to their beliefs.

Catchfire wrote:

Since, of course, it is a social fact that such distinctions exist. To be vulgar: mini-skirts vs. suits, make-up vs. none, high heels vs. loafers, etc., etc.

Well, let's try again, shall we? I know distinctions and discrimination and inequality and subordination and objectification [b]exist[/b] - and I like to think we have fought against the harmful manifestations of that and continue to do so. I'm talking about whether we should accommodate someone's religious beliefs if to do so [b]requires introducing distinctions between other men and women[/b] - distinctions that they (and I) find abhorrent. My answer is, no.

Quote:

BTW: Woman shocked by portrayal as hard-line Islamist

So Catchfire, now you understand why I say this has nothing to do with Islam - no more than stoning of adulterers or suicide bombs or prohibiting girls from being educated. Any connection with Islam is only in the eye of those who have been overwhelmed by the massive Islamophobic propaganda following upon 9/11 to justify "security" at home and "liberation" abroad.

There is no way we should tolerate demands to recognize gender inequality for fear of being condemned as Islamophobes.

Catchfire wrote:

If we were talking about genocides in Turkey, springs in Prague or tunnels in Palestine, I have no doubt that you would be one of the most eloquent writers pointing out the blind spots Western critics have when censuring their brown bretheren.

I wouldn't be eloquent, but yes, I would be indignantly condemning the arrogant proponents of the White Man's Burden and the bleeding hearts who can see only the sins of the victims of imperialism rather than those of the imperial masters - i.e., themselves. Yes, Catchfire, you're right.

Quote:

But for some reason, when that Otherness is imported to Canada, you think it's a good idea to punish this woman for not living up to the standards the rest of us have also failed to live up to.

Yes, Catchfire, that's correct. When Afghans don't let their women go to school, I say that it's their affair to settle, without the benefit of our NGOs and our GUNs.

But if someone comes to this country and says, "We can't send our girls to school because of our religious beliefs", then I say - nay, [b]we all[/b] say - send them or you're going to be locked up.

And if someone in Québec says, "Well, I'm sending my kids to this new school that teaches creationism instead of evolution and doesn't poison our kids with sex education, because that's what God wants me to do" - we order those folks to send their kids to a real school (whether private or public) that follows the mandatory provinicial syllabus, and we shut down the rogue school, in the sense that we deprive it of its diploma-granting privileges.

But if people want to enrich their Canadian / Québec experience by covering their faces, or going to creationist night school, or teaching their girl-children modesty and subservience in the privacy of their home, or whatever else they please that doesn't require anyone else to affirm or follow or respect their beliefs - that's perfectly fine.

Quote:

For example, you keep talking about gender inequality as if it is objectively true that wearing the niqab, or refusing to let men see your face, or not wanting to sit beside men, is anti-feminist.

Uh, it's not "objectively true" - it's as obvious as the nose on your face. It's anti-woman. And the same crap is found in varying degrees in many religions, many cultures, many societies - especially our own. I can't stop people from practising hegemony on each other in their private lives. But don't ask me to approve of misogyny, whether homegrown or imported, under the pretext that I may be ignorantly superimposing some cultural prejudice on what is really something entirely innocent and enlightened.

Unionist I think that my mother and sister who are devout catholics submit themselves to a religious world view that is just as patriarchal. But then like your ancestors religion it all stems from that same awful book.

This woman is university educated and articulate she does not need you to save her from her miserable life and she certainly does not need to be told by anyone what she can and can't wear in public. You seem to be saying that because you don't like her dress she should be told she can't wear it.  I really hate seeing young girls in revealing sexy clothes being leered at but I don't expect to see that style banned anytime soon despite that apparel's roots in patriarchy.  I also hate seeing grown women treated as children because they choose to display their patriarchy inappropriately.

Quote:

"This is the first time I felt racism [in Canada]," she said of her experience at the CEGEP, adding that she believes school officials were out to remove her from the beginning. "I went to many places previously where there were no issues - when I went for my driving test nobody told me you can't drive with a niqab."

She added that in her part-time French course prior to the CEGEP class - and in a subsequent class elsewhere - she encountered no issues.

Ms. Ahmed said the incident in which she is alleged to have turned her back on the men in the class was not prompted by her. She said a teacher asked her to give a presentation in front of the class - which contained only a couple of male students, of Bulgarian and Iranian origin - with her niqab removed, which she refused to do.

"[The teacher] said either you take off the niqab, or I'll make the two men face the wall," Ms. Ahmed said.

As a compromise, she raised her niqab but turned away from the edge of the U-shaped classroom seating arrangement, where the two men sat.

skdadl wrote:

I draw the line at public funding. I do believe that public education is a pillar of democracy. Citizens pay for public education -- we shouldn't be paying for anything else, because it is the public education system that creates citizens. But I really don't care whether sectarian groups want to set up their own little schools, as long as they're not draining the public system.

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree. Children must attend school until age 16, or whatever age society determines from time to time. And they must all learn the same basics that society decides. And girls have to go whether their parents approve or not. You appear to believe that families and individuals should be able to opt out of that process, so long as they pay their own freight. I'm surprised, but let's just leave it as extreme disagreement.

Quote:

Um, if I may speak as an, ah, woman? I don't see that it's anti-woman.

Did you take me as saying that women don't have to be fearful walking out on our streets? God, where did I say that?

But I do value your opinion on why women would cover their faces in front of men. I just happen to believe that it's factually wrong, and we'll have to disagree on that point.

Unionist wrote:

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree. Children must attend school until age 16, or whatever age society determines from time to time. And they must all learn the same basics that society decides. And girls have to go whether their parents approve or not. You appear to believe that families and individuals should be able to opt out of that process, so long as they pay their own freight. I'm surprised, but let's just leave it as extreme disagreement.

We certainly will have to agree to disagree. I think it is obvious that if, in a democratic society, large numbers of people start opting out of public systems, we've got a problem that we have to fight. But that isn't happening yet, and I repeat what I said above: a healthy democracy can treat small groups of dissidents, of people who wish to hold themselves apart, like the Amish, decently. Our horrible history of forced residential schools with the First Nations and the Sons of Freedom Doukhobors is supposed to have taught us that.

milo, I just read that somewhere else, and I feel like vomiting.

One day Canadians, and Quebeckers if they are separate by then, will be profoundly ashamed that we did this. Never forget: if it is done by a government official, we all did it. We are all responsible.

Unionist wrote:

remind wrote:

Quote:

I told you I know some people won't dine with Gentiles. Are we going to say that that's about Judaism?

What is it about, if it is not?

Well, remind, it's about arrogance and xenophobia on the part of a tiny handful of people. Just like Israel's war crimes are not about Judaism. Just like raping children is not about Catholicism. Just like Clifford Olsen is not about British Columbians.

And with respect, Catchfire, since you seem to have approved of remind's "question", I'll address the same to you. Women hiding their faces from men is not about Islam - any more than suicide bombs are. Don't believe me on that. Go ask the first 100 Muslims you meet in Canada and they'll tell you. That's why I don't understand why you raised "Islam" in this discussion. This incident was about the beliefs and demands of one individual. It wasn't about "Islam".

'kay, thank you, and for the most part agreed with your statements and analogies..based upon your response

Unionist wrote:

There is no Charter right nor human right to dress as you please when you show up to work or to class. It is not subsumed under "freedom of expression", as some have tried to suggest here.

I agree that there is no Charter right nor human right to "dress as you please when you show up to work."

You also claim that dress is not subsumed under "freedom of expression." On the contrary, I will argue sometimes dress does fall under freedom of expression, at least as understood by the Supreme Court of Canada.

In particular, in Irwin Toy v Quebec, the Supreme Court of Canada finds that an activity falls within the sphere protected by freedom of expression if (1) it conveys or attempts to convey a meaning and (2) it does so not through a violent form. The SCC is explicit that the content of expression can be conveyed "through an infinite variety of forms of expression: for example, the written or spoken word, the arts, and even physical gestures or acts." There is nothing in the discussion to exclude a mode of dress as an "expression", i.e., as conveying or attempting to convey meaning. Indeed, in this decision, the SCC are at pains to point out to the many many ways in which content can be conveyed. As long as these ways of conveying content are nonviolent, they fall under the scope of freedom of expression, even when the content conveyed is offensive. "Freedom of expression was entrenched in our Constitution and is guaranteed in the Quebec Charter so as to ensure that everyone can manifest their thoughts, opinions, beliefs, indeed all expressions of the heart and mind, however unpopular, distasteful or contrary to the mainstream." Moreover, "We cannot, then, exclude human activity from the scope of guaranteed free expression on the basis of the content or meaning being conveyed.  Indeed, if the activity conveys or attempts to convey a meaning, it has expressive content and prima facie falls within the scope of the guarantee."

The Supreme Court does recognize that freedom of expression can legitimately be limited by law, but points out that this should only be in extreme cases: "Whether political, religious, artistic or commercial, freedom of expression should not be suppressed except where urgent and compelling reasons exist and then only to the extent and for the time necessary for the protection of the community."

Now I grant that not all articles of clothing are such that to wear them is to "convey a meaning." Thus, I grant that not all modes of dress fall under the Supreme Court's conception of freedom of expression. However, it is quite plausible that wearing a niqab "conveys a meaning" -- perhaps an offensive meaning -- and thus fall under the protected sphere.

Now, a concession: I believe that a school, an employer, a restaurant, and various other institutions can legitimately restrict freedom of expression within its walls. But to restrict the wearing of an article of clothing that nonviolently conveys a meaning is, by the Supreme Court's reckoning, to restrict the freedom of expression.

As I said, "I believe that a school, an employer, a restaurant, and various other institutions can legitimately restrict freedom of expression within its walls." I'm not sure where I would draw the line. Offhand, I would say that a private institution (e.g., a restaurant) should have more leeway than a public one. And, though I am open to changing my mind on this, it's less appropriate to restict the freedom of expression of an adult than of a child (since we should grant adults a high level of autonomy). My views are provisional, and I'm not sure exactly where I stand.

But consider your T-shirt example: if a university professor asked a student not to wear that anti-separatist T-shirt, then I would be inclined defend the student. An adult student should be able to wear a T-shirt with any slogan she likes, no matter how offensive, "except where urgent and compelling reasons exist". The mere offence to fellow students is not, I believe, an urgent and compelling reason. There may be shades of grey here, in cases where certain slogans create hostile learning environments: this is consistent with my view that certain institutions have more leeway to restrict freedom of expression than does the law. But I still think that, even at a school, the burden of proof should be on those who would restrict freedom of expression rather than on those who would exercise it.

How reasonably to accomodate freedom of expression is, in your well-chosen words, a balancing act. And it's different on the street than in the classroom or at the restaurant (where greater restrictions seem acceptable). But though the classroom is not the street, and though educational institutions have broader leeway to restrict freedom of expression within their walls than does the law, I would still argue in favour of a great deal of freedom of expression. Frankly, if a student wishes to wear a bikini to my class, then s/he is welcome to. (I am reminded of the Naked Guy at Berkeley, who attended class nude.)

lagatta wrote:

I really disagree with you about your guilt-ridden "we" did such and such when you are discussing what the bourgeois state did. Yes, racism can make people complicit, but I'm not responsible for what the state - the armed force of the dominant class does, unless I assent to it.

Do we not avail ourselves of the benefits?

Unionist, I wrote:

Quote:

I think it is obvious that if, in a democratic society, large numbers of people start opting out of public systems, we've got a problem that we have to fight. But that isn't happening yet, and I repeat what I said above: a healthy democracy can treat small groups of dissidents, of people who wish to hold themselves apart, like the Amish, decently. Our horrible history of forced residential schools with the First Nations and the Sons of Freedom Doukhobors is supposed to have taught us that.

And then you wrote:

Quote:

You think every "group" should have their own educational system? Teach the boys about God, keep the girls in the kitchen... The fossil record was put there to test our faith. Condoms are evil. Homeschooling, charter schools... Count me out, skdadl. This is Canada.

Could you explain to me how you got from what I wrote to what you wrote?

I said at least twice in this thread that healthy democracies can deal decently with small groups that hold themselves apart, and I believe that I have the Charter (section 2, the first substantive of which is "conscience" -- not religion or expression, but conscience) to back me up.

Are there Amish in Quebec? Do you force Amish children to go to state schools?

To a serious democrat, it seems to me, the line about schooling is drawn around public funding. A public education system is a pillar of democracy, and every citizen must be taxed to fund it. If some people, for reasons of conscience or snobbery or whatever, wish to put their children in independent schools, I'm sorry but I'm not inclined to force them, although I insist that they continue to pay their taxes and that none -- NONE -- of the tax money can be drained away from the public system and into the independent schools.

I would also remind you that section 2 of the Charter applies to "everyone" -- ie, not just citizens of Canada or of the sovereign nations but to all persons, all human beans. There are similar distinctions in most other Bills and Declarations and Charters, and there are historical reasons for that. A similar clause was inserted into the Geneva Conventions (Common Article 3), perhaps in anticipation of the Bush government's belief that it could use law to define some people out of humanity and therefore torture them legally.

For that reason, I find your distinction between FN children and Doukhobor children deeply disturbing. These are not "fruits of different species," nor are their parents. Their parents have the same rights of conscience that "everyone" has, punkt. In extreme cases (transfusion and other health care are usually the example, but abuse, obviously, as well) the state has a duty of care and may step in. But otherwise, we have no right to muck about in people's minds, even when we find their beliefs odious. Well, to a civil libertarian, defending those whose beliefs we find odious is a guiding principle.

Before this thread gets closed for length--and it is a bit off topic now--perhaps Unionist, you'd like to comment on the consequences of your position: i.e. that this woman who refuses to abandon her niqab is expelled from French class. Lagatta has mused elsewhere that maybe Ahmed could take French lessons at a mosque. Is this an acceptable conclusion to your position that expects immigrants to toe the line or else? Ahmed has made an effort to integrate herself in Quebec society, and she has been rebuffed. What now for this university-educated Egyptian national? Send her back?

Not sure why you're verging on a provocative tone, Catchfire, but I'll try to answer your questions.

Catchfire wrote:

Lagatta has mused elsewhere that maybe Ahmed could take French lessons at a mosque. Is this an acceptable conclusion to your position that expects immigrants to toe the line or else?

Immigrants - like those born here - must toe the line in many many areas, "or else" they'll end up in deep trouble. That includes not driving while impaired; paying your taxes; not receiving stolen goods; not forging a passport; and not appearing naked when subpoenaed in court. In short, [b]ALL RESIDENTS[/b] - not "immigrants" - must toe the line or else - and there is no justification to distinguish rights and freedoms as between immigrants and non-immigrants in any area whatsoever (with the obvious exception of indigenous people). The question is, in which area must they toe the line. Hope that responds to the latter part of your question.

As for taking French lessons in a mosque - unless you're still just being sarcastic (can't tell), let me repeat that this has [i]nothing to do with Islam[/i]. This is about her need/choice/decision to cover her face in front of males (as I understand it). She can take French lessons wherever she likes where that need of hers is available. There are plenty of all-female educational institutions in this city. There is private tutoring. She is under no obligation to attend this particular program.

Quote:

Ahmed has made an effort to integrate herself in Quebec society, and she has been rebuffed. What now for this university-educated Egyptian national? Send her back?

I don't think "send her back" will work very well, given the rapid flurry of Egyptian court decisions in January first upholding, then overturning, the ban on the wearing of the niqab in schools - although perhaps the death earlier today of Sheikh Muhammad Sayed Tantawi, Sunni cleric and grand sheikh of Al-Azhar University in Cairo, who originally called for the ban in October, may alter the dynamic somewhat.

This is getting long, but remains dynamic and I feel there is still much to be said, so I've started a part two here...