Why the debate over the niqab is like the debate over prostitution

This week, Quebec passed Bill 94, which mandates that any government employee dispensing public services, or any citizen attempting to receive those services, must have his or her face uncovered. This bill, though written in general language, was targeted specifically at Muslim women who wear the niqab, a veil that covers the entire face with only a small hole to see out of.

Ask 10 different people what the justification for passing the bill is and you are likely to get at least 5 different answers, but there are two basic categories that the justifications fall into.

- If a person's face is covered, her identity can't be verified, and this is a security risk.

- The niqab is a form of male, paternalistic oppression, and we shouldn't allow it in our society any more than we allow men to beat their wives.

The first argument is rather easy to dismiss. If that were truly the concern, minor tweaks to existing policy are all that would be required. Police officers, for example, already had the authority to order a woman to reveal her face if they believed it necessary.

Argument number two (with perhaps a dash of racism) is the real reason this bill passed. We look at this custom, cluck disapprovingly, and think to ourselves, "Somebody ought to do something to protect these women. Surely there's a man forcing her to do this--or, if not a man, at least a culture of female oppression."

The problem with this argument is that while it might be true some of the time, it's not true all of the time. And this is where we (finally) get to the parallel with prostitution. The arguments on both sides of this issue are stunningly similar to the arguments for and against the legalization of prostitution.

On the one side you have a well-meaning group of people who look down on a group of people who make choices that the do-gooders think is wrong. When the hookers/niqab wearers protest that they really are doing what they do by their own free will, the do-gooders say, "Well, that might be true for you, but it certainly isn't true for everybody! What about all those poor teenage girls who are forced into (prostitution/arranged marriages) just because their fathers are (lowlife drug addicts/batshit-crazy fundamentalists)? Surely they deserve to live a normal life!"

The (hookers/niqab wearers) respond with, "Absolutely, but the way to do that is with education and assistance, not with discriminatory legislation. If you criminalize (prostitution/niqab-wearing) you're just driving these poor girls back into the shadow of their (pimps/abusive husbands)."

The do-gooders then say, "Well, that might e true some of the time, but (prostitution/niqab-wearing) is wrong, and if we make this type of behaviour legal, we're granting it a sense of legitimacy. We're telling all these young girls we should be trying to help that it's actually okay to (sell sex for money/submit themselves to the men in their lives), and if we send that message, we're not helping anybody."

So where do I stand on this? Well, I think both prostitution and niqab-wearing should be completely legal, but that in both cases we need to look closely and make sure the participants are making a genuine, informed choice, and not doing it because they're being pressured. I can see and appreciate the opposing point of view, but absent any real, solid evidence of harm (or benefit) I will generally lean towards having more personal freedom.