Friday, October 13, 2006

The Vacant Mind of Margaret Wente

Someone had to do it. Not surprisingly, it was Margaret Wente who threw down the challenge to the women who wear the veil---the full shroud with only a slit left for the eyes.

Wente sees a growing number of Muslim women in this attire, and whenever she sees them she gets “a chill.”

“The trouble with the veil is not simply that it makes conversation difficult,” she writes. “It is that it stands for a set of behaviors and beliefs that are fundamentally incompatible with those of a liberal democracy. Take off your veils ladies. I beg you,” exhorts Wente.

In true Orwellian fashion, it is the vacant-minded views of Margaret Wente that are, in fact, fundamentally incompatible with those of a liberal democracy.

What makes Wente’s column a classic is that it has been written countless times in Canada over the last one hundred and fifty years.

Wente writes that while in “tolerant, conflict-averse Canada, it’s almost taboo” to ask whether the veil-wearers or the rest of us should adapt, in Europe today “there is a growing sentiment that immigrants should be more like ‘us’---if not in dress, then certainly in values---and a spreading unease that some Muslims and the mainstream may not be able to co-exist.”

What Wente has done is to depict Muslims as “the other,” as a mass or collectivity that is robbed of individuality. I’ve grown more sensitive to this because I’ve been on the road on a book tour with Haroon Siddiqui, the distinguished Toronto Star columnist who has written a book titled Being Muslim. Siddiqui makes that point that in our society today, Muslims are subjected to a psychic internment. When a Christian does something---smokes dope, exposes midriff, massacres students at an exurban high school---he or she is judged as an individual. By contrast, when a Muslim does something, a Muslim anywhere in the world---all Muslims are asked to pronounce on it, as though they are all somehow implicated, say in a suicide bombing or some other act of terrorism.

Out of this reduction of Muslims to the status of “the other” arises Wente’s query. Are these people going to fit in as immigrants? Can we assimilate them?

It’s a very old story. In Ontario, in the 1850s, following a wave of Irish Catholic immigrants in the wake of the Irish famine, people questioned whether the Irish would be unruly, un-British, a mass that could never adopt our ways. Would they join with the Fenian terrorists who were plotting to attack Canada (and actually did attack) in a campaign to liberate Ireland from British rule?

In the early 20th century, people wondered whether Russian, Ukrainian, and Jewish migrants to Winnipeg would assimilate or would they try to plot a Bolshevik revolution, as some thought they had in the Winnipeg General Strike in 1919. In recent decades, Chinese immigrants have been similarly subjected to suspicion and doubt. Were the Chinese residents of Richmond B.C., who shopped at malls where the signs were almost all in Chinese, going to become real Canadians? Or had we encountered the mass that would never be like us?

During my years teaching at York University, I’ve learned not to judge people by their appearance, or their dress. The Orthodox Jewish student with the big black hat---who looked like my rabbi grandfather in Montreal in the 1930s---insisted on spelling the name of the deity, G_d. But his essay was no less worthy in its analysis of Canadian society that that of the kid with the pierced tongue and eyebrows, who was always reading James Joyce.

The same has been true of the hundreds of Muslim students I have taught, with the veil, without the veil, with the shroud, without the shroud. They participated in class and in the papers they wrote, as individuals.

Bigots used to brag that they could always pick out the Jews from a series of photographs. When put to the test, it turned out that they couldn’t. I defy anyone to read the essays of my students---with the names removed---and to figure out their religion, ethnicity or gender.

It’s easy these days to pick at the Muslims in our midst and to increase their feeling of psychic internment. Margaret Wente has a perfect right to peddle her brand of breezy, seemingly frank and guileless horse-crap. Why the Globe and Mail chooses to sacrifice so many hectares of forest to that end is another question.

13 comments:

Anonymous said...

I agree with Wente.

Anonymous said...

interesting. I thought I have had in the past.......why is it oppressive for a Muslim women to wear a veil and not for a nun to be completely covered up? I've always wondered this. I think when you feel your religion and way of life is being attacked by the society you live in, you are more inclined to attach yourself more strongly to your religion instead of socializing with a society that doesnt' seem to want you there........

Anonymous said...

Great post by James Laxer again!
I also completely agree with the "anonymous" when (s)he says: "when you feel your religion and way of life is being attacked by the society you live in, you are more inclined to attach yourself more strongly to your religion".
Me and my wife are not observant practicing Muslims: I don't have a long beard and don't wear a dishdasha, my wife doesn't wear hijab either; but the way we are being treated by our colleagues at work is alienating us. It's pushing us away. We are not being considered as "individuals" who might have different opinions; just having an Arabic name (being a Persian, my wife's name even is not Arabic) and darker skin color is enough to be classified as "them".

Harrap said...

Great post. You really hit at the heart of the unfounded claims propounded by those like Margaret Wente. As you state, all those fears of immigrants in the past proved to be unfounded. Muslims are hardworking and contributing members of Canadian society.

Jack Straw in the United Kingdom is very much cut from the same cloth as Wente in asking women to remove their veils in his constituency offce, truly a disgrace when a public official acts in this manner. What's even scarier is that he's a LABOUR MP! Isn't that supposed to be Britain's progressive party??? Then again NEW Labour seems to have more in common with the right than the left on issues from immigration to privatization to foreign policy.

Anonymous said...

None of this is about religious freedom. This is all about defining one by stating what they do NOT stand for. So to oppose Western imperialism, Muslims have gone backwards in time, to the more strict definitions of Islam and customs. Islam was becoming more relaxed, more forward-thinking in the sixties, and then WHAM! Clash with Western culture has driven 20-year olds to rebel... instead of rebelling against Islam, they have embraced it to rebel against Western imperialism.

Wear the veil, don't wear the veil... I don't really care. All I do care about is that you don't bring your religion into my secular institutions. This includes my schools, my hospitals, my government, or any public service. Why? Simple:

"In the interests of cohesive integration, a uniform conformity should be adopted in secular institutions in order to provide fair and equitable treatment to all students. I ask that in the best interests of children everywhere, that Muslims remove their religious garments, or else seek employment within their own religious institutions. I, for one, know that I would oppose the possibility of educational handicapping being overuled by religious freedom. Secular rights must supercede those of the church, the inherent right to separate the two by the lawful citizens of a democratic country.

Secular rights MUST supercede religious rights. The separation of church and state is a FUNDAMENTAL CORE VALUE of the New World. I will oppose to my last breath the influence of religion into the right for me and my family to pursue the freedom of a nondenominational services from the public sector.

James Laxer said...

How does the wearing of Muslim, Jewish, Sikh or Catholic garb interfere with the operations of a public hospital?

Anonymous said...

"How does the wearing of Muslim, Jewish, Sikh or Catholic garb interfere with the operations of a public hospital?"

James, that's a ridiculous question. Under a secular government, such as Canada, the U.S. (sort of), or Britain, each citizen has the right to secular public services. That should be appallingly obvious.

If not, then I support my own religion: ATHEISM. As a very respectful individual of religious and cultural divergences, I would also ask that religions respect my belief that there is no diety, and I wish to be accomodated by my government by nondenominational representatives. If that cannot be done, we do not live in a secular society, our belief in the separation of Church and State is a hypocrisy, and the freedoms of those who do not associate with the afterlife are being oppressed.

"why should they rebel against Islam?"

If not for Western imperialism, they likely would. The repression of orthodox Islam is apparent. Currently it is in vogue to be strict in Islamic doctrine while this little Jee-had is going on.

"The religion has done nothing wrong, if you are talking about reform, it is muslims that need to reform, not Islam adrian."

Indeed, but this cannot happen whilst Western hegemony is spreading it's bony fingers all over Arab soil.

"This is a multicultural country that prides itself on its fabric but they have failed the communities that act, dress and speak differently then you adrian, it seems the notion of "tolerance" has been the one that has been hijacked."

Disagree STRONGLY. We live in a secular society. If you do not realize that, you should read the espoused beliefs of the government of Canada. We have the right to the separation of church and state. So while I would defend the right for a woman to wear her vitamin-E deficient garbs, I would request her immediate banishment from my son's public school. Schools, hospitals, government services, should all be nondenominational, so as to offer EQUALITY to all Canadians regardless of affiliation, as this includes ATHEISTS. I have the inherent right as decreed by my government to provide a public education for my son free from Islam, Christianity, Judaism, and any other influences unless directly related to the curriculum. This includes the representation of religious symbols and objects in these institutions.

I therefore object to all forms of religious representation in public institutions, inclusive being those of Christian and Jewish denomination.

If you cannot understand my desire to raise my family under the freedoms of secular rule, then it is certainly yourself who is being intolerant, as you are defying the inherent and fundamental belief of the New World: escape from religious persecution, inclusive being those who have no religion.

Tyrone said...

In Adrian's world, if a Muslim patient wears a veil to her doctor's appointment, that somehow "persecutes" him.

Get a grip.

Anonymous said...

by the way adrian u're mocking of "jee had" shows your lack of knowledge about the religion. Jihad is the inner struggle of a Muslim with his/her basic instincts and lack of faith or devotion.

I do not agree with the head to toe cover although I do recognize an individual's right to wear it, these rights, RELIGOUS rights are protected in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Also if you are against this covering in schools hospitals etc, then neclaces or head gear should also be banned according to you?

Anonymous said...

"In Adrian's world, if a Muslim patient wears a veil to her doctor's appointment, that somehow "persecutes" him.

Get a grip."

Not at all. But the reverse is true.

"by the way adrian u're mocking of "jee had" shows your lack of knowledge about the religion."

Nope. I was making light of a clichéd and overwrought term.

"I do not agree with the head to toe cover although I do recognize an individual's right to wear it, these rights, RELIGOUS rights are protected in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms."

Yes it is. And I have the right to be served nondenominationally. Your religious freedom does not supercede my right to secular government. Did you read the above, or just "skim it".

"Also if you are against this covering in schools hospitals etc, then neclaces or head gear should also be banned according to you?"

Absolutely. 100% agree.

Tyrone said...

You do NOT have the right to be served nondenominationally, not in the way you define it.

You have the right to be served regardless of your religion, and to not have to compromise your own religious beliefs, nor to be forced into participating in another religion.

You do NOT have the right to force other patients or students to give up their religious beliefs.

Anonymous said...

Tyrone said...

"You do NOT have the right to be served nondenominationally, not in the way you define it."

I do not believe that a Muslim should be allowed to work in hte public sector with a veil or other religious symbols. I disagree with the Sikh right to wear turbans and knives.

"You do NOT have the right to force other patients or students to give up their religious beliefs."

I do not wish to. Only government employees, including teachers, doctors, police officers, etc etc...

I do not wish to be served by a person who is conflicted by their religion. I demand nondenominational representation. A government employee must represent the government, and the government is neutrally aligned to serve all it's constituents. If a government employee wears a Jewish symbol, they do a disservice to all Canadians and should be fired.

Anonymous said...

One aspect of Ms Wente missing in all the posts is the fact that Ms Wente simply cannot write; ideed, she has a problem writing even a few coherent and CONNECTED paragraphs. This partly explains some of the reaction to her pieces So many of them are unclear and a goodly number of them contain internally contradictory statements/views.
In my view, Ms Wente does not have a vacant mind; rather, a very very confused mind. Of course this is NOT to excuse the piece in question.
As to why the Globe publishes her pieces, I would venture to say that her incoherent but somewhat veiled brand of intolerance appeals to a lot of Canadians and sells a lot of copies of the newspaper.