Vrinda Narain

 In evaluating the justice of minority claims, whether and to what extent does justice require attending to, rather than ignoring social group differences?  There are at least two kinds of politics of difference – the politics of cultural difference and the politics of structural difference.

 The big question remains how best to accommodate minority claims?  What is required in terms of accommodation to give public recognition to cultural diversities?

 The focus on cultural difference might obscure the importance of structural injustices such as racism, gender inequality and disability.

 Gender issues test the limits of toleration through customs and practices such as polygamy, under-age marriage and niqab.

 What should be done when minority claims for accommodation conflict with mainstream norms of gender equality?  What are the issues that emerge when equality concerns and religious freedom intersect?  A review of S.2(a) decisions demonstrates that Canadian jurisprudence can sustain progressive, rights affirming decisions.

 What are the rights implications of this Bill?  Does it forward women’s equality and promote inclusion?  Does it promote women’s agency and choice?  Can it be seen as emancipatory for all women?  What about the particular impact on minority women?  Does it encourage democratic participation?  Would such a Bill withstand a constitutional challenge?

 Denying niqab-wearing women access to justice cannot be justified on the basis that it furthers their equality.  Nor can this denial be justified on the basis that such exclusion is somehow liberating.  Effectively disenfranchising women who wear a niqab is inconsistent with promoting their substantive equality and respecting and protecting their Charter rights.

Feminism, Religion and the Niqab (B. O’Neill et al., January 2011)