Not that this isn't a blatant violation of their religious freedom (but then again, I don't understand Canadian law so I can't tell for sure), but aren't they allowed to show their face to other women? Couldn't they simply make sure that all the people in the separate room were female, thus allowing the Muslim women to maintain their religious tradition?

And why can't they do the same thing for Muslim women that they do for bandaged persons, with the extra IDs and all? Seems like that would be less of a hassle anyway.

this is one of those stupid things that happens when a bunch of ignorant people wanna make problems. The vast majority of muslim women have stated they have no problem showing their face for identification purposes... it got all out of hand when a bunch of loons started trying to bann even wearing them to go vote.. this has been going on for such a long time. it's really stupid that it's been blown way out of proportion to this point.

From the linked article:

If the bill is adopted, the staff of Elections Canada will take veiled voters to separate rooms and ask them to show their faces before voting.

The bill provides an exception for facial bandages, however. Such voters either need a qualified elector to vouch for them or they must show two proofs of identity.

It doesn't sound it's a violation of religious freedom to me. It sounds like it's a reasonable refusal to let religious practice trump secular concerns and equal treatment under the law. If the majority of Muslim women in Canada don't have an objection to showing their faces in private to a female election official for identification purposes, I don't see why anybody else should.

It would be different in the US, where nobody is asked for identification to vote--we just have to sign a book in which our signatures are compared with those of previous years. In the US, this would be singling Muslim women out for special treatment. But I'm assuming that showing picture ID to be compared with the face is standard in Canadian elections?

Yeah frog queen.
There wasn't a big movement in the Muslim community about this, it was a bunch of politicians who decided to make it an issue. The media has wasted more than enough space on this non controversy.

Do they require photo ID to vote in Canada?

I'm not against the law. These religious habits are misogynistic and they should break them. Wearing veils is oppressive.

This is really a non-issue, and I don't like it when people make laws based on non-issues. Like others have said, it doesn't seem like the Muslim women would object to showing their faces in private to another woman to prove her identity (or bring two forms of ID like the exception for people with bandaged faces require). It's a pretty easy thing that takes two seconds to do. So why make a law about it? I could understand if this law was made to protect Muslim women from people at the polls who just kept the veiled women from voting without allowing the veiled women to show their faces to another woman in private. That would be an attack on the women's civil liberties. But this law makes it seem like veiled Muslim women are a threat to voting integrity, when I'm sure the majority of voting fraud is done by corporations who make the voting machines and campaigns, not individual voters.

"These religious habits are misogynistic and they should break them."

Sure Gopher, the best way to oppose the misogyny and oppression that is the veil is to make voting harder for veiled women or bar them from voting altogether, because that’s not oppressive or misogynistic.

I see nothing wrong with the rule, but as others have said, Muslim women never asked for special treatment or opposed proposed regulation.

There is an odd contradiction at play when it comes to some Muslim women in Western society. It's almost as if people want them staying in the home behind a blacked out window if they choose to wear a burqa, or wearing a mini to the voting booth. Not voting in a burqa or playing soccer in a veil. No baby steps. It's the same question that arises with so many religious fundamentalists- Do you half-respect them for giving it 100% and clearly opposing rational discourse and logic, or does hope for the future lie in their reinterpreting religious texts to eliminate hatred for homsexuals, women, etc., even if it means 'watering down' their religious fervor?

I hate the veil, but this law is a blatant violation of the freedom of expression. Simple as that.

i think we need to be careful about language -- the new Bill will have the *effect* of forcing Muslim womyn to unveil in order to vote...but that's not the subject matter of the Bill. Rather, the Bill makes facial recognition/comparison with i.d. a part of the process necessary in order to vote. (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2007/10/26/veils-legislation.html)

the text of the new Bill isn't up on the Parliamentary site yet, but i'm wondering how much of last year's C-31 they're going to change...at present, 2 pieces of non-photo ID are sufficient or even vouching for you by someone else who has the necessary ID and swears out statement. if there's no photo to match against, what's the justification for mandatory facial revelation? will they change rules for service personnel voting from overseas or Canadians voting from outside Canada and instead of having them mail in ballots w/ photocopy of required ID, make them come to a location where their ID can be matched against their face? of *course* not!

personally i think its clear that this is targetted at Muslim womyn. and i think the issue is one of racism (unsurprising from this Canadian government). be interesting to see if the Bill passes...

Hi,
A couple of points: Yes, photo ID is now required to vote in Canada. I spent 6 years in the USA and was surprised this was legal. But it is.
Muslim women (warning: white Catholic guy explaining this) can remove the veil for identification purposes.
This was an issue created by white guys that has caused nothing but acrimony and accomplished nothing. The government is responding to some rules made by Elections Canada.
The real election issue in Canada is the new requirement of having a street address (not a PO box) which disenfranchised hundreds of thousands. It looks like this will get fixed immediately which is good because we have an unstable minority government.

Chris

It doesn't seem unreasonable to ask people for photo id to vote (and I do sometimes wonder why it isn't mandatory in America, since state ids in Illinois are only $20, which I can't imagine would eliminate anyone from voting). Does anyone know- are these veiled women veiled in their photo IDs? I seem to recall there was a controversy about it in the US about five years ago, because veiled women were refusing to be photographed without their veils at the DMV. I don't remember how that was resolved, but I will say that it seems like there would be no point in a veiled photo ID, because it would be very easy to use someone else's ID. There was an argument then that driving is a privilage, not a right, and that if the rule was a clear picture without a veil on the driver's license, then it was something people could either choose to do or not do. Voting to me seems to be a right, not a privilage- but I have no idea how veiled photo IDs would work if facial recognition was mandatory.

It doesn't seem unreasonable to ask people for photo id to vote (and I do sometimes wonder why it isn't mandatory in America, since state ids in Illinois are only $20, which I can't imagine would eliminate anyone from voting). Does anyone know- are these veiled women veiled in their photo IDs? I seem to recall there was a controversy about it in the US about five years ago, because veiled women were refusing to be photographed without their veils at the DMV. I don't remember how that was resolved, but I will say that it seems like there would be no point in a veiled photo ID, because it would be very easy to use someone else's ID. There was an argument then that driving is a privilage, not a right, and that if the rule was a clear picture without a veil on the driver's license, then it was something people could either choose to do or not do. Voting to me seems to be a right, not a privilage- but I have no idea how veiled photo IDs would work if facial recognition was mandatory.

Photo ID is not legal in the U.S. because it could be construed as a kind of poll tax, i.e., say I CAN'T afford the $20 (plus the loss of wages to go stand in line at the DMV all day) to get a license or ID, then I can't vote and it's ultimately due to financial reasons. This law was placed when corrupt gov't was making people pay to vote which obviously excluded the poor (including minorities, whom I think the practice was aimed at). $20 is a lot to some people.

I am opposed to any practice religious or otherwise) that oppresses women. This includes veils, burkas, hijabs, and purity balls, to name a few. But I also believe you can't force someone to go against their beliefs to participate in one of the most basic rightful activities of citizenship.

There should be some kind of compromise. Like showing their face in private to a female voting booth person, or bringing multiple forms of ID and some kind of signed contract that they are who they say they are.

The law was recently changed by the Conservative government so that voters could present either one piece of photo id or two pieces of non-photo id. (Before this, they were not required to show any id at all). The elections officer interpreted that to mean that veiled women did not have to show their face if they presented the two pieces of non-photo id. This angered the Conservative government for some reason, and so they passed a law stating that all voters must show their faces. So yes, this law is targetting Muslim women who wear the veil.

If the law required that all voters present photo id, I think having a female elections officer take a veiled woman aside to check under her veil would be an entirely reasonable compromise. But the fact is, the existing law allowed for two pieces of non-photo id, and changing it just so that veiled Muslims will have to show their faces has very uncomfortable xenophobic undertones to me.

Sojourner,
What I meant is that a ban on wearing veils while voting would give an orthodox muslim woman an extra push so she realizes that if she wants to vote she should leave her veil behind. She might not have thought to go the extra step without a law in place. One of the problems muslim women have is oppression within their own communities by members who will beat, kill, or perform other heinous acts against a woman if she chooses to remove her veil, or act in a more liberated manner. Should we really be pandering to this kind of misogyny?Maybe not being able to vote will act as an incentive to encourage her to remove her veil.

Anyways, from what I've read on these posts, it's not an issue among Canadian muslim women.

If I had my way, everyone would get a free photo ID and a Treasury account, with ID working as a debit card in case of any benefits, tax returns etc.

Poor people who cannot afford IDs also have problem with bank accounts and debit cards. Suppose that everyone would be entitled to a package above, and the poor people would be spared check cashing, government could deliver all cash benefits electronically etc. And voters would have a universal ID.

A further idea would be more controversial: every issuer of private IDs, including credit cards, debit cards, employer IDs, perhaps driver's licences would give the option of using the universal ID instead, with appropriate data base entries. E.g. a police asks you for a driver licence, you give ID, they swipe the magnetic strip and get an answer what kind of driving privileges you have. Your wallet would need to have place for a single piece of plastic,

The next step would be an embedded chip, and then mark of the beast etc. However, the initial idea should be OK: issue IDs that would make the government save some money and which would give actual benefits to citizens rather than require payment of a fee.

Perhaps people could be given a choice of a body part used for identification, say, face, iris, fingerprint. Face is not too reliable anyway.

I do not like that idea, piotrek. I have no problem with a free ID issued at birth. But encoding such a huge amount of personal information on it? Absolutely not. I don't trust this government, or anybody in it, enough to support allowing such a massive and easily accessible collation of personal data. I don't trust this government, or any other, to keep its sticky fingers out of my money, insurance/health records, whatever. And I am absolutely opposed to taking fingerprints or iris prints of free citizens who have committed no crime.

As a Canadian feminist and a political scientist I am very torn about this new potential law. I think that there is something to be said for the trend of making it difficult for minority women to vote. We saw it with the suffrage movement when women got the right to vote in 1920 (federal), but Aboriginals didn't until 1960 so Aboriginal women didn't vote until 1960. 40 years later. OUCH.

The interaction of gender norms and racial/ethnical norms has always made the road to equal but different rights significantly rockier for minority women.

Canadian law and convention is the slowest political structure to change. It is imbued with British values and traditions from the 1800's which are necessarily racist and sexist.

The issue of veils is a convenient debate because it discusses a tangible thing, the veil and the lifting of the veil. But the reality is that this issue of the veil and the ballot serves as a symbol
for all oppression of minority women and under-priveledged women within the voting system. Truthfully, there are much more subtle forms of similar oppression. Example: a single mother of 4 in Toronto cannot go vote because she has no car and no one to watch her children. Taking four kids on the bus or subway is expensive and a nightmare. The reality also is that woman is not white.

I think that criticizing the Canadian government for forcing Muslim women to show their faces in an important debate, so long as it is framed within the larger issue of the white, patriarchal hierarchy that persists within our governmental structure.

Also just to let you all know the Canadian government promises to arrange for these women to lift their veils ONLY in front of other women.

That is great on paper. Let us see how they do in real life.

I'm surprised that so many people are upset by the very idea that some Muslim women wear veils. While I, a non-Muslim woman, wouldn't want to wear it, I have met many women that choose to wear it for personal/religious/etc. reasons. Communities where women are not allowed to choose whether or not to wear a veil are obviously offensive, but if women choose to wear it, who are we to tell them not to? Isn't that just as much discrimination?

"One of the problems muslim women have is oppression within their own communities by members who will beat, kill, or perform other heinous acts against a woman if she chooses to remove her veil, or act in a more liberated manner. Should we really be pandering to this kind of misogyny?"

Then why target the victims instead of the oppressors? I'm reminded of "anti-rape" measures which target women and girls while doing nothing to discourage boys and men from raping...

"Maybe not being able to vote will act as an incentive to encourage her to remove her veil."

It's more likely that her not being able to vote will act as one more incentive to encourage her oppressive relatives to threaten her with punishment for taking off the veil.

"While I, a non-Muslim woman, wouldn't want to wear it, I have met many women that choose to wear it for personal/religious/etc. reasons. Communities where women are not allowed to choose whether or not to wear a veil are obviously offensive, but if women choose to wear it, who are we to tell them not to? Isn't that just as much discrimination?"

Exactly! Forcing someone to wear or not wear hijab is repressive, but hijab itself is just a piece of clothing. Likewise, forcing someone to cover or not cover her or his legs is repressive, but the khakis I wore to work today are just another piece of clothing.

It's always so frustrating for me when I see burqas and veiling being discussed by so-called feminists, because a very disappointing few get it. The discussion is SO patronizing, and quite frankly pretty demeaning to women who chose to veil for WHATEVER personal, religious, social reason compels them. Funnily enough, it's quite analagous to so-called femminist critiques of sex work.

Yes, the hijab can be construed as a symbol of patriarchal oppression. So can the bikini and the mini skirt. But both the women donned in a hijab or in a bikini can make those decisions for personally empowering reasons. To assume that a women in a burqa is wearing it because otherwise her husband or her father is going to beat her is really quite presumptuous, and often wildly innaccurate, especially in Western societies. I have some incredibly strong, feminist female friends who wear the hijab as a FEMINIST symbol, as a movement to reclaim their religion from patriarchy.

I have my own personal opinions of the veil, whether or not it is actually required of Muslim women, and how effective it is in accomplishing its goals. But that's probably for another post.

I'm also surprised that so many people here take issue with the veil. Canada isn't Saudi Arabia. The US is not Afghanistan. I've seen Muslim women and girls wearing hijabs. I've seen Muslim women and girls not wearing hijabs, or they only wear the hijabs outdoors or when going to mosque. And I've known a lot of Muslim girls who don't wear the hijab, but they only wear long sleeves, skirts and pants. Obviously, it's a choice in the Western world, or else there wouldn't be such a variation within the female Muslim population.

And apparently the Weekly Standard just ripped Laura Bush a new asshole when she went to Saudi Arabia and wore a head scarf because it was supposedly a sign of her acception of the subjugation of women. As Dan Abrams just said sarcastically, "The new feminist Weekly Standard." Brilliant!

"I've seen Muslim women and girls wearing hijabs. I've seen Muslim women and girls not wearing hijabs, or they only wear the hijabs outdoors or when going to mosque. And I've known a lot of Muslim girls who don't wear the hijab, but they only wear long sleeves, skirts and pants."

I've even seen women wearing hijab and short sleeves at the same time.

I too am really concerned by the posters here who are making blanket assumptions about what the veil means to Muslim women. Just like the African American ladies complained in the other post that "white" feminism is being imposed on them, when you make assumptions about what the veil means you are imposing western American style feminism on another culture. And I don't think that it translates well. Context is everything.

I've even seen women wearing hijab and short sleeves at the same time.

See? Another variation on the whole dress code thing! So many possibilities!

Ok, reading the link and the comments above, it seems pretty clear that:

1. Canada requires showing ID to vote. That's for everyone except those with medical reasons for covering the face, no discrimination here.
2. Given that photo ID is the NORM, it seems very reasonable to require veiled muslim women to show their faces to female poll workers. The alternative would be to give muslim women a waiver on the ID law, which seems an unreasonable accomodation of religion.

Voting is a civic right, but a secular one. Religion is a private right, and secular governments should accomodate religion as long as the accomodation isn't unfair.

Why do so many people here feel that any refusal to treat the islamic veil with reverence is an attack on the religion, and an imposition on the women? It can be, sure, but in this case it is not. Just as it was not unreasonable to require that woman in Florida to have her face on the driver's license!

"Ok, reading the link and the comments above, it seems pretty clear that:

"1. Canada requires showing ID to vote. That's for everyone except those with medical reasons for covering the face, no discrimination here.
"2. Given that photo ID is the NORM, it seems very reasonable to require veiled muslim women to show their faces to female poll workers. The alternative would be to give muslim women a waiver on the ID law, which seems an unreasonable accomodation of religion."

Yeah, that's the impression I got too.

"Why do so many people here feel that any refusal to treat the islamic veil with reverence is an attack on the religion, and an imposition on the women? It can be, sure, but in this case it is not."

Good point there. Likewise, it wouldn't be in the case of a library with no-cellphone-use rules asking a lady talking on a cellphone stuck in her hijab* to please take it outside or turn that thing off.

* I've seen people do this too. The technique seems like it can turn a wider range of cellphones hands-free. ;)

Gopher,

There are so many things wrong with your reasoning and your assumptions about women who wear some form of hijab but others have addressed them very well. I just thought to remind you that a couple of days ago you wrote “Why make fun of the women when its the audience that likes to watch it� about women who take part in sexist reality shows. I don’t see why you can’t extend the same kind of understanding and compassion to veiled women. Even if it were true that most of them cover up because their dads would beat them up, why make life harder for the women when it’s the men who are doing the beating?

Just a quick clarification of terms: the issues is not the hijab, it's the niqab. The term hijab usually refers to the headscarf (thought it can also designate the entire system of modest dress and behaviour). The niqab is something worn across the nose, covering the lower half of the face. Something worn by a minuscule proportion of Muslim women in Canada. So yes, I think this whole debate is a smokescreen for the more pernicious disenfranchisement of voters using PO Box addresses.

Thanks for making the distinction, grumbelina.

While the headscarf can be portrayed as merely a religious symbol, I find it very hard to defend anything that covers the face or entire body and is not required by men (who are then allowed to blend into Western society when convenient rather than constantly remind people how 'other' they are). Religion and politics aside (ha), have you ever worn a burqa? I have. It's terrifying. Breathing is tough, and veils make seeing next to impossible (but luckily women who wear them rarely travel alone).

“I find it very hard to defend anything that covers the face or entire body and is not required by men�
Ok, who is defending burqa-wearing here? The issue is not whether you or I approve the practice or consider it to be misogynist. The issue is that if a woman thinks her religion requires her to cover her face, is it right to try to punish and isolate her? The other thing I take issue with is the assumption that these women are necessarily forced into submission by their male relatives. When I was at
Rice University a few years ago, there was this fully covered girl that I sometimes ran into in engineering classes, I also sometimes saw her hanging out with the miniskirt wearing girls. I’d take that over a home-schooled quiverfull mom any day.

AmitJosh, photo ID is NOT required according to the law. The law allows for one piece of photo ID OR two pieces of non-photo ID. The elections officer interpreted that to mean that veiled women didn't have to show their faces IF they showed two pieces of non-photo ID. The Conservatives changed the law so that every voter had to show their face, specifically in light of that controversy. So in this case, it IS a direct attack on the religion, because the only reason for the law is to make veiled women show their faces.

In recent provincial elections (like state elections in the US) in Ontario I was required to show valid photo I.D. to vote. I asked if I could use other forms such as credit cards, phone bills etc., and I was told I could only vote with photo I.D. As long as a law (be it to show I.D. or not)is applied to everyone equally I think it is fine. However, I like the photo I.D. requirements because if we are going to vote on poeople to run our country or a referendums that fundamentaly alters the way we are goverened then I would like some control and structure to the system. This also protects people by working to ensure that only they can cast their vote.

I agree with others here who called for free I.D. at brith. My first child was recently born and we needed to travel, so we needed to get I.D.. The hoops we had to jump through to get our child I.D. was insane. I pay significant taxes to all three levels of governemnt each year, the least they could do is provide some useful basic services (since they can't do the big ones like provide me with a family doctor or safe streets).

Tobin, I don't understand your access issue. I don't live in Toronto but I do live in Ontario and in my city most stations are within walking distance. If mobility is an issue then any of the parties will help you get to a voting station if requested (but voting is private so you could then vote against that party if you want too). Indeed, I get calls every election asking if I want a drive to vote, or would I volunteer to help others get to a voting station.

Lastly Jovian, I am doubtful your interpritation of the Chater and expression could hold. However, if you are aware of any precedents it would make for an interesting discussion.

Brilliant!

Shame it doesnt simply say 'Canada bans veiled women' and we would be back up to true feminism! Women marry murderers on death row, just because some are insane doesnt mean we have to normalise their behaviour and 'freedom' as somehow acceptable as the status quo. Feminism is bullshit when it doesnt get out from tacitly approving this mysoginist garb. Its message internationally is diluted and piss poor. It has been for ages.

I recommend reading Joan Scott's new book The Politics of the Veil (Princeton U Press,2007).

I heard her speak/read at NYU 2 weeks ago. She looks at the french law which banned the wearing of religious symbols which was aimed at the Hijab.

ciao

I recommend reading Joan Scott's new book The Politics of the Veil (Princeton U Press,2007).

I heard her speak/read at NYU 2 weeks ago. She looks at the french law which banned the wearing of religious symbols which was aimed at the Hijab.

ciao

"Feminism is bullshit when it doesnt get out from tacitly approving this mysoginist garb."

Some misogynists out there say women and girls shouldn't wear trousers because "those are too manly." Some misogynists out there say women and girls shouldn't wear skirts because "those aren't modest enough." Is feminism bullshit when it tacitly approves this mysogynist garb instead of telling us to wear the 3rd alternative (nudity betwen the shirt and ankles)?

Feminism is bullshit when it adopts the patriarcal attitude of authority over how women dress or behave. As swatfeminist so eloquently stated above, this type of patronizing treatment of other women, be they sex workers or veiled women, is demeaning.

We have our own double-standards with men and women's clothing requriements in the US. I've seen plenty of men walking around on hot summer days without a shirt on, but if a woman goes bare chested in public she'll get issued a warning to cover up or go to jail and risk having to register as a sex offender.

The fact that women's breasts are considered obscene and must be covered to curb male lustful urges is of a similar nature to the veiling of Muslim women. Breasts are not sex organs, but look at all the trouble over Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" at the superbowl and the FCC penalties against the station that innocently aired it.

As sexist as the law is, I'm sure there would be outrage in the feminist community if women had to flash their breasts at the voting polls. The sexist origins do not circumvent our deeply rooted modesty.

That said, a private room with a female polling official should be an adequate solution. I will say, though, that the fact that this was introduced by conservative legislators makes me suspicious that it was intended to suppress Muslim voters. But maybe I'm wrong; the two groups share a lot of the same political views.

Two clarifications:

1. Universal id would not have ANY data coded on it apart from identification. But once it is affixed to persons, any data base can use it as a key, so if it is used as a debit card a bank looks up if it has an account of a person with this ID etc,. or for drivers licence, a policeman checks what driver's licence, if any, the holder of this ID has. All these data bases exist anyway, and typically all have a Social Security number in every record..

Given all that electronic pile, why should we wear a thick wad of plastic?

2. Data base application of universal ID is totally separable from its existence, and its being free. I think that people without IDs are badly screwed, and they need help even if we allow them to vote.

3. Storing fingerprints of everybody is perhaps a bit sinister. When my son was born, his footprint was duly recorded, I have no idea if the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is storing it somewhere. Can one identify an adult owner of his footprint from the time of his birth? If so, it seems to be a good kind of identifier, one that you expose at your discression, and without much shame.

I thought that it could be practical to offer people alternatives to faces as identifiers. For example, some men are alternating between having facial hair and not having. What some women can do with make-up and hair can also change the looks quite a bit.

I wanted to add that my comment wasn't aimed at you Mina, but to the same person you were responding to. Your comment wasn't there yet when I opened the page (took a while for me to read through them all and write).

I could tell that we were making more or less the same point, but I've seen arguments started by others who couldn't.

Sojouner,
I dont see how the veil can be empowering to women. If thats the case, then why not FGM too? Maybe a girl finds it 'empowering' to self-mutilate herself. I've heard that before. How would I be empowered if I wore a corset all day, even if I was suffering fainting fits?

From my understanding of Islam, a woman wears a hijab, burqa, or nijiab to cover herself from men. How is that NOT misogynistic? These women cant even be seen by men other than their husband, or immediate family members, which is why they will only reveal themselves to other women.

Why encourage that? Doesnt that also bring secular women, and women who disagree with that religious philosophy into serving that belief system?

Personally, I feel the more religion stays out of public life, the better.
If her husband wouldnt let her out of the house then thats illegal. Surely she would call the police. If she didnt have enough personal strength to feel she could do that, then why protect the religious system that broke her down to extend into political/public life? Witness the extreme right wing and their theocratic fascism for an example of why religion should stay out of politics.

"From my understanding of Islam, a woman wears a hijab, burqa, or nijiab to cover herself from men."

Different women and girls wear hijab for different reasons.

A cop in the London Metropolitan Police may wear her uniform's hijab option instead of its bowler hat option to make a "yes, I can be a woman and a Muslim and a British police officer!" statement.

A little kid may wear hijab to play dress-up and look like Mommy.

A model in Azizah magazine may wear a headwrap to show off both matching-hijab-and-blouse sets and show off her neck while hiding her hair.

A partygoer in Kenya may wear a chador on the way from her parents' house to a nightclub so her gossipy neighbors don't know who's breaking curfew.

A shoplifter in Iran may wear a chador to hide more stolen merchandise than she can hide in a jacket.

A sports fan may wear certain patterned hijab to show off her team loyalty (like the way I once saw a Sikh guy with a Red Sox turban).

A teenager with parents who don't observe the hijab custom may wear hijab to annoy them.

A worker in Boston may wear hijab to hold her cellphone next to her ear and talk on it while freeing both of her hands to do other stuff.

Another worker in Boston may wear hijab to keep her hair out of the way while she handles food.

Well, now that this topic is a bit old, I'll end it by saying I believe burqas, chadors, nijab, bridal veils (American), or any veils for any woman are misogynistic. Remember, women are jailed in Iran for not wearing them, and many feminist arab women hate them, and protest the mistreatment of women by discarding them. Women in Afghanistan protested the burqua requirement when the Taliban first arrived by discarding them in a protest held in Kabul.

This simply doesn't make sense to me. It's taking away not only religious freedom but individual freedom as well. What crazy law will they come up with next? Will they start making people remove makeup and/or change their hairstyle so that they will easily be recognized by their identification picture? This, to me, just seems like another way to oppress not only women, but Muslims as well.

I was a poll clerk during the Ontario provincial elections this October, and photo-ID (and visual identification) is not currently a requirement for any citizen to vote. Even in the absence of any form of paper identification a person can still vote, provided they are on the List of Electors and are willing to sign a Statutory Declaration at the Poll (stating that they are who they claim to be) - I processed a number of voters in this manner.

Ephemeral, you should not have been required to show photo ID to vote. I personally voted using a bank statement and a credit card, since I don't have any current photo ID (my drivers license is expired, and I still have the old style photo-less Health card).

To make visual identification mandatory would be an unusual change for all citizens, not just muslim women, and I don't see this law being passed.

Poor people who cannot afford IDs also have problem with bank accounts and debit cards. Suppose that everyone would be entitled to a package above, and the poor people would be spared check cashing, government could deliver all cash benefits electronically etc. And voters would have a universal ID.free online games