Hello! In our ASTU class, we are currently analyzing Marjane Satrapi’s graphic memoir, Persepolis: The Story of a Childhood, as well as Hilary Chute’s, an English Scholar’s, article: The Texture of Retracting in Marjane Satrapi’s Persepolis.
After multiple discussions in our ASTU class, Sociology class, and Political Science class, Marjane’s childhood of growing up in the Islamic Revolution and the introduction of the Veil reminded me of recent situation with Stephen Harper.
In our Sociology lecture with Professor Dilley, we are learning about perspectives on culture through ethnocentric and relativist views. We focused a bit on what Harper had recently said: “I will never tell my daughter that a woman should cover her face because she is a woman. That is not our Canada.” We discussed how Harper could be “playing with ethnocentric views of Caucasians” and is arguing that people should take off their Niqab during the ceremony when receiving their Canadian citizenship. Harper had addressed this as a “security issue” and then later addressed it as a “women’s rights issue”. From a relativist perspective, we would argue for example that under the Canadian Charter of Rights and human rights of freedom, people have the right to express their beliefs/culture.
Harper’s actions and views reminded me of the women in Marjane’s childhood were forced to wear the Veil by the Islamic government ruler, the Shah. This led me to link the Shah and Harper in a sense that they are both forcing their values/beliefs upon others.
As we have previously discussed in our ASTU class as well as our Sociology and Political Science lectures, there are several questions surrounding authority – who has authority? What and who justifies whether one has authority or not? I, personally, have been bothered by Harper’s recent statement: “We do not allow people to cover their faces during citizenship ceremonies. Why would Canadians, contrary to our own values, embrace a practice at that time that is not transparent, that is not open and frankly is rooted in a culture that is anti-women. That is unacceptable to Canadians, unacceptable to Canadian women.” This has led me to question how and to what point, does Harper have the authority to talk on behalf of Canadians? I was especially bothered by his word choice of saying “Canadians” instead of talking about himself using “I”. I felt that he did not have the right to generalize and state “Canadians” for something that is his belief, not all Canadians. I, as a Canadian do not believe people should be forced to not wear the Niqab.
This made me wonder if Harper made his argument as a political move or if he is personally passionate about women’s rights. What are his intentions of his recent argument? Why are people forcing their opinion/personal values over others in the first place? Lately, these questions have been running through my mind and the discussions surrounding the Islamic government during the Islamic Revolution and our current Canadian government with conservative party leader, Stephen Harper, has lead me to other questions such as: Why cant those who think alike or have similar values live in one area and those who don’t, be in another area where there are those who think like them? As our Political Science Professor, Chris Erickson, stated in our recent lecture of how only a small percentage of eligible voters in Canada voted in the 2011 election. I then watched a YouTube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5Wx50YqRGA&feature=youtu.be which was very “eye-opening” how in 2011, 24% of eligible voters voted for our current government which is only 18% of us.
Thank you for reading.
