Face veils banned for citizenship oaths

[Guest Manny]

Yeah I don't see what all the fuss is about. They show their faces at various times in their own culture. And when they are among they family and friends. But there are times when it should be ok for them to show it in public too, such as at these citizenship events. They are in Canada and it's ok to show their face in public here, without fear.

On the other hand I support their right to wear the veil in public whenever they want to, unlike how it is in France right now. That is going too far. The state should have no say in such matters, other than for reasons of official identification. Like citizenship, or drivers license.

[GostHacked]

they have been identified, they passed every stage of verification and qualification to be a citizen but you insist on seeing their lips recite some silly oath knowing that it will humiliate them...

If giving oath to your new country is humiliating, then gtfo, veil or no veil.

[wyly]

Of course, there's no logical reason to wear a turban or a kippah; but, then, they may still be tolerable because they don't cover the face. The niqāb isn't really religious garb, anyway.

who made you the expert on what's part of their be religious belief/culture?

The oppression of women is one issue related to the matter of niqābs and burkas. Another, though, is the fact that, in the long prevailing culture in this country (and most of the West), covering one's face without rational reason (except at Hallowe'en; but, that difference from the norm is what makes Hallowe'en fun) arouses suspicion and therefore disquiet. I would even argue that the desire to see the faces of those around us stems from deep in human pre-history; facial expressions are an innate method of communication.

so you have heard it directly from these women they feel oppressed? I've never felt any desire to see their faces, we communicate quite well in this forum and i've no desire to see anyone's face...people are generally crappy at reading facial expression other than a smile or anger we have no clue what people are thinking from their facial expression...

Regardless, when citizenship is tied up with identity, the individual seeking citizenship should let their identity be known. Since women who wear niqāb are, by their own wierd rules, free to remove the mask in the company of family or other women, it might be suggested that they recite their citizenship oath in the presence only of women and a female judge. Or, have a female official confirm the oath-taker's identity just prior to the recital.

which is what i've been saying all through this thread, this insistence on uncovering their faces in front of men is bullying and religious persecution...

We are. Must we tolerate everything, though?

we must because we pride our selves on tolerance and fairness...and because our laws say we must...

[wyly]

If giving oath to your new country is humiliating, then gtfo, veil or no veil.

no one will ever accuse you of being a deep thinker...

[Evening Star]

it might be suggested that they recite their citizenship oath in the presence only of women and a female judge.

This sounds reasonable to me.

I have trouble with the whole line of reasoning that the oath is an empty and meaningless ceremony anyway: if you believe this, then you should be advocating for the abolition of the requirement for the whole ceremony and oath altogether, for people of any religious or cultural background. If we're going to preserve the ceremony, then it makes sense to see that everyone is participating.

[GostHacked]

no one will ever accuse you of being a deep thinker...

What is there to think about here really? If it's required by law or something, then what really is there to think about? Don't like it, maybe Canada is not right for you then.

[olp1fan]

But his is grounded in reality. Yours is not.

you basically repeated what ive said in this thread LOL

Edited December 13, 2011 by olp1fan

[Moonbox]

On the other hand I support their right to wear the veil in public whenever they want to, unlike how it is in France right now. That is going too far. The state should have no say in such matters, other than for reasons of official identification. Like citizenship, or drivers license.

I completely agree with you. They could wear clown makeup everywhere they go for all I care, but if we're asking to see their faces for legitimate legal reasons, such as identification (driver's license/passport) or the citizenship oath, suck it up. If they don't like it then there are some really nice third world dictatorships in Sandland that are more than happy to accomodate them.

[olp1fan]

no one will ever accuse you of being a deep thinker...

why do you care man? you're going to move to a EU country anyway

[sharkman]

What is there to think about here really? If it's required by law or something, then what really is there to think about? Don't like it, maybe Canada is not right for you then.

It's funny how some will make such a fuss over a simple issue. You want to move to Canada? We have a few laws here you have to obey. You want to become a citizen? Okay, all you have to do is jump through a couple hoops then say the oath. Oh, and uncover your face for about 5 minutes. Everyone gets the same treatment, it's fair.

[cybercoma]

For a logical reason.

Of course, there's no logical reason to wear a turban or a kippah; but, then, they may still be tolerable because they don't cover the face. The niqāb isn't really religious garb, anyway.

Some would say it religious others would say that it isn't. Religious observances by definition are not logical, they're faith-based. Some Christian sects believe that women must wear skirts past their knees, keep their hair uncut, and wear headscarves that don't cover their face. We don't see this as oppressive. Some Jews refuse to be in the same room as a woman if she's menstruating. Some men in many different religions hide their faces with uncut beards or long sideburns. All of these things are not done by everyone that follows those religions, but they are considered religious observance. Since there's no central authority in Islam, if they believe it's religious observance it is.

Regardless even if it's not a religious observance, it's about the court making reasonable accommodation. It's reasonable to have a female judge or a female officer of the court verify the woman's identity before the oath. It's unreasonable to even suggest you can't hear them saying the oath through the niqābs and burkas. They're not wearing a ball-gag. As far as seeing their lips moving, someone could move their lips without reciting it. That line of reasoning, I find pretty spurious. Outside of citizenship oaths, it would be reasonable to deny them if there was some demonstrable threat to public safety in what they consider religious observance. Covering one's face is not a threat to public safety. Should they commit a crime, they will be charged with an additional crime. That is the risk they take, but that's not religious persecution either because it would be unreasonable for the law not to apply to them. It's in the interest of public safety that people don't cover their face when they are committing a crime. It's not reasonable to say that people may never cover their faces in public and I don't believe it's reasonable in this situation, since there are many other ways to verify a person's identity.

The oppression of women is one issue related to the matter of niqābs and burkas. Another, though, is the fact that, in the long prevailing culture in this country (and most of the West), covering one's face without rational reason (except at Hallowe'en; but, that difference from the norm is what makes Hallowe'en fun) arouses suspicion and therefore disquiet. I would even argue that the desire to see the faces of those around us stems from deep in human pre-history; facial expressions are an innate method of communication.

I agree with your social analysis of why people covering their faces makes us uncomfortable. Moreover, we're not used to it because women in our society don't do it. It's not unusual, however, for a man's face to be almost entirely hidden by a beard or for someone to wear a scarf in the winter. These are things we are used to.

The niqābs and burkas may be considered oppressive to women in the West, but there are many women from cultures that wear them who have said they are more comfortable in them. In the West, as I mentioned previously, we have our own brand of oppressing women through their dress. Their value is tied to their attractiveness and we are constantly bombarded with images on television, in the movies, and in advertising of women in various stages of undress. While it's not a law that women dress this way, surely you can imagine the social pressure for women to present themselves in this way. It's evidenced by the billion dollar plastic surgery industry, shows like Toddlers in Tiaras, the difference in attire between female and male news anchors, and the sexualization of female politicians when the same can't at all be said about their male counterparts. The evidence is all around us of an oppressive socionormative force that tells women and men that women are less valuable if they don't fit a photoshopped standard of beauty and expose themselves in public. Some women in the West are completely fine with dressing this way, but the problem is that many who are not fine with dressing that way or presenting themselves in that manner are discriminated against as being prudish, bitches, or uptight. Feminists who speak out against it are considered lesbians. Men that do are charged with having ulterior motives. In the Islamic world there are laws about women covering themselves and in many ways this is worse because it is legal oppression. It leaves women without a choice in how they may dress. They cannot define themselves as persons. However, as I've argued above, women cannot define themselves in Western culture either. All of that to say, if a woman from an Islamic culture comes here and feels more comfortable in a niqāb or burka, we ought to be above the kind of oppression that defines what's appropriate for a woman to do or not. If a Muslim woman feels more comfortable in a niqāb or burka, that's up to her to decide. We just need to make them aware that there is no law requiring them to do this in Canada and that they are free to dress however they want.

Regardless, when citizenship is tied up with identity, the individual seeking citizenship should let their identity be known. Since women who wear niqāb are, by their own wierd rules, free to remove the mask in the company of family or other women, it might be suggested that they recite their citizenship oath in the presence only of women and a female judge. Or, have a female official confirm the oath-taker's identity just prior to the recital.

We are. Must we tolerate everything, though?

I agree with your suggestions of reasonable accommodation. We don't have to tolerate everything, but I believe in the interest of human rights and freedoms, we must make every effort to make reasonable accommodations to people.

[g_bambino]

you basically repeated what ive said in this thread LOL

Well, at least you recognise that your opinion is based on your own imagination.

[cybercoma]

This sounds reasonable to me.

I have trouble with the whole line of reasoning that the oath is an empty and meaningless ceremony anyway: if you believe this, then you should be advocating for the abolition of the requirement for the whole ceremony and oath altogether, for people of any religious or cultural background. If we're going to preserve the ceremony, then it makes sense to see that everyone is participating.

It was a silly suggestion, probably made out of frustration from people being wholly unreasonable about the entire thing. I don't think anyone really thinks the oath is meaningless. You have to swear an oath in court. It's a binding legal contract. If they break the oath, they lose their citizenship. All of us are bound by the same oath by accepting our citizenship in this country and not leaving.

[GostHacked]

It's funny how some will make such a fuss over a simple issue. You want to move to Canada? We have a few laws here you have to obey. You want to become a citizen? Okay, all you have to do is jump through a couple hoops then say the oath. Oh, and uncover your face for about 5 minutes. Everyone gets the same treatment, it's fair.

That is how I feel. They can take the few minutes to do it right, and then wear the veil all they want. I know we as a group drivel over very small trivial things at times, but this is really a non-issue.

[Wild Bill]

Somewhere some Taliban-types are laughing at us!

Hasn't anyone made the connection yet that veils and burkhas only started to appear in the 1970's, about the same time as the rise of mid-east terrorism?

These practices are SUPPOSED to hide identities! There have been many incidents in the MSM of terrorists hiding behind veils and burkhas.

Before someone demands a cite, let me tell you to google for yourself! I'm not wasting my time providing a cite that the sun rises in the east just because you're too lazy to change your mind.

These customs only appear among the hard line, more primitive Islamic cultures. Women in Egypt today and during the Shah's reign in Iran never wore the damn things! They would have been insulted at the very suggestion! Muslim women all over the world do not wear them, by the millions!

No, it's only the very same cultures that practice terrorism that created and now enforce the wearing of these identity-masking articles of clothing. This is much too black and white obvious to be mere coincidence!

Meanwhile, there is no denying that the ability to be masked in public is a danger to other citizens. The ability to clearly see other citizens that you interact with goes back centuries, if not thousands of years, in our mainstream culture.

Our governments' first priority is NOT the protection of religious rights of every minority immigrant culture! The first priority is to protect the majority of citizens that are already here! Anything else is secondary.

Not to say that minority religious rights should be ignored! The use of such extreme arguments is a red herring. Only in clear cases of a conflict posing risk should a custom be banned.

Clearly shown identity would be one of those cases.

We are under no obligation as a society to accommodate any and everyone's claim to a religious practice. If the idea has sprung from a too liberal interpretation of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms that's only because when the document was written the issue had never been seen before! Unforeseen circumstances should mean revising old documents, not continuing to abide by them in inappropriate circumstances that put the public at risk.

Some poster no doubt will type that we have only a few incidents of violence by terrorists hiding under a burkha. That's scant comfort to any victims, to consider their lives to be an acceptable price. I would sugggest that we execute a few of those who hold this view every year! If we satisfy the statistic then the rest of us should all be safe!

I think many of those who choose to make this a religious rights issue are just looking for something to champion to make themselves feel more "holy", seizing on a symbolic view of the issue and not bothering to think it all the way through.

[cybercoma]

What is there to think about here really? If it's required by law or something, then what really is there to think about? Don't like it, maybe Canada is not right for you then.

Possessing and growing pot is against the law, but you don't seem to think people should gtfo of the country for that. Do you? Edited December 13, 2011 by cybercoma

[g_bambino]

people are generally crappy at reading facial expression other than a smile or anger we have no clue what people are thinking from their facial expression..

I'm almost certain you must know that isn't true at all. Facial expressions are universally understood. They might not express a thesis on mollecular biology; but, that was never of relevance in this discussion.

we must because we pride our selves on tolerance and fairness...and because our laws say we must...

We are not bound by the law to accept everything without criticism. I don't advocate the Crown banning niqāb through legislation. But, I also don't think the public must be similarly forced to accept niqāb with false smiles and endless accomodations for the wearers.

[Guest Peeves]

all I can say is what an anus.

It is really sad people vote for jerks like this.

stay the hell out of culture and religion you totalitarian dumbo

http://www.vancouversun.com/life/Veils+banned+citizenship+ceremonies/5851094/story.html

the face viel has existed a long time why the change after 40+years?

such an anus

Until very recently most Arab/Muslim countries had very few wearing full face covering.

Women in Iran/Saudi Arabia/Syria/Iraq/ etc. were seldom seen with face covering.

In fact. Turkey had laws forbidding the burka or veil.

It was only after the Shah of Iran was deposed (1979) that extremists, fundamentalists, pressured the wearing of the veil.

Turkey and other Muslim countries have laws restricting the veil or face covering.

On the holy pilgrimage of Hajj the face covering is to be removed.

The commands of the religion, tells women to remove the niqaab from their faces during prayer and Hajj, but especially during prayer, when it is not permissible to cover the face at all except if there are non-mahram men present.

Now I suggest that since Muslims dictate the uncovering of the face on occasion or by location, (government offices), and since there is no religious requirement in Islam/Koran to cover the face, and since it is solely a custom followed by some in some places at some time, Canada should freely demand that masks not be worn if it is considered objectionable just as Muslims do.

As for you determination of the application of the term 'anus', I defer to your expertise in that area.

[sharkman]

Possessing and growing pot is against the law, but you don't seem to think people should gtfo of the country for that. Do you?

Are you talking about immigrants growing it?

[Guest Peeves]

Would I be allowed to wear a ski mask while walking in a mall during April?

Or into a bank?

Now I suggest that since Muslims dictate the uncovering of the face on occasion or by location, (Hajj or prayer), (government offices), and since there is no religious requirement in Islam/Koran to cover the face, and since it is solely a custom followed by some in some places at some time, Canada should freely demand that masks not be acceptable on occasions or in situ where it would be determined to be unacceptable. I.E. banks, driving tests, government offices or occasions as determined.

[cybercoma]

These practices are SUPPOSED to hide identities! There have been many incidents in the MSM of terrorists hiding behind veils and burkhas.

So now these women are terrorists because they cover their faces in the presence of men?

These customs only appear among the hard line, more primitive Islamic cultures. Women in Egypt today and during the Shah's reign in Iran never wore the damn things! They would have been insulted at the very suggestion! Muslim women all over the world do not wear them, by the millions!

So what? Some do. Some don't. It's not for you to decide who is right and who is wrong for a matter as ridiculous as the clothes someone chooses to wear.

No, it's only the very same cultures that practice terrorism that created and now enforce the wearing of these identity-masking articles of clothing. This is much too black and white obvious to be mere coincidence!

You keep bringing up terrorism. This is nothing more than fear-based nonsense. You're equating the two because you want to suggest that a woman wearing a veil is a threat to public safety and the security of our country. The men who flew jets into the WTC weren't wearing burqas. Palestinians that launch rockets into Israel do not require their women to wear veils. Hezbollah terrorists in Lebanon don't require their women to cover their faces. There is no connection, other than the one in your head. Moreover, there's cultural traditions from the middle east that we recognize and even find popular where women cover their faces:

Meanwhile, there is no denying that the ability to be masked in public is a danger to other citizens. The ability to clearly see other citizens that you interact with goes back centuries, if not thousands of years, in our mainstream culture.

There is denying it. The ability to wear a mask in public is necessary in the harsh Canadian winters, not to mention men that mask their faces with overgrown beards. In Asia many people wear surgical masks, some people here have picked up on this, to protect themselves from infectious diseases. It is not illegal to have your face covered in public. It is only illegal when it is done in the commission of a crime, which is another issue altogether. The facemask does not make someone a criminal. It does not mean someone will be a criminal. And it is not illegal.

Our governments' first priority is NOT the protection of religious rights of every minority immigrant culture! The first priority is to protect the majority of citizens that are already here! Anything else is secondary.

You're wrong. Our government's first priority, according to the Constitution that sets out what is legally valid, is to make reasonable accommodations for minority groups. Our government's first priority is to protect the disempowered from the tyranny of the majority. If you don't like that, then you can move to a country that oppresses Christianity as a religious minority and see how much you like your line of reasoning then.

Not to say that minority religious rights should be ignored! The use of such extreme arguments is a red herring. Only in clear cases of a conflict posing risk should a custom be banned.

Not a single poster, including you, has shown that the face veil poses an immediate risk to the public. So, by your own reaosning, it should not be banned and should be protected.

We are under no obligation as a society to accommodate any and everyone's claim to a religious practice.

Nope. We're not. We are under an obligation to make reasonable accommodations. No reasonable argument has been made that cannot be accommodate in some way. The argument that there's a public safety threat holds no water and the government didn't even bother going there. The only valid argument, so far, has been that they need to be identified. There are ways around forcing these women to expose themselves before men in a way that would make them feel uncomfortable that would be quite reasonable.

I would sugggest that we execute a few

If this is joke, then you're not funny. You think murder is a joke? If you want to be able to execute people, which is illegal in Canada, then might I suggest you take up residence in one of the following countries:

• Iran
  
• Pakistan
  
• Somalia
  
• Saudi Arabia
  
• Afghanistan
  
• Libya
  
• Sudan
  
• Iraq
  
• United States
  

I think many of those who choose to make this a religious rights issue are just looking for something to champion to make themselves feel more "holy", seizing on a symbolic view of the issue and not bothering to think it all the way through.

I don't think it's that at all. I think what you say here is a result of you feeling "unholy" or immoral about your own criticisms of those who are willing to defend reasonable accommodation.

[cybercoma]

Are you talking about immigrants growing it?

I'm talking about GostHacked having a total about-face when it comes to the Rule of Law theory of jurisprudence. He's using Rule of Law to say that women must uncover their faces when 1) this wasn't a law yesterday, and 2) he's completely against Rule of Law theory when it comes to smoking pot. In other words, he's being a hypocrite.

[Black Dog]

I would suggest that Minister take a look at his own backyard where women are treated as object rather than human beings, pressured into surgically altering their bodies to meet a beauty ideale our society forces upon them, forced to take jobs at lower wages than their male counterparts, abused in the home at a rate of 9:1 in proportion to men, and more. It's a total fabrication that women here are actually free from persecution. They're persecuted, but under the veil of equality.

But if you don't like one form of oppression, why would you like the other?

[cybercoma]

But if you don't like one form of oppression, why would you like the other?

I don't like that they wear the face veil. I don't like that anyone dictate to a woman what she should or shouldn't wear whether it's revealing clothing or a burqa.

[GostHacked]

Possessing and growing pot is against the law, but you don't seem to think people should gtfo of the country for that. Do you?

IF you are already a Canadian Citizen, then you are subject to the laws of the land. If you are trying to BE a citizen, there are two choices, take the veil off or risk not being a citizen of Canada. It's pretty simple here. Again, this is a thread about not to freakin much at all.