Face veils banned for citizenship oaths

cybercoma · December 19, 2011

1) Religious expression

2) Public humiliation

Both of these are refuted by the articles written by Farzana Hassan, a Muslim Canadian woman (if you bothered to read them). I would venture to say that she is an expert on these matters.

There is no central governing authority in Islam as there is in Catholicism with the Vatican. The beliefs of two Muslim Canadian women is irrelevant to the matter. It's about personal choice. For some it is religious and for others it isn't. For those that it is not important to, the point is moot. They wouldn't be offended by removing the veil or they wouldn't be wearing it to begin with.

This brings me to the second point of public humiliation. You don't get to define for someone what humiliates them. If they were raised all their life to cover themselves in a particular way in public, it's not up to you to demand that they undress themselves in public to your satisfaction before they can become citizens.

3) Reasonable accommodation

I don't think this applies at all. It is a necessity to properly ID people at times. Asking for this is not unreasonable.

It absolutely applies. The people swearing the citizenship oath have to confirm their ID before they even walk into the ceremony. Those making this about IDing the individuals are swinging at strawmen because no one has argued that they shouldn't be identified. The ruling stated that they need their faces visible to ensure that they're saying the oath. However, there's typically so many people in the room that it's impossible to tell in 8 seconds that all of the new citizens are reciting it anyway. Regardless, they agree to the oath when they get their citizenship and sign all of their papers, so the argument that they must be seen saying the oath or its invalid is moot.

4) Muslim men are oppressive for dictating how their wives should dress. This law dicates how a Muslim woman should dress. Therefore, this law is oppressive.

No, nothing dictates how a woman should dress. This is pure hyperbole on your part.

It dictates that a woman is not allowed to wear the clothes that she is comfortable in while saying the oath of citizenship. People in this thread have used the language, "that's not how we dress here" or "Muslim men shouldn't be able to force them to dress in a particular way" for instance. This rule just has the state force them to dress in a way that it deems more culturally appropriate or less oppressive. So yes... it very much dictates how a woman should dress.

5) Threatens abused women by isolating them due to the threat of deportation

You are not automatically deported if you are not a Canadian citizen. Where do you get this stuff from?

There will absolutely be a hassle with immigration if a family doesn't have its citizenship and the husband is charge with a crime. Who are you kidding?

6) Threatens abused women by making them think twice about coming to Canada where they have a better opportunity to be protected

Yes, they do have better protections in Canada. Women are not dressed this way by choice, for the most part. Having to be properly identified will not do much to prevent abuse, but it does put Canadian values above the mysoginistic values that have them dressing this way. A small, but positive, step.

Again, it's not about identification, as they would have already had to do that to apply for citizenship, write the test, and enter the court room. Again, you don't want them dressing that way because it's impressive, which means you would have them dress a different way. I agree that the dress is oppressive, but I can also acknowledge that telling them they're not allowed to show their face in public and telling them they're not allowed to not show their face in public is still telling women what they're not allowed to do. It's still setting boundaries for women and forcing choices upon them, rather than empowering them to make the choice for themselves.

cybercoma · December 19, 2011

What you don't understand is that face-to-face communication is not a "Western" practise, it's an integral part of humanity.

This is the best part about this whole post. The oath is not face-to-face communication. It's a room full of people reciting a passage which takes about 8 seconds to say. It's not an interrogation or a conversation. There is nothing to read by a person's face in this instance. Even if they don't actually say the passage, they're rolling their eyes while they do it, whatever... they would have had to already fill out the application, pass the citizenship test, and accepting their citizenship legally binds them to the oath anyway. This sort of face-to-face communication where you need to see them beneath their veils is wholly unnecessary.

cybercoma · December 19, 2011

Some times small things are big things. In this case, it might be a very big thing to a woman who is normally forced to stay under cover to be able to start her life as a citizen of Canada out in the open.

Nothing is stopping her from taking the veil off. Those who choose to do so are free to and it would be great if they did.

g_bambino · December 19, 2011

Thats why the law as it stands is not going to survive a court challenge.

That depends on the wording of the policy. (Is it a law? If it is, it can't be more than an Order-in-Council. Legislation wasn't passed in parliament.) If it has been written only to say people must recite the oath with their face visible, a woman who wears a niqāb can recite the oath in the company or within sight of only a female registrar, a citizenship judge, citizenship officer, commissioner for taking oaths, notary public, or justice of the peace. There's nothing in the Citizenship Regulations requiring the oath to be taken amongst a group of other oath takers.

[ed.: +]

Edited December 19, 2011 by g_bambino

cybercoma · December 19, 2011

I have to agree with Bob

This stuff about "humiliation" and "distress" is a red herring. It was made up by Cybercoma.

Sure it is. Those who wouldn't be humiliated or distressed by taking off the veil would do it anyway. The only reason someone wouldn't is that they would feel humiliated by doing so.

The_Squid · December 19, 2011

You don't get to define for someone what humiliates them.

The irionic part is that neither do they!! They are the property of their husbands. This is not a cultural practice that we should be encouraging in any manner.

It dictates that a woman is not allowed to wear the clothes that she is comfortable in...

No it does not. It dictates that she must show her face, which is a common practice here in the West. If you want to be a citizen, there are certain customs, practices and/or norms that one will have to adhere to.

Women are equal to men. This isn't negotiable.

Masks are not a cultural norm here, nor are they in the Muslim world!!

The Muslim Canadian Congress (MCC) is asking Ottawa to introduce legislation to ban the wearing of masks, niqabs and the burka in all public dealings..
In a statement, the MCC said, not only is the wearing of a face-mask a security hazard and has led to a number of bank heists in Canada and overseas, the burka or niqab are political symbols of Saudi inspired Islamic extremism.

The MCC dismissed the argument that wearing of a face-mask by Muslim women is protected by the Charter's guarantee of religious freedom. The MCC said, there is no requirement in the Quran for Muslim women to cover their faces. Invoking religious freedom to conceal one's identity and promote a political ideology, is disingenuous.

The MCC pointed to the the recent decision by Egypt's highest Muslim authority, Sheikh Mohamed Tantawi, dean of al-Azhar university, who said he will issue a Fatwa (religious edict) against the niqab and burka.

http://www.muslimcanadiancongress.org/

cybercoma · December 19, 2011

That depends on the wording of the policy. (Is it a law? If it is, it can't be more than an Order-in-Council. Legislation wasn't passed in parliament.) If it has been written only to say people must recite the oath with their face visible, a woman who wears a niqāb can recite the oath in the company of a female registrar, a citizenship judge, citizenship officer, commissioner for taking oaths, notary public, or justice of the peace. There's nothing in the Citizenship Regulations requiring the oath to be taken amongst a group of other oath takers.

Is the opportunity presented to them? Everyone that I've known who has gotten their citizenship writes their tests, waits for the results, then is told to show up at the court on a certain day and time for the swearing in ceremony. I'm sure the judges aren't going out of their way to make personal appointments for people.

December 19, 2011

American Woman, on 19 December 2011 - 06:03 PM, said: Some times small things are big things. In this case, it might be a very big thing to a woman who is normally forced to stay under cover to be able to start her life as a citizen of Canada out in the open.
Nothing is stopping her from taking the veil off. Those who choose to do so are free to and it would be great if they did.

What?? Did you READ my post?

...it might be a very big thing to a woman

who is normally forced

to stay under cover to be able to start her life as a citizen of Canada out in the open.

What do you mean "nothing" is stopping her from taking the veil off?? - Where have you been when we've been discussing women who are FORCED to wear the veil by the men in their lives - under threat of violence and abuse?

And yeah, it would be great if they all could.

The_Squid · December 19, 2011

Sure it is. Those who wouldn't be humiliated or distressed by taking off the veil would do it anyway. The only reason someone wouldn't is that they would feel humiliated by doing so.

You don't think that their husband would demand that they don't do so? They are "free" are they? Hardly... :rolleyes:

Bob · December 19, 2011

Sure it is. Those who wouldn't be humiliated or distressed by taking off the veil would do it anyway. The only reason someone wouldn't is that they would feel humiliated by doing so.

Since all religiously-mandated behaviour is rooted in "humiliation" and "distress", right? Not much of a religious scholar, are you?

Anyone remember the movie Donnie Darko, where Patrick Swayze's character (Jim Cuningham) is this snake oil salesperson who markets a sort of emotional/mental health training program to schools to present to their students? This is exactly what cybercoma is coming across as at this moment with this constant harping on about this imaginary "humiliation" and "distress" that would certainly be experienced by Islamist women required to show their faces in any circumstance. As The_Squid realizes, this is entirely pulled out of cybercoma's you-know-what.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6A0GdR2LlKo

Edited December 19, 2011 by Bob

g_bambino · December 19, 2011

Is the opportunity presented to them?

I don't know. A more pertinent question, though, would be: Can they seek it out?

cybercoma · December 19, 2011

The irionic part is that neither do they!! They are the property of their husbands. This is not a cultural practice that we should be encouraging in any manner.

Nobody said anything about encouraging it. The argument is between empowering women to make their own choice to take off the veil when they're good and ready or passing legislation to make them criminals for being oppressed by their patriarchal upbringing.

No it does not. It dictates that she must show her face, which is a common practice here in the West. If you want to be a citizen, there are certain customs, practices and/or norms that one will have to adhere to.

Great philosophy. I bet they say the same thing in all the oppressive societies you think you're fighting against.

Women are equal to men. This isn't negotiable.

Masks are not a cultural norm here, nor are they in the Muslim world!!

The Muslim Canadian Congress doesn't speak for Muslims at all. Their entire board quit in 2006 over it becoming an apologist for anti-Muslim propaganda. Moreover, it has already been pointed out to you that there is no central governing authority in Islam, so they certainly cannot say what is and is not a religious requirement for any given individual Islamic woman.

cybercoma · December 19, 2011

You don't think that their husband would demand that they don't do so? They are "free" are they? Hardly...

You're replacing their husband with the state. No one should be requiring a woman to dress in any way that she doesn't want to.

cybercoma · December 19, 2011

Since all religiously-mandated behaviour is rooted in "humiliation" and "distress", right? Not much of a religious scholar, are you?

Anyone remember the movie Donnie Darko, where Patrick Swayze's character (Jim Cuningham) is this snake oil salesperson who markets a sort of emotional/mental health training program to schools to present to their students? This is exactly what cybercoma is coming across as at this moment with this constant harping on about this imaginary "humiliation" and "distress" that would certainly be experienced by Islamist women required to show their faces in any circumstance. As The_Squid realizes, this is entirely pulled out of cybercoma's you-know-what.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6A0GdR2LlKo

Here's Bob with the ad hominem logic again.

The_Squid · December 19, 2011

Not sure what column you're referring to, but, Canadian law doesn't care if a religious practice is officially mandated or not. It's where the individual believes it to be so that counts.

The articles by Farzana Hassan

A Muslim Canadian woman, her perspective is one that demands some serious thought and not just to be dismissed. Author and past leader of the Cdn Muslim Congress.

By far, it remains the most pernicious symbol of female subjugation, as many believe the niqab greatly stigmatizes and marginalizes women in society.

That perception is hardly mistaken. Despite pronouncements by niqab-clad women to the contrary, the niqab is just that – a means of control over women’s bodies, movements and activities.

-----------

Islam does not require a woman to cover her face – that the niqab must be worn is a minority view held by a segment of the community whose values remain diametrically opposed to Canadian values.

http://www.theglobea...article1603937/

Bob · December 19, 2011

It dictates that she must show her face, which is a common practice here in the West.

Showing one's face is a human practise that has been an integral part of human communication across the globe since the origin of humanity. Don't follow cybercome's lies that this is some Western phenomenon. The vast majority of Muslim-majority societies also do no subscribe to this perverted and misogynistic practise. Cybercoma needs an "at-risk" or "vulnerable" minority in order to fulfil her racist/prejudicial need to patronize. As a committed leftist, she needs such groups in order to chase the phantom of oppression and persecution, much like Don Quixote and his windmills.

The_Squid · December 19, 2011

Nobody said anything about encouraging it. The argument is between empowering women to make their own choice to take off the veil when they're good and ready or passing legislation to make them criminals for being oppressed by their patriarchal upbringing.

More hyperbole. Criminal charges? What? There is no end as to what you will make up to try and make your point!

Great philosophy. I bet they say the same thing in all the oppressive societies you think you're fighting against.

So new Canadian citizens aren't required to conform to any norms or cultrual practices here? Is that your contention?

The Muslim Canadian Congress doesn't speak for Muslims at all. Their entire board quit in 2006 over it becoming an apologist for anti-Muslim propaganda. Moreover, it has already been pointed out to you that there is no central governing authority in Islam, so they certainly cannot say what is and is not a religious requirement for any given individual Islamic woman.

They certainly speak for more Muslims than you do.... It's an easy escape route to trying to debate... outright dismissal of someone else's opposing viewpoint. It doesn't make you right nor does it even adequately refute an argument.

The MCC seems pretty legit to me!! You can't just dismiss them because you don't agree with their view.... nice try though...

http://www.muslimcanadiancongress.org/mission.html

Bob · December 19, 2011

The Squid - It is not the business of the government to engage is Islamic theological scholarship to determine was is or isn't "legitimate" "Islamic law". Appeals to Muslim organizations that contest the religious requirement for a women to cover her face in public as support for banning face-coverings in certain circumstances is a non-sequitur, as the new rule applies to all men and women for obvious reasons. I really don't expect Jason Kenney or his ministry to be experts on Islamic exegesis, moreover, it's irrelevant.

Hopefully Canada will eventually make moves towards banning face covering in more and more circumstances. As an aside, I has a ridiculous conversation with a typical idiot Canadian leftist a few months back, where I asked him what the limit would be for him with respect to the proportion of his local female population in Ottawa dressing up in burqas and niqabs. I asked him, 5%? 10%? 50%? 100%? How much are you willing to tolerate? Well, predictably, as a devout idiot leftist committed to committing Canadian cultural suicide, he told me he'd be perfectly comfortable living in an Ottawa (and later he extended this to the entirety of Canada) where all women dressed in such a way - essentially being perfectly comfortable with an Islamist Canada.

I guarantee you will get the same predictably stupid answers from the leftists in this thread: cybercoma, eyeball, dre, and Black Dog. Ask them what the upper threshold is that they're willing to tolerate with respect to the proportion of Canadian women dressing in burqas and niqabs, and they'll give you the same politically correct answer: 100%.

dre · December 19, 2011

The MCC seems pretty legit to me!! You can't just dismiss them because you don't agree with their view.... nice try though...

I dont dismiss them... theyre free to have an opinion just like everyone else. The government however is not allowed to legislate those kinds of opinions even if they are held by the majority, and thats a good thing.

I just did a bunch of searching online for what kind of government laws there that talk about dress. There are very few, and almost all them are predicated on obsenity. I cannot find a single piece of clothing thats currently prohibited in either Canada, the US, or the UK.

And THAT is what sets us apart from Islamic countries. The charter makes it literally impossible for the government to ever implement any kind of blanket ban, and for damn good reason. Muslims are just the flavor of the month. Throughout history theres been all kinds of other peculiar customs that the majority would have gladly banned.

They certainly speak for more Muslims than you do

Nobody speaks for muslim individuals in Canada. Each of them has their own voice, and their own choice.

Edited December 19, 2011 by dre

dre · December 19, 2011

BTW... I read that theres 300 women in the entire nation that wear these things. So in terms of womens rights its a bit of a red herring.

SEVENTY THOUSAND women flee their homes each year and spent time in one of the 600+ sheltered for battered and abused women.

The_Squid · December 19, 2011

I dont dismiss them... theyre free to have an opinion just like everyone else. The government however is not allowed to legislate those kinds of opinions even if they are held by the majority, and thats a good thing.

I just did a bunch of searching online for what kind of government laws there that talk about dress. There are very few, and almost all them are predicated on obsenity. I cannot find a single piece of clothing thats currently prohibited in either Canada, the US, or the UK.

And THAT is what sets us apart from Islamic countries. The charter makes it literally impossible for the government to ever implement any kind of blanket ban, and for damn good reason. Muslims are just the flavor of the month. Throughout history theres been all kinds of other peculiar customs that the majority would have gladly banned.

Nobody speaks for muslim individuals in Canada. Each of them has their own voice, and their own choice.

The government is not banning any forms of dress.

Just like you r I can walk around in a ski mask, there are times when a masked individual MUST show their face for a brief period for various purposes, including swearing the Oath of CItizenship.

The gov't is NOT banning any forms of dress whatsoever. Your contention that this is so is hyperbole.

Michael Hardner · December 19, 2011

BD ... Would you care to edit yourself ?

It's not clever to post these things, and it doesn't add anything else good to the discussion.

dre · December 20, 2011

The government is not banning any forms of dress.

Just like you r I can walk around in a ski mask, there are times when a masked individual MUST show their face for a brief period for various purposes, including swearing the Oath of CItizenship.

The gov't is NOT banning any forms of dress whatsoever. Your contention that this is so is hyperbole.

I already conceded that. The problem is theres scope creep in the thread. A bunch of people are talking about a blank ban on this kind of dress, so I responded to that.

I absolutely agree with you, but posters in the thread have refused to stay on topic. Most of the thread now is no longer about the 10 second, one sentence oath, and has morphed into a bunch of unrelated crap about bans, etc.

If the government can prove to the courts that "reasonable accomodation" is not possible, this law might stand. My guess though is that the very most the government would be allowed to do is force the lifting of the veil for a brief second for ID purposes.

guyser · December 20, 2011

If the government can prove to the courts that "reasonable accomodation" is not possible, this law might stand. My guess though is that the very most the government would be allowed to do is force the lifting of the veil for a brief second for ID purposes.

...or compare the signatures on the apps, the test and or anything else they may have signed for with the govt.

Black Dog · December 20, 2011

The articles by Farzana Hassan

A Muslim Canadian woman, her perspective is one that demands some serious thought and not just to be dismissed. Author and past leader of the Cdn Muslim Congress.

Islam does not require a woman to cover her face – that the niqab must be worn is a minority view held by a segment of the community whose values remain diametrically opposed to Canadian values.

http://www.theglobea...article1603937/

Again, it's clear Hassan has never heard of Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem. It's completely irrelevant whether or not facial coverages are mandated by Islam (and given the lack of a central authority that's up for debate). What matters is if it is a sincere expression of religious belief on the part of the wearer. The debate is an interesting one I'm sure, but irrelevant to this discussion.