.

[cybercoma]

The biggest irony in all of this is that the government is asking people to "swear" an oath, which is a religious affirmation, but then wants to control how people taking the oath express their religiosity in that moment. They are never going to win that court challenge. You can't insist people take an oath, then tell them they can't observe their faith in that moment.

[Keepitsimple]

The biggest irony in all of this is that the government is asking people to "swear" an oath, which is a religious affirmation, but then wants to control how people taking the oath express their religiosity in that moment. They are never going to win that court challenge. You can't insist people take an oath, then tell them they can't observe their faith in that moment.

Spin it all you want.....almost 90% of Canadians disagree with you. That should tell you something.....but while you're entitled to your opinion - those 90% are also entitled to theirs.

[eyeball]

The vast, vast majority of Canadians think so. Why can't the small minority accept this overwhelming view with some grace?

Because it's stupid. Since when did stupidity, especially when it's wilful, call for graceful acceptance? Thankfully the Charter of Rights and Freedoms doesn't have to make any special allowances either and despite my usual disdain for incrementalism I have to say I'm thankful the Charter is so immutably resistant to change.

[cybercoma]

Spin it all you want.....almost 90% of Canadians disagree with you. That should tell you something.....but while you're entitled to your opinion - those 90% are also entitled to theirs.

First of all, I don't believe your 90% figure, but even if that were true, it doesn't matter what 90% of Canadians think in this situation. The reason charter rights exist is that the tyranny of the majority cannot oppress a minority's rights. And not once, ever, has anyone made a sound argument for why there should be a niqab ban.

[eyeball]

Spin it all you want.....almost 90% of Canadians disagree with you. That should tell you something.....but while you're entitled to your opinion - those 90% are also entitled to theirs.

Okay, but why can't they accept that the Charter does not entitle them or Harper to act on their opinion?

[Argus]

Restrictive != Higher

Explain logically, if you can how "restrictive" in terms of who you'd let in can be anything BUT higher standards.

[Argus]

The CPC has been pushing fake data that all the Muslim people who come to this country are men, so I guess the niqab issue is moot.

Cite?

[Keepitsimple]

Okay, but why can't they accept that the Charter does not entitle them or Harper to act on their opinion?

Because the Charter is a living, breathing set of aspirations - rights are not absolute. Our forefathers - and our updated Charter, could not then and will not in the future - be able to envision every circumstance that might be subject to interpretation. When the Charter came into effect, do you really think they would have thought covering one's face would be at issue when taking the oath? What position do you think the courts would have taken back in 1982? If different from today, would that make it right for today? As I said, "rights" are not absolute - Canadians intuitively understand this.

[BubberMiley]

Cite?

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/09/stretching-facts-on-syrian-refugees/

[Argus]

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/09/stretching-facts-on-syrian-refugees/

I meant cite that this is something the Conservatives are pushing.

[Michael Hardner]

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/09/stretching-facts-on-syrian-refugees/

Great cite - however it doesn't address the assertion that the CPC was pushing these numbers; the link addresses Republican candidate assertions only.

[eyeball]

Because the Charter is a living, breathing set of aspirations - rights are not absolute. Our forefathers - and our updated Charter, could not then and will not in the future - be able to envision every circumstance that might be subject to interpretation.

Isn't that why our forefathers created the SCC?

When the Charter came into effect, do you really think they would have thought covering one's face would be at issue when taking the oath? What position do you think the courts would have taken back in 1982? If different from today, would that make it right for today? As I said, "rights" are not absolute - Canadians intuitively understand this.

I think our forefathers would be asking themselves wtf. I think the courts would have taken the same position then as now and I don't think you really believe Canadians know as much as you're implying, especially as it pertains to the absoluteness of how our system works.

[BubberMiley]

Great cite - however it doesn't address the assertion that the CPC was pushing these numbers; the link addresses Republican candidate assertions only.

For starters, Peter Kent retweeted Ezra Levant's tweet about it (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/peter-kent-twitter-fake-isis-photo-1.3219625).

It's been a popular talking point among the CPC army. Just check the status updates on this forum.

[cybercoma]

Because the Charter is a living, breathing set of aspirations - rights are not absolute. Our forefathers - and our updated Charter, could not then and will not in the future - be able to envision every circumstance that might be subject to interpretation. When the Charter came into effect, do you really think they would have thought covering one's face would be at issue when taking the oath? What position do you think the courts would have taken back in 1982? If different from today, would that make it right for today? As I said, "rights" are not absolute - Canadians intuitively understand this.

the govt lost the cases not because of the charter but rather the citizenship act

[eyeball]

The govt will lose the appeal because of the Charter.

[cybercoma]

The govt will lose the appeal because of the Charter.

the govt will not get an appeal to the scc. They don't need a charter challenge. I predict theyll reject the appeal

[eyeball]

That would be even better.

[Keepitsimple]

the govt will not get an appeal to the scc. They don't need a charter challenge. I predict theyll reject the appeal

Doesn't make any difference - we're in an election cycle and when you're on the side of the vast, vast majority of Canadians - and the opposing parties are not - well, it makes sense to keep it alive as an issue.

[Triple M]

I've always felt the niqab was more cultural than religious. I was raised Muslim but i'm far from an expert but personally have felt it was a innovation . The pilgrimage is ongoing and I'm pretty certain that the niqab is not allowed.

I still disagree with how the government is going about this issue, a lot of people are still under the impression that these women aren't identified at all

[Icebound]

Doesn't make any difference - we're in an election cycle and when you're on the side of the vast, vast majority of Canadians - and the opposing parties are not - well, it makes sense to keep it alive as an issue.

The vast, vast majority of Canadians are uncomfortable in the presence of a biker wearing club regalia.

Why do I doubt that they are more uncomfortable in the presence of a Muslim woman with her face covered?

Which one is more apt to do them harm? Why don't we put THAT one at the top of our election issue list?

[Canada_First]

The vast, vast majority of Canadians are uncomfortable in the presence of a biker wearing club regalia.

Why do I doubt that they are more uncomfortable in the presence of a Muslim woman with her face covered?

Which one is more apt to do them harm? Why don't we put THAT one at the top of our election issue list?

Please. MC's want nothing to do with your society. They want to be left alone and don't harm the general public for no reason. If you're not involved in club politics then you have no reason to fear bike clubs. As I say they want nothing to do with straight life.

[Peter F]

oh man. Reading the actual decision is enlightening.

http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/108049/index.do

The issue was the Policy issued by the minister to the citizenship ceremony people. Particularly this part:

Then the government (respondent) argued that yah thats the policy but the ciitizenship judge doesn't have to adhere to that its just policy after-all.

[5] In summary, section 6.5 of the Manual [the Policy] provides that citizenship “[c]andidates wearing face coverings are required to remove their face coverings for the oath taking portion of the ceremony.” If they do not, they will not receive their citizenship certificates and will have to attend a different ceremony. If they again do not comply, then their application for citizenship will be ended.

"[31] The Respondent acknowledges that there is nothing in the Act or the Regulationswhich requires that one be “seen” taking the oath. However, the Policy is not, according to the Respondent, de facto legislation. The Minister has the prerogative to make such policies and no legislative authority is needed because the Policy is just that – a policy.”

[32] The Respondent says that, as a non-binding guideline, the Policy can only give rise to an expectation that it will be followed (Thamotharem at paragraph 66). It cannot fetter the discretion of citizenship judges, who are quasi-judicial decision-makers statutorily mandated to administer citizenship ceremonies. Indeed, the Respondent submits that the Policy is directed more to CIC staff and not really addressed to citizenship judges. According to the Respondent, it is impossible to tell whether a citizenship judge would have regard to it or consider him or herself bound by it."

and the governments argument is that a citizenship judge could very well allow the

woman to swear the citizenship oat without removing her niquab. Its just policy; guidelines for the staff at these ceremonies.

Then the Judge disagrees. The policy actually demands adherance.

[45] However, section 1 of the Manual states, amongst other things, that it is about: “the roles and protocols that different participants (citizenship judge, volunteer presiding officials, clerk of the ceremony, special guests, etc.) must respect during ceremonies” (emphasis added). Although section 2 of the Manual states that it is a “…guide…to help Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) staff plan and deliver citizenship ceremonies,”no such permissive language is employed in the operative sections of the Policy. On the contrary, at section 6.5.1, the Policy says that citizenship “candidates are required to remove their face coverings for the oath taking portion of the ceremony.” If they do not remove their face coverings, then section 6.5.2 dictates that “…the certificate is NOT to be presented”(emphasis in original). Such a candidate is given one last chance to take the oath at another citizenship ceremony, but “should that person again NOT be seen taking the oath, or fail to remove a full or partial face covering, the procedures outlined above for refusal are to be followed” (emphasis in original). The candidate would then be forced to reapply for citizenship and face the same Policy again or else abandon his or her quest for citizenship. A refusal to remove a face covering, therefore, precludes receipt of a citizenship certificate and will deny that person citizenship, even if the officials are confident that the person actually took the oath by hearing it recited.”

I shall emphasize the judges words "even if the officials are confident that the person actually took the oath by hearing it recited.”

The judge then ponders where this policy came from

[46] Furthermore, internal correspondence between CIC officials demonstrates an intention that removal of a face covering be mandatory at public citizenship ceremonies. For instance, in an e-mail dated November 8, 2011 (certain portions of which have been redacted), one CIC official wrote that:

In looking over the hand written comments from the Minister, it is pretty clear that he would like the changes to the procedure to ‘require’ citizenship candidates to show their face and that these changes be made as soon as possible. … My interpretation is that the Minister would like this done, regardless of whether there is a legislative base and that he will use his prerogative to make policy change.

[47] Similarly, in response to some queries about potential accommodations, another CIC official wrote in an email dated December 13, 2011, that:

Under the new directive [Operational Bulletin 359] …all candidates for citizenship must be seen taking the oath of citizenship at a citizenship ceremony. For candidates wearing full or partial face coverings, face coverings must be removed at the oath taking portion of the ceremony in order for CIC officials and the presiding official (Citizenship Judge) to ensure that the candidate has in fact taken the Oath of Citizenship. Under this new directive there are no options for private oath taking or oath taking with a female official as all candidates for citizenship are to repeat the oath together with the presiding official. [Emphasis added]

[48] During an interview with CBC Radio on December 13, 2011, a Toronto-area citizenship judge took a different view and suggested that: “If [veiled women] don’t take the face covering off, there is an opportunity for them to come in front of the judge again after the ceremony and take the oath. … [T]hey don’t have to remove the veil right there in front of all these people.” Subsequent email correspondence between CIC media officials indicated that these comments by this citizenship judge were “problematic” as they “contradict our lines.”

[49] Indeed, the intention that it be mandatory for people to remove face coverings is also evident in public statements about the new directive when it was introduced. The Minister at the time said during an interview with the CBC on December 12, 2011, that the Policy was adopted after one of his colleagues told him about a citizenship ceremony where four women had been wearing niqabs. The Minister stated in this interview that taking the citizenship oath “is a public act of testimony in front of your fellow citizens, it’s a legal requirement, and it’s ridiculous that you should be doing so with your face covered”; and also that: “[y]ou’re standing up in front of your fellow citizens making a solemn commitment to respect Canada’s laws, to be loyal to the country, and I just think it’s not possible to do that with your face covered.”

Then he considers what the actual legislation says coming to the conclusion

[59] Although the Policy does not directly contradict these provisions of the Regulations, the requirement imposed by the Policy that a candidate for citizenship be seen taking the oath does appear to be superfluous.

[60] Subsection 19(1) of the Regulations requires that a candidate take the oath of citizenship “by swearing or solemnly affirming it before a citizenship judge”; it does not require that there be visual confirmation that the oath was said aloud. This is confirmed by the following testimony during cross-examination of the Respondent’s representative, Ms Cronier-Gabel, who is the Assistant Director of Citizenship Program Delivery at CIC:

Q. But there wasn’t a specific provision about witnessing the oath being taken and seeing people take the oath.

That was added in in December of 2011; is that correct?

A. That’s right.

Q. Right. So the difference was that prior to December 2011 the requirement was the judge be satisfied that

people had taken the oath and in December 2011 the policy was changed to require the judge to witness the

person taking the oath as opposed to hear the person taking the oath, for example.

A. That’s right.

Q. …And you don’t know of any legislative authority for that requirement; is that correct?

A. That’s correct.

Q. …since that time, according to this policy, if a person is not seen taking the oath by some official, their certificate

can be removed…from the pile; is that correct?

A. That’s correct. [Emphasis added]

[61] Indeed, as noted above, any requirement that a candidate for citizenship actually be seen taking the oath would make it impossible not just for a niqab-wearing woman to obtain citizenship, but also for a mute person or a silent monk.

And here is the point Cybercoma has brought up a couple of times:

[62] Section 21 of the Regulations requires that candidates sign a certificate in prescribed form certifying that the person has taken the oath or affirmation of citizenship. That form contains the exact same language as set forth in the schedule to the Act. According to section 16.13 of the Manual, after candidates have taken the oath or affirmation of citizenship in the formal part of the ceremony as contemplated by section 16.7 of the Manual, and received their certificates of citizenship as contemplated by section 16.8, “they go to the certificate table to sign the Oath of Citizenship form… [and] then return to their seats.”

I agree with the Applicant that it is the candidate’s signature beneath this written oath or affirmation of citizenship form, rather than a visual confirmation of the candidate saying the oath, that is the only proof needed that a candidate has sworn or affirmed the oath of citizenship that is required by section 24 of the Act.

and finally the actual conclusion. Take note that the judge doesn’t refer to the woman charter rights here in any way whatsoever.

VI. Conclusion

[68] For the reasons stated above, the Applicant’s application is allowed. To the extent that the Policy interferes with a citizenship judge’s duty to allow candidates for citizenship the greatest possible freedom in the religious solemnization or the solemn affirmation of the oath, it is unlawful.

[69] Accordingly, this Court hereby declares that: Sections 6.5.1 to 6.5.3 of the Policy, as well as the second paragraph of section 13.2 of the Manual and the reference to “those wearing a full or partial face covering that now is the time to remove it” in section 16.7 of the Manual, are unlawful.

THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that:

1. The application for judicial review is granted and allowed;

2. The portions of the Policy and Manual that require citizenship candidates to remove face coverings or be observed taking the oath are unlawful. Specifically, sections 6.5.1 to 6.5.3 of the Policy, as well as the second paragraph of section 13.2 of the Manual and the reference to “those wearing a full or partial face covering that now is the time to remove it” in section 16.7 of the Manual, are unlawful; and,

3. The Applicant shall have her costs of this application fixed in the amount of $2,500.00.

Just to sum up: The judge determined that this was not a charter issue; The policy did not adhere to the Legislation and so the Policy is unlawful.

The government went through a whole bunch of internal policy writing rigamoral to come up with a policy and directions to the functionaries so's that things could be the way that they honestly believe things should be.

But! But they wouldn't go through any trouble to change the legislation! We don't need no stinking parliamentary debates or votes we just change policy and bobs-yer-uncle.

and they do this over and over again, then sob about bleeding-heart liberals ignoring the will of the people.

and that is why I would never vote for these clowns

Edited September 19, 2015 by Peter F

[Icebound]

They ..... don't harm the general public for no reason. ...... you have no reason to fear bike clubs.

.... and neither is there any reason to fear the face-covered Muslim woman....

[Canada_First]

.... and neither is there any reason to fear the face-covered Muslim woman....

Who is afraid? I simply don't think it's Canadian. I don't like it. It doesnt speak for an open and inclysive society. A niqab puts up walls where none need exist. Thats all. Thats my opinion. I'm entitled to it.

[Icebound]

Orthodox Muslims consider oaths made to unbelievers to be without value and unenforceable.

So what? Orthodox Jews won't sit with women on airplanes.

Now..... if it came to legalities, would the government of Canada deem an Oath by a Muslim valid and binding and force compliance? I'm betting it will.

Oh.... and would it force an Orthodox Jew to sit with a woman on an airplane?