.

[TimG]

So it's a ritual that cannot, even with an exposed face, actual provide evidence of sincerity.

You are being deliberately obtuse. It is nothing but a ritual that could be skipped. But if it is to be done it should be done properly.

There's no actual factual evidence for your claim that a citizenship oath is compromised by a covered face. In fact, it's obvious that it wasn't an issue because the law itself makes no provision for it.

WTF are talking about? It was not written down because no one imagined that someone would insist on covering their face when the laws were written. Do you have any comprehension of a what a public oath is and why it is done? Sounds like you think it is a joke. Edited October 14, 2015 by TimG

[dialamah]

BTW, dialmah, I have yet to insult you or your intelligence while making my points. If you make your argument personal one more time I will no longer respond to you.

You are right, and I apologize.

And as for your citation, good enough for me. Still, it seems that the law is based on 'indecency', so that in some cases being nude is 'indecent' and in other cases, it is not. Thus, nude beaches and nudist communities can exist without running afoul of the law.

And what the hell, I will concede that freedom is not absolute. We aren't allowed to punch people at will, or drink and drive, nor even ride in a vehicle without a seatbelt. However, these kinds of laws are created for the "public good" - and they don't infringe on anyone's religious freedoms.

Banning the wearing of the niqab serves no public good that I can see, and it does infringe on someone's personal religious freedoms.

[ToadBrother]

You are being deliberately obtuse. It is nothing but a ritual that could be skipped. But if it is to be done it should be done properly.

WTF are talking about? It was not written down because no one imagined that someone would insist on covering their face when the laws were written. Do you have any comprehension of a what a public oath is and why it is done? Sounds like you think it is a joke.

And now we're to the nub.

There is a core principal of the Common Law, which goes something like "that which is not forbidden is allowed." This is, in fact, a cornerstone principal of our constitutional system of government.

If the government feels that face coverings at citizenship oaths is so hideous that it requires a ban, then it is the onus of the government to submit such a bill to Parliament. The government is not a dictatorship, where Cabinet, at a whim, can decide to insert provisions that Parliament has not agreed to. It can't defend imposing new conditions not empowered by legislation simply because someone forget to mention it in the statute.

Apart from whether we allow niqabs in citizenship ceremonies or at large is one issue, but the justification you use runs counter to the very nature of how we are governed. Government has no right to simply invent extra-legal provisions or rules unless statute states clearly that the Government has that power.

Let me repeat this for you, Tim, because it is the single most important thing you will read on this debate:

That which is not forbidden is allowed.

[cybercoma]

Except no one is talking about banning them. What we are talking about is whether we should be discarding the long established understanding that people are expected to show their face when swearing an oath before a judge. The nature of the niqab means it is not something that we should be expected to accommodate in these circumstances.

But she did remove the veil when she swore the oath before the judge. How do you respond to that?

[ToadBrother]

But she did remove the veil when she swore the oath before the judge. How do you respond to that?

I would still like to explore the magical properties that citizenship oath's apparently possess, and how it is that a covered mouth could compromise that incantation. Obviously the niqab represents some vast breach which can compromise the oath (I don't know, perhaps they're afraid the woman isn't speaking and someone is playing a tape recorder), so I want to fully understand it. I simply had no idea that the ceremonial oath was so critical.

[TimG]

There is a core principal of the Common Law, which goes something like "that which is not forbidden is allowed." This is, in fact, a cornerstone principal of our constitutional system of government.

What is your point? There are many things that were not explicitly prohibited by rules and/or regulations because no one expects reasonable requirements to be challenged. If/when long standing expectations are challenged then the rules need to be explicitly clarified. This is what is happening. Your argument is largely moot.

[ToadBrother]

What is your point? There are many things that were not explicitly prohibited by rules and/or regulations because no one expects reasonable requirements to be challenged. If/when long standing expectations are challenged then the rules need to be explicitly clarified. This is what is happening. Your argument is largely moot.

My point is that wearing a niqab at a citizenship ceremony is legal, because it's not been deemed illegal, and no amount of jumping up and down and huffing and puffing will change that. If there are other government departs imposing their own rules where Parliament has not authorized them to do so, those rules will be at risk as well.

I will repeat, Tim, just so you fully understand why Immigration was in the wrong. That which is not forbidden is allowed.

[TimG]

But she did remove the veil when she swore the oath before the judge. How do you respond to that?

What are you talking about? Paperwork is signed and identity is verified separately from the ceremony. That is why the public ceremony is only ritual but it is still a ritual oath and hiding one's face during an oath swearing turns the ceremony into a joke. If someone insists on doing so they should be told to skip the ritual (i.e. it should not be a requirement of getting citizenship).

[ToadBrother]

What are you talking about? Paperwork is signed and identity is verified separately from the ceremony. That is why the public ceremony is only ritual but it is still a ritual oath and hiding one's face during an oath swearing turns the ceremony into a joke. If someone insists on doing so they should be told to skip the ritual (i.e. it should not be a requirement of getting citizenship).

So we're back to citizenship ceremonies having magic properties, are we?

[TimG]

My point is that wearing a niqab at a citizenship ceremony is legal

A completely irrelevant argument. My point is a public oath done with a covered face is a joke. We are debating what the law should be. Edited October 14, 2015 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

A completely irrelevant argument. My point is a public oath done with a covered face is a joke. We are debating what the law should be.

What makes it a joke? I made a oath of support for a political party the other day by marking an X on a piece of paper and I was provided a place to hide while I did it.

[ToadBrother]

A completely irrelevant argument. My point is a public oath done with a covered face is a joke. Legalities are what is being debated.

It isn't irrelevant, as the Court's rejection of the Government's case demonstrates.

If you think that the magical properties of the citizenship ceremony are compromised by a face veil, then Parliament needs to either directly reference that in legislation, or amend legislation to give the Government wider latitude. Until the government forbids veils at a citizen ceremonies, they are allowed. Now, let's get back to your odd belief in the magic of oaths to compel truth.

[TimG]

If you think that the magical properties of the citizenship ceremony are compromised by a face veil

It is not a 'magical property' - a visible face is a basic element of human communication. Without a visible face communication is impaired.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/oath-to-the-queen-upheld-by-ontario-court-of-appeal-1.2735431

The court is also said this about the oath:

"The purpose of the oath is not to compel expression," wrote Justice Karen Weiler. "But to obtain a commitment to our form of government from those writing to become Canadian citizens. If there is a violation of the appellants' rights to freedom of expression, it is justified."

So the court has already ruled that charter rights are not a blanket exemption to the rules of tradition. Edited October 14, 2015 by TimG

[dre]

It's misogynist cultural dogma with no actual basis in religion so the charter's freedom of religion shouldn't even apply.

Thats not going to go anywhere. Religious customs and symbology are often not direct edicts from religious texts. All thats required for religious expression to be protected by the charter is that its somewhat common, and that person is motivated by religion. The courts are not going to get into a fact finding mission and start pouring over islamic texts or hearing from Islamic scholars.

We don't accept consensual sex between an underage person because we believe they lack to capacity to make an informed decision. I really don't see the difference with religion as it shrouds the capacity to make informed decisions.

Underage people dont have the legal capacity to give consent. Thats the difference. Woman DO. Its a free country and they can even choose to do things that are stupid or self destructive.

Edited October 14, 2015 by dre

[ToadBrother]

It is not a 'magical property' - a visible face is a basic element of human communication. Without a visible face communication is impaired.

I can talk to someone whose face I can't see. In fact, I do it several times a week over this fantastical device called a telephone.

In fact, I can even enter contracts without being in the same room with the other parties via mail, faxes, and nowadays, even scanned documents sent via email.

So clearly, even this point is sheer unmitigated rubbish. People have been communicating via means that did not allow for the face to be seen for thousands of years.

[ReeferMadness]

A completely irrelevant argument. My point is a public oath done with a covered face is a joke. We are debating what the law should be.

You seem to be debating what you'd like the law to be; only you have no rational argument for it.

What is the purpose of the law (ie what good will it do us) and how will we measure its success?

[ReeferMadness]

Tell me one way you are harmed by a nude person?

eta - that was for Toadbrother.

Sounds like a reason to make nudity legal - not to have another unnecessary restriction.

[BC_chick]

Underage people dont have the legal capacity to give consent. Thats the difference. Woman DO. Its a free country and they can even choose to do things that are stupid or self destructive.

I realise the difference, dre, I was pointing out that similarity. My point is that religious upbringing is a form of brainwashing which stunts a person's ability to reason.

[ReeferMadness]

It may not be individually oppressive, but it's definitely culturally oppressive. A Canadian woman in a niqab is going to have a heck of a time making friends, getting a job, driving, or sitting on a park bench to enjoy her lunch. Just because she's been brainwashed to believe it's good for her, it doens't make the custom ok.

And because it's not OK is not a reason to make it illegal. Drinking myself into a stupor is not OK. But I wouldn't support making it illegal.

The law isn't a tool to make the universe perfect - nor should it be. It's a blunt instrument to prevent us from hurting each other. And a lot of the time it doesn't even do a great job of that.

[BC_chick]

Sounds like a reason to make nudity legal - not to have another unnecessary restriction.

Well, I'd definitely rather see naked people than women who can't even drink a cup of coffee in public because she's been brainwashed to think that anything bad that a man does to her is her own fault for not covering up.

But hey, who am I make that call? I'm just pointing out the limits of freedom since that's the biggest case for the niqab.

[TimG]

I can talk to someone whose face I can't see. In fact, I do it several times a week over this fantastical device called a telephone.

So why do people need to be physically present at the citizenship ceremony? According to you that is an unnecessary requirement and the should be able to email their oath.

[ReeferMadness]

I realise the difference, dre, I was pointing out that similarity. My point is that religious upbringing is a form of brainwashing which stunts a person's ability to reason.

That's why my ability to reason is so stunted!

[ToadBrother]

Well, I'd definitely rather see naked people than women who can't even drink a cup of coffee in public because she's been brainwashed to think that anything bad that a man does to her is her own fault for not covering up.

But hey, who am I make that call? I'm just pointing out the limits of freedom since that's the biggest case for the niqab.

But you haven't demonstrated why the Niqab needs to be restricted, beyond what really comes down to a mumbo jumbo argument about the specialness of an oath that would be compromised.

[BC_chick]

And because it's not OK is not a reason to make it illegal. Drinking myself into a stupor is not OK. But I wouldn't support making it illegal.

The law isn't a tool to make the universe perfect - nor should it be. It's a blunt instrument to prevent us from hurting each other. And a lot of the time it doesn't even do a great job of that.

Well, we do have laws against public intoxication too...

[ToadBrother]

Well, we do have laws against public intoxication too...

Which are unevenly enforced at best.