Un sondage CROP confirme que les Québécois comptent sur une charte pour les protéger

2015/02/24 Leave a comment

Consistent with any number of previous polls, reflecting unease but matched with general support for immigration:

L’idée d’une charte qui réaffirme les valeurs communes aux Québécois conserve l’appui d’une majorité d’entre eux, avec 51%. Mais plusieurs de ceux qui y étaient auparavant défavorables se sont déplacés vers la catégorie des indécis. Il y a maintenant 23 % des gens qui s’opposent à la charte, et 26 % qui ne sont pas certains du pied sur lequel danser à ce sujet.

«Je pense que ce qui accrochait avec la charte du PQ, c’est justement que ça venait du PQ, analyse Youri Rivest, de la maison CROP. C’était plus le messager que le message qui était rejeté.»

La région de Québec est celle qui est la plus séduite par l’idée d’une charte avec 66 % d’appuis, contre 50 % ailleurs en région et 48 % à Montréal.

«À Québec, les gens sont plus réfractaires aux questions d’extrémisme religieux, constate M.Rivest. Mais ils ne sont pas fermés à l’immigration en général. Ils y sont même plus ouverts qu’ailleurs. Ce n’est pas un sentiment anti-immigrant; c’est vraiment anti-extrémisme religieux.»

Dans l’ensemble, les Québécois s’inquiètent d’abord et avant tout que les nouveaux arrivants refusent d’intégrer les valeurs de leur pays d’adoption. Ils sont 85 % à éprouver une crainte à cet égard.

…Un clivage sur ces questions s’observe selon la langue. Les francophones sont par exemple beaucoup plus favorables à la charte, à 57 %, que les non-francophones, à 27 %.

Il demeure que 67 % des Québécois craignent que l’intégrisme religieux menace la sécurité au Québec. À l’inverse, 33 % ne croient pas qu’il y ait matière à inquiétude.

À cet égard, les péquistes sont les plus soucieux de la menace, à 84%. Ils sont suivis par les caquistes à 73%, les libéraux à 63 % et les solidaires à 58 %.

Un sondage CROP confirme que les Québécois comptent sur une charte pour les protéger | Simon Boivin | Politique.

Filed under Multiculturalism, Polling, Religion Tagged with

Niqab Politics Commentary – Various

2015/02/23 Leave a comment

Starting with Margaret Wente:

I loathe the niqab. I agree with Prime Minister Stephen Harper that niqabs are “not how we do things here.” A cloth that covers the face is a symbolic rebuke to Western values – especially when the covered woman is walking three steps behind her jeans-and-sneakers-clad husband.

But I also think a woman has the right to choose – even when her choice is offensive to a lot of people. I believe that religious freedom is a cornerstone of Western values. People should have wide latitude to exercise that freedom as they wish, and we shouldn’t constrain them without very good reasons.

So if Zunera Ishaq, a devout Sunni Muslim from Pakistan, wants to wear a veil while she swears the oath of citizenship, let her. Our democracy has survived greater threats than that.

…I despise niqabs. I really, really do. But I despise attacks on people’s freedom even more. There’s a difference between a woman in a veil and a jihadi sawing off a head. We need to remember that.

Why Stephen Harper is playing niqab politics – The Globe and Mail.

Stephen Maher focusses more on the politics:

The best way to counter the online recruiters who prey on those weak-minded souls is not to set up a mosque inquisition, as Mr. Legault proposed, but to build good relations with the imams who are on the front lines of anti-radicalization efforts.

We need these guys to drop a dime when they’re worried that Ahmed has gone off his meds, and they’re less likely to do that if they feel their community is under attack.

This is a good time to lower the temperature and remind Canadians of what draws us together, not constantly point to the things that divide us.

But Mr. Legault, like Mr. Harper, risks bitter defeat in the next election. So both men are playing with fire, trying to capitalize on fear, the most powerful emotion in politics.

And it is working. Recent polls show the Tories’ tough-on-terror message connecting in Ontario and, especially, Quebec, opening a ray of hope for a government that until recently looked doomed.

That’s fair play, but I’m worried that Mr. Harper will add fuel to the fire, linking terrorism to mosques — as he did when he introduced C-51 — inveighing against niqabs in fundraising emails and scaring everyone by warning about “jihadist monsters” at every opportunity.

Mr. Harper’s back is to the wall. If he loses the next election, or even fails to win it convincingly, his career is likely over.

Since oil prices collapsed, the economy is not the political winner it once was, leaving fear as his best issue.

Things could get ugly between now and the election.

  Stephen Maher: Tough talk about Muslims by Canadian politicians is unnecessary  

And Andrew Coyne issues a further warning:

On the surface, the insistence of Obama and other leaders that “this has nothing to do with Islam,” would seem as odd as that of their critics, that it has everything to do with Islam. As David Frum writes on the Atlantic website, “it seems a strange use of authority for an American president to take it upon himself to determine which interpretations of Islam are orthodox and which are heretical.” But there is a strong case for saying such things, even if you don’t believe them — especially if you don’t believe them — precisely in the service of fighting terrorism.

The one thing that could be predicted to cause more Muslims, here and abroad, to believe that violence against the West was justified would be if they were to become convinced that, indeed, there is “a clash of civilizations,” that Islam was under attack, and that they themselves, as practitioners of the religion, were objects of suspicion and hostility. The phenomenon is often observed in other social groups that, rightly or wrongly, feel themselves besieged: they will close ranks, even with those with whom they might otherwise have no sympathy.

That would be a calamitous setback to efforts, largely successful, to win the cooperation of the Muslim community in rooting out the few radicals in their midst. Which takes us to the rhetoric of the Harper government. Merely referring to “Islamic extremism” or “jihadism” would be unobjectionable in itself. But when coupled with recent, needless interventions in such volatile debates as whether the niqab may be worn at citizenship ceremonies, it suggests at best a troubling indifference to the importance of symbols and the need for those in power to go out of their way to reassure those in minority groups that they have not been targeted.

It may be good politics. But they are playing with fire.

Violent extremism or jihadism: The case for watching our language on terror

Lastly, Salim Mansur’s efforts to compare Indian religious and cultural practice restrictions doesn’t work: there is a difference between bigamy, child marriage, concubinage, FGM, which directly impact upon the rights of others or impact on the health of the person, unlike the wearing of a niqab.

The only valid comparison is that with other religious closing and headgear accommodations  (which the niqab is) and other dress code conventions (i.e., one cannot demand government services or attend a citizenship ceremony full or partially naked).

But we need to compare apples with apples, not oranges:

The same week the Federal Court ruled the niqab ban unlawful, India’s Supreme Court ruled that bigamy and polygamy is not protected under Article 25 of the Indian Constitution, which refers to freedom of conscience and religion. The justices of the Indian Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling that the appellant, Khursheed Ahmad Khan, in taking a second wife while remaining married to his first wife, violated the civil service regulations that do not permit bigamy and polygamy as part of religious belief. The justices agreed a “bigamous marriage amongst Muslims is neither a religious practice nor a religious belief and certainly not a religious injunction or mandate.”

The relevant point here is that certain practices — such as bigamy or child marriage, concubinage, female genital mutilation, etc. — even when permitted by a religion, need to be distinguished from religious belief as customary practices. In making this appropriate distinction, the Indian courts have ruled, with the Supreme Court in agreement, that what is protected under Article 25 is religious belief, not practices that may run counter to public order, health or morality.

This ruling of the Indian Supreme Court is instructive. India shares with Canada the system of government and democratic traditions handed down from Britain. India is also the world’s third-largest Muslim country after Indonesia and Pakistan. In ruling that bigamy and polygamy are in violation of India’s laws, the courts have defended the rights of women, especially Muslim women, in terms of equality rights, and against Muslim Shariah-based laws that discriminate against them in favour of men.

Canadian courts would be well advised to make a similar and appropriate distinction between religious beliefs and customary practices, and whether any or all customs should be protected under the Charter provision of religious freedom.

Salim Mansur: Defending the niqab ban

Filed under Citizenship, Religion Tagged with , , , , ,

Citizenship minister’s office declines to clarify “hijab” reference

2015/02/20 Leave a comment

Canadian_Multiculturalism_Integrated_Book_DraftAs noted by John Geddes, Minister Alexander surely knows the difference between a hijab and niqab (mainly worn in Gulf Arab countries) and the burqa (worn in Afghanistan where he lived and worked).

As the above chart shows, Canadians clearly make a distinction between the hijab and the niqab, with the former supported by three-quarters of Canadians, the latter only one-quarter.

Is this part of an emerging Quebec strategy to play on xenophobia? Part of the strategy to play the values card? From another Minister, I might assume an inadvertent slip of the tongue.

And sad to see, after Minister Kenney and the Government, were so strong in their opposition to the PQ’s proposed Charter of Quebec Values:

Based on today’s evidence, you would have been wrong. News that the Conservatives sent out a fundraising email on the topic led to a question from Liberal MP Chrystia Freeland in the House. She focused specifically on how the Tory email mentioned that the government was appealing a judge’s ruling “allowing people to wear the hijab while taking the oath.”

The odd thing about that phrase, which Freeland zeroed in on, is that the word “hijab,” at least in Canada, almost always refers to a Muslim woman’s head scarf that covers only the hair, unlike the “niqab,” which also covers much of the face. Directing her question at Citizenship Minister Chris Alexander, a former diplomat who served in Muslim countries, including Afghanistan, Freeland said, “Surely the minister, of all people, ought to know the difference between a niqab and a hijab.”

But Alexander defended his terminology. He alluded to his experiences “living in a majority Muslim country where the hijab has been used to cover the face of women, just as the niqab and just as the burka has been used under the terrible influence of the Taliban, and other obscure entities, in places like Afghanistan and Pakistan.”

I took that to suggest the government might mean to allow the hijab during the citizenship oath, so long as it wasn’t somehow used to cover the face. To be certain I understood properly, I emailed Alexander’s office for a clarification. The first response said Alexander was referring to “the actual covering of the face during the oath.” Just to be certain, I followed up by asking if, in that case, the hijab would be permitted, if it didn’t cover the face.

Instead of answering that question directly, Alexander’s office forwarded me this statement: “As the Prime Minister said, it is offensive that someone would hide their identity at the very moment where they are committing to join the Canadian family. We are opposed to anything that hides someone’s face when reciting the Oath of Citizenship. We believe the oath should be taken freely, openly and proudly for everyone to hear.”

I don’t think that directly answers my question about the hijab. In fact, I remain puzzled about why Alexander injected such a precise term as “hijab” at all into this already fraught debate. Having used it, though, he should now explain in plain language exactly how he means to be understood.

I assume he means it in a different way than Defence Minister Jason Kenney did, back when he was citizenship minister in 2013, and the Quebec Charter of Values debate was roiling, and he tweeted: ”A child is no less Canadian because she or he wears a kippa, turban, cross, or hijab to school.”

Citizenship minister’s office declines to clarify “hijab” reference.

Filed under Citizenship, Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

Contrasting Commentary: Barbara Kay vs Clifford Orwin and Marnie Soupcoff on the Niqab and Citizenship Ceremonies

2015/02/19 2 Comments

Barbara Kay supporting the Government:

But Ms Bakht’s specious parallel has the virtue that it can be turned against its perpetrator. If a woman were to turn up at her citizenship swearing-in ceremony in a bikini, would she be allowed to? I think not. And rightly so. Bikinis on a beach are one thing – in a solemn ceremony quite another. Indecency swings both ways. Face cover is also indecent in certain situations, such as the swearing-in of a woman to citizenship in a democratic country based on, amongst other principles, gender equality. (I consider the niqab indecent in all getting and giving of government services. If the federal government would pass a law requiring the face be uncovered in these areas, as Quebec soon will, Canadians would approve en masse.)

Perhaps Ms Ishaq might give some thought to the reality that thousands upon thousands of Pakistani people wish to become citizens of Canada, but one does not see Canadians flocking to Pakistan to live. There are reasons for that. One of those reasons is that women here are equal to men, and nobody can tell a woman here that she must cover her face. One might think that Ms Ishaq would wish to honour that right, on behalf of her sisters who are forced to wear the niqab, by taking hers off for the five minutes it will take to accept the gift of great value our government wishes to confer on her.

Barbara Kay: Zunera Ishaq does a disservice to women forced to wear the veil

Marnie Soupcoff opposing:

Is the government’s quarrel with the niqab is that it represents a patriarchal practice it believes diminishes women’s autonomy and, ultimately, safety?

That seems to be what Citizenship and Immigration Minister Chris Alexander was getting at when he said while commenting on the case, “We also are a government, and I think a people, that is concerned about protecting women from violence, protecting women from human smuggling, protecting women from barbaric practices like polygamy, genital mutilation, honour killings.”

Quite apart from the dramatic leap from a legal piece of clothing to the commission of major crimes, which seems to lack some clear thinking on causation vs. correlation, Mr. Alexander is treading on dangerous ground, at least if he plans to be consistent and even-handed.

The ultra-Orthodox Jewish tradition has married women wear wigs or otherwise cover their hair in public, and all women wear long sleeves and skirts below the knees, to maintain their modesty and de-emphasize their sexual attractiveness to anyone but their husbands.

The rules about women’s dress are but one expression of the tradition’s emphasis on female purity and deference, which also includes a wife’s duty to always accept her husband’s sexual advances on his terms.

In Israel, concerns about sexual abuse in the ultra-Orthodox community are significant, and rabbis are accused of participating in cover-ups.

So shouldn’t Mr. Alexander and Mr. Harper also be addressing the offensiveness of the wigs and long skirts being worn by Orthodox women taking their citizenship oaths? And if they’re not, does that mean they’re endorsing the antiquated sexist idea that a woman who shows a stranger man her elbows is engaging in brazen sexual temptation?

Of course the answer is no. No, they shouldn’t, and no, it doesn’t.

Concerns about what cultural, religious and social signals are being sent by an individual’s choice in clothing should have no place in lawmakers’ minds, or at least not in their actions.

The very beauty of Canadian citizenship is that it comes with the freedom to choose your own way and your own life. Does the majority of society have to agree with your choice, whether it be to don a nun’s habit or a Wiccan pentagram necklace?

The obvious answer again is no, so long as you aren’t infringing on anyone else’s freedom with your decision. And apologies to Mr. Harper and Mr. Alexander, but their freedom not to be offended doesn’t count.

Marni Soupcoff: Tories vs. religious freedom

Along with a former prof of mine, Clifford Orwin:

You may ask whether Islam truly requires that a woman wear the niqab. This is none of a liberal state’s business; it is for Muslims to decide for themselves. But they won’t agree, and even if most did, liberal democracy rejects the imposition of religious authority. So this is nobody’s call but Ms. Ishaq’s. Like every citizen, she must be free to practise her religion not as we see fit, but as she does. This isn’t a question of “accommodation” or “diversity” or any such currently fashionable lingo: It’s a requirement of religious freedom, one of the first and most basic of liberal democratic principles.

The worst thing about Mr. Harper’s position is its implication that Ms. Ishaq can’t be a good Canadian unless she discards a practice she regards as incumbent on her as a Muslim and which is entirely harmless to others. I’m not about to claim that the biggest problem facing Canadian society is Islamophobia. (In fact, it has shown itself remarkably free of such attitudes.) The threat of Islamist terror poses a much bigger problem to Canada, as to other liberal democracies. But aggravating the lesser problem in no way helps to solve this greater problem. We shouldn’t hand devout Muslims legitimate (and wholly gratuitous) grievances. Nor (it should go without saying) should we practise demagoguery at their expense.

 Stephen Harper’s veiled attack on religious freedom 

Filed under Citizenship, Multiculturalism Tagged with , , , ,

CIC turns to corporate Canada to help promote citizenship

2015/02/19 2 Comments

Expanded considerably since my time when there was concern about having Tim Hortons provide free coffee and Timbits at citizenship ceremonies. A fine line between sponsorship, to strengthen citizenship ceremonies (which these appear to do) and diminishing the civic role and symbolism:

It’s all part of an ongoing effort by CIC to partner with corporate Canada to promote Canadian citizenship. In 2012, CIC’s communications branch began to look at private-sector partnerships as a way of promoting “two-way integration” between newcomers and the Canadian public, while also reducing the costs associated with hosting citizenship ceremonies and promoting Canadian values.

That same year, the department received an unsolicited “promotional opportunity” from retailer Canadian Tire to “leverage CIC messaging around Citizenship Week 2012 and throughout the NHL hockey season,” according to a briefing note from then-deputy minister Neil Yeates to Jason Kenney, and obtained by Embassy through an access-to-information request.

“Canadian Tire is willing to make some of its marketing channels available to us,” the briefing, sent to Mr. Kenney in August 2012, states. “CIC will explore with [Canadian Tire] the promotion and distribution of relevant CIC information products using appropriate communication channels.”

Later that year, Canadian Tire sponsored an enhanced citizenship ceremony for 50 new Canadians at the Hockey Hall of Fame in Toronto.

“In August, you approved moving forward with Canadian Tire on this pilot project,” a subsequent memo from Mr. Yeates to Mr. Kenney states. “CIC will be fully responsible for all aspects of the citizenship ceremony at the [Hockey Hall of Fame]. Canadian Tire will be formally thanked for its sponsorship of the ceremony, and will host the post-ceremony reception. Canadian Tire signage could be displayed in the reception area.”

The undated memo, sent to Mr. Kenney in the weeks before Citizenship Week celebrations in October 2012, also highlights an agreement by Canadian Tire to help the department distribute government-produced promotional materials at its stores across the country.

“The collateral material will encourage patrons to visit the Discover Canada guide on CIC’s website. Collateral material will include both CIC and Canadian Tire logos and will be centred on the concept of hockey as part of Canadians’ shared heritage,” Mr. Yeates told Mr. Kenney at the time. “The collateral material will link to a landing page that CIC will create on its website, highlighting the Discover Canada guide, hockey and a link to Canadian Tire Hockey School website.”

… NDP MP Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, her party’s critic for citizenship and immigration, called the corporate sponsoring of citizenship ceremonies “unbelievable,” especially in light of the government’s decision to increase the citizenship application fee from $300 to $530 at the beginning of this year.

“Citizenship should not be used as a marketing tool or to connect individuals to private companies,” Ms. Blanchette-Lamothe said. “The Conservatives [nearly] doubled the fees needed to obtain citizenship. I think they should be able to offer proper services with no other interests than new citizens’ interests and the promotion of Canadian citizenship.”

CIC turns to corporate Canada to help promote citizenship | Embassy – Canada’s Foreign Policy Newspaper.

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with , , , ,

Zunera Ishaq on why she fought to wear a niqab during citizenship ceremony: ‘A personal attack on me and Muslim women’

2015/02/18 Leave a comment

Hard to understand but clearly confident in expressing her views:

There are a few things Zunera Ishaq wants to set straight about the veil she wears in public.

Nobody is forcing her to cover up, she says. It is a “personal choice” and a way to assert her identity and show her devotion to her Muslim faith.

There is nothing oppressive, either, about wearing a niqab. If anything, it is a “symbol of empowerment.”

This conviction emboldened the former high school teacher from Pakistan to postpone attending her citizenship ceremony last year and go toe-to-toe with the Harper government over its policy forbidding the wearing of facial coverings during the swearing-in part of the ceremony.

“I gathered the courage and decided to speak out,” said the 29-year-old Mississauga, Ont., resident in an extended conversation with the National Post this weekend. “I decided to raise my voice so that I can challenge this policy, which was a personal attack on me and Muslim women like me.”

Of course, someone claiming the right, male or female, to appear naked in a citizenship ceremony, given their religious beliefs, would be the mirror image of the right to be fully covered up.

Zunera Ishaq on why she fought to wear a niqab during citizenship ceremony: ‘A personal attack on me and Muslim women’ | National Post.

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with ,

If new Australian citizenship laws were to mirror UK powers, what would change? | Australia news | The Guardian

2015/02/17 Leave a comment

Foreshadowing the Australian government’s plans to follow British (and Canadian) revocation policy:

This [revocation] power has three key limitations: first, it can only be used where the serious offence was committed before they became an Australian citizen. Second, it only applies to citizens by conferral, adoption or descent – which means it doesn’t apply to citizens who are citizens of Australia by birth. And third, the revocation can usually only occur for dual citizens, because the minister is not permitted to allow a person to be stateless.

These laws are already set to be expanded slightly by a bill introduced by the previous immigration minister, Scott Morrison, that would make it easier for the minister to revoke citizenship where fraud has been used to obtain it.

In an opinion piece for the Australian on Monday, Liberal MP Andrew Nikolic foreshadowed areas that may provide some indication of what the prime minister will put forward next week.

He wrote that “Those who persist in associating themselves with terrorist causes must be identified and wherever possible ejected from the state.” He said that “many would argue” that “even Australian-born citizens forfeit their right to be considered Australian.” And he referred to the British example of allowing citizenship to be temporarily suspended – even for non-dual citizens – which could circumvent the statelessness issue.

These statements all go directly to overcoming the three limitations to the revocation powers, and suggest the government is considering adopting a system more like the powers available in Britain.

If new citizenship laws were to mirror UK powers, what would change? | Australia news | The Guardian.

Filed under Citizenship, Revocation Tagged with ,

Niqab appeal by Ottawa is questioned over motivation

2015/02/16 Leave a comment

CIC Minister Alexander trying up to come up with a convincing rationale for the niqab ban bit mixing up the niqab at citizenship ceremonies with domestic violence issues (which are not, needless to say, unique to niqabi women) is clumsy.

PM is more convincing when he spoke about the symbolism of “joining the Canadian family,” as niqab signals separation, not integration, in a way that other religious symbols (hijab, kippa, kirpan) do not:

Citizenship and Immigration Minister Chris Alexander, who was named as the respondent in Ishaq’s case, said Friday that people need to be identified and need to “commit to the oath.”

“We also are a government, and I think a people, that is concerned about protecting women from violence, protecting women from human smuggling, protecting women from barbaric practices like polygamy, genital mutilation, honour killings,” Alexander said.

“I worry when some of those defending the idea of keeping a woman behind a niqab in a citizenship ceremony are also those who say that we don’t need these protections for women from violence and from abuse. It’s something we’re all passionate about in Canada, there is no place for violence against women or any domestic violence in this country.”

Alexander said not showing your face is not a requirement of Islam and the “vast majority” of Muslim groups have said the 2011 law in question is fair and does not violate their freedom of religion.

Amira Elghawaby, human rights coordinator at the National Council of Canadian Muslims, said many Muslims and Canadians disagree with the idea of the niqab, but if it’s someone’s sincere religious belief, the right to wear one is a legal matter protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

New Canadians take the oath of citizenship at a ceremony in Dartmouth, N.S. in 2014. A Federal Court ruling that women who wear a niqab do not have to remove it to take the oath is being appealed by the federal government. (Andrew Vaughan/The Canadian Press)

“Our opinions about these things really are irrelevant, what’s important is what it means to be Canadian and what it means to have freedom of religion and consciousness in this country,” she said.

“I think that unanimously, people who understand our Charter of Rights understand that this is a right that should be protected. She is not harming anyone by deciding to keep her niqab on … and whether I agree in it or not, I do not have the right to tell her to remove it because the law does not support that and the constitution does not support that.”

NCCM forgets that freedom of religion, like other fundamental freedoms, is not absolute.

Niqab appeal by Ottawa is questioned over motivation – Politics – CBC News.

The muted reaction of other political parties:

Federal opposition parties trod carefully Friday on the issue of whether a Toronto Muslim woman should be allowed to wear a niqab while taking the oath of citizenship.

NDP multiculturalism critic Andrew Cash said the Conservative government was conflating matters of security and ceremony by appealing a court decision permitting the woman to wear the facial covering.

“It’s unfortunate that in matters of ceremonial issues, Conservatives are willing to play partisan politics to simply ratchet things up to win votes,” Mr. Cash said.

Liberal immigration critic John McCallum said that the matter is before the courts. And party spokesman Cameron Ahmad said that “the responsibility to present the case falls on the government.”

Neither party would say outright whether it backed Zunera Ishaq’s bid to keep her face covered during the swearing-in portion of the ceremony.

Federal opposition parties tread carefully on issue of niqabs during citizenship oath

Filed under Citizenship, Religion Tagged with , , , , , ,

Woman asks to be sworn in as citizen as soon as possible after overturn of policy requiring her to remove niqab

2015/02/13 Leave a comment

No freedom is absolute, including freedom of religion, and the judge’s example of a monk not willing to break his silence to state the oath doesn’t wash and doesn’t merit accommodation. People are free to make choices, choices often have trade-offs.

It is one of the requirements of living in The policy didn’t sit well with Ms. Ishaq, a Pakistani national and devout Sunni Muslim, who says her religious beliefs obligate her to wear a niqab. While she did not object to unveiling herself in private so that an official could confirm her identity before taking the citizenship test, she drew a line at unveiling herself at the public citizenship ceremony.

Aaron Vincent Elkaim for National PostZunera Ishaq stands for a portrait in her home in Mississauga on Wednesday February 11, 2015.

“I feel that the governmental policy regarding veils at citizenship oath ceremonies is a personal attack on me, my identity as a Muslim woman and my religious beliefs,” she told the court.

Her lawyers also pointed out that while the Citizenship Act requires people to take the oath, it does not require them to be “seen” taking the oath.

She rejected a government offer to seat her at the front or back of the ceremony so her face would not easily be seen.

In a ruling last week, Judge Keith Boswell said the government’s own regulations require that citizenship judges administer the citizenship oath “with dignity and solemnity, allowing the greatest possible freedom in the religious solemnization or the solemn affirmation thereof.” How is this possible, Judge Boswell asked, if a policy requires citizenship candidates to “violate or renounce a basic tenet of their religion?”

“For instance, how could a citizenship judge afford a monk who obeys strict rules of silence the ‘greatest possible freedom’ in taking the oath if he is required to betray his discipline and break his silence?” he wrote.

The government had argued that the policy was not mandatory and that citizenship judges were free to apply it or not.

But the judge cited internal department emails stating that it was “pretty clear that [the Minister] would like the changes to the procedure to ‘require’ citizenship candidates to show their face … regardless of whether there is a legislative base.”

The judge also cited a media interview in which Mr. Kenney said it was “ridiculous” that a face should be covered during the citizenship oath.

Woman asks to be sworn in as citizen as soon as possible after overturn of policy requiring her to remove niqab

And further faulty reasoning in the National Post editorial:

Lawfulness aside, the probation was always on weak footing both on practical and moral grounds. There are cases where security or identification concerns rightfully trump the religious practice: for example, when taking a driver’s license photo or going through airport security. Muslim women are also sometimes required — on a case-by-case basis — to remove their veils while testifying in court, thereby allowing a defendant to face his or her accuser. No such practical justification has been offered for banning the niqab during a largely symbolic swearing-in ritual.

To be sure, Canadian society is predicated on the concept of equality for all — regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation and so forth — and it’s difficult to reconcile that fundamental value with the custom of members of one sex obscuring their faces in public. Nevertheless, Muslim women in Canada are free to wear — or not to wear — a niqab while shopping at the grocery store, teaching a lecture or simply walking down the street. To prohibit them from wearing a face covering during a citizenship oath is as illiberal in its way as requiring them to wear one. It is an arbitrary application of a pointless ban, and the court was right to strike it down.

National Post View: Court was right to strike down niqab ban during citizenship ceremony

Not surprisingly, the Government will appeal the ruling. Not by accident, PM Harper makes announcement rather than CIC Minister Alexander, in Quebec, as noted by John Ivison: Harper’s ‘offence’ at niqab ruling part of larger strategy to steal Quebec from the NDP):

Speaking at an event in Quebec on Thursday, Harper said the government intends to appeal the ruling.

“I believe, and I think most Canadians believe that it is offensive that someone would hide their identity at the very moment where they are committing to join the Canadian family,” he said in Victoriaville, Que. “This is a society that is transparent, open, and where people are equal.”

Harper says Ottawa will appeal ruling allowing veil during citizenship oath

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with , , ,

Niqab ban at citizenship ceremony struck down by court

2015/02/09 Leave a comment

While wearing a niqab is inappropriate, given that it signals being less open to integration, at a ceremony designed to welcome new Canadians to the Canadian family, the rationale invoked by Minister Kenney – that citizenship judges could not see that the oath was spoken – was always weak.

Applicants could simply mouth nonsense words and it would be a rare judge who would notice in a typical ceremony of 40-50 people (earlier post Ex-immigration minister Jason Kenney ‘dictated’ niqab ban at citizenship ceremony, court told):

While it is not unusual to have government policies overturned in breach of Charter and constitutional rights, the court ruling is unusual because the decision was based on the finding that the ban mandated by the immigration minister violated the government’s own immigration laws.

“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,” wrote Justice Keith M. Boswell, “it is unlawful.”

Ishaq was sponsored by her husband to Canada from Pakistan in 2008 and successfully passed the citizenship test in November 2013.

She was scheduled to be sworn in at a citizenship ceremony in Scarborough two months later but decided to put it on hold after learning she would need to unveil her niqab under a ban introduced in 2011 by then-Immigration Minister Jason Kenney. Her Charter challenge ensued.

“From the moment the minister announced the policy, many of us felt it’s illegal. The court confirms that it is the case. It is not a requirement in the law for someone to be seen in front of a (citizenship) judge taking the oath. Signing the paper is all (that’s) required,” said Ishaq’s lawyer, Lorne Waldman.

“Clearly, the policy was driven by Kenney himself. All documents found he was the driving force behind it.”

Ishaq, who started wearing niqab since she was 15, had no objection to unveil herself for the purposes of her identification before taking the citizenship test.

However, she objected to the requirement to remove the veil at the citizenship ceremony because it is public and unnecessary for the purposes of identity or security.

Immigration officials subsequently offered to seat her in either the front or back row and next to a woman at the ceremony, but she refused the arrangement since the citizenship judge and officers could still be male, and there could potentially be photographers at the event.

Niqab ban at citizenship ceremony struck down by court | Toronto Star.

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with , ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →