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 , ,

The Parliamentary Secretary for Multiculturalism Asks Iranian-Canadians “Why Are You Here?” | Susan Khazaeli

2015/02/09 Leave a comment

While the commentary goes a bit too far in its arguments that this language creates two classes of citizens, subconsciously it may reflect this belief.

And people come to Canada for both economic objectives and living in a country that respects political and human rights:

A Conservative Toronto MP, Chungsen Leung, recently attended an event organized by the Association of North American Ethnic Journalists and Writers. During the meet-and-greet, Mr. Leung was asked about the increasing difficulties faced by Iranians attempting to obtain a Canadian Visa. Emotions apparently ran high. At one point, in a heated exchange, Mr. Leung asked a member of the audience, “If you like Iran so much then why do you come to Canada?”

He then demanded to know: “Why are you here?” Some audience members were so offended by his comments and his dismissive attitude — which one attendee characterized as “arrogant” — that they decided to leave the event.

Mr. Leung is also the Parliamentary Secretary for Multiculturalism. It kind of sounds like a bad joke, doesn’t it?

According to a CTV report, Mr. Leung’s office claims that the exchange was a “miscommunication.” His email apology expressed regret for the misunderstanding. Perhaps Mr. Leung’s comments were off-the-cuff, but they were, by no means, innocuous.

Even if unintentional, Mr. Leung’s comments were discriminatory and hostile. The subtext of the messaging is: “Why don’t you go back where you came from?” They betray an underlying attitude that many non-white Canadians encounter when expressing views critical of government policy. This attitude becomes even more pronounced when that non-white Canadian comes from a country that, like Iran, is on the outs with Canada.

The Parliamentary Secretary for Multiculturalism Asks Iranian-Canadians “Why Are You Here?” | Susan Khazaeli.

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with , ,

60 millionaire immigrant investors to be offered permanent residency

2015/01/28 2 Comments

Still distasteful ‘selling of citizenship,’ the only difference is the price. After all, these are not active investors or entrepreneurs, just people with money to put into an arms-length venture capital fund:

The new Immigrant Investor Venture Capital program will open on Jan. 28 to Feb. 11 or until a maximum of 500 applications are received, the government quietly announced before MPs returned to Ottawa this week.

“This pilot program is designed to attract immigrant investors who will significantly benefit the Canadian economy and better integrate into our society, which will contribute to our long-term prosperity and economic growth,” Immigration Minister Chris Alexander said in a written statement.

No more than 60 principal applicants will receive permanent resident visas under the pilot program, even though the government says it will accept up to 500 applications.

Each investor will be required to make a non-guaranteed investment of $2 million over approximately 15 years into a fund managed principally by BDC Capital, the investment arm of the Business Development Bank of Canada.

The government said the fund “will invest in innovative Canadian startups with high growth potential.”

“Proceeds from the IIVC fund will be distributed to the immigrant investors periodically… based on the performance of the investments,” a spokesman for Alexander said in an email to CBC News.

The details of the program along with the selection criteria to apply appear in the latest ministerial instructions published in a government publication over the weekend.

The government is hoping to have better luck with this program than it did with the last one.

“Under the former Immigrant Investor Program (IIP), immigrant investors had to invest $800,000 in Canada’s economy in the form of a repayable loan, without meeting skills and abilities requirements of most of Canada’s economic immigration programs,” the government acknowledged in a public statement before MPs returned to Ottawa this week.

“Research indicated that immigrant investors under the previous program were less likely than other immigrants to stay in Canada over the medium to long term. Also, they contributed relatively little to the Canadian economy, earning very little income and paying very little tax.”

60 millionaire immigrant investors to be offered permanent residency – Politics – CBC News.

Filed under Citizenship, Immigration Tagged with ,

French citizenship, reward or punishment in fight against terror

2015/01/27 1 Comment

France rules citizenship revocation legal:

France’s Conseil Constitutionnel – or Constitutional Council – said that the battle against terrorism permits the courts to strip Ahmed Sahnouni, 44, of his citizenship, prompting his lawyer to denounce the ruling as “discriminatory”.

“It creates two different categories of French people – those who are born here and those who receive French nationality,” Sahnouni’s lawyer Nurettin Meseci said in a telephone interview, adding that his client could face up to 20 years in prison if sent back to Morocco.

However, France’s top legal body said after its ruling that the difference in treatment between French-born and naturalized citizens does not violate France’s principle of equality – on the basis that the gravity of the act outweighs the severity of the punishment.

While Sahnouni is only eighth person to be stripped of his nationality since 1973, French Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve said such a measure would be used again.

Prime Minister Manual Valls also welcomed the move saying, “We should not, in any case, deprive ourselves of lawful means to ensure our values are respected.”

Under France’s civil code, Article 25, officials can revoke a person’s French passport if they commit an egregious offense deemed an “act of terror” within fifteen years of being granted citizenship. However, the law only applies to dual-nationals so it does not render them stateless, which would breach international conventions signed by France.

Still unlikely to be ruled constitutional in Canada given Charter rights and the need to treat Canadian solo and dual nationals equally for the same crime.

French citizenship, reward or punishment in fight against terror – France – RFI.

Filed under Citizenship, Revocation Tagged with

Netanyahu’s evil definition of citizenship – Haaretz

2015/01/15 Leave a comment

Strong commentary in Haaretz by  Zvi Bar’el on implications of Netanyahu’s comments encouraging French Jews to immigrate to Israel:

National purity is the brother of racial purity. When a state creates legislation that discriminates against religious or ethnic minorities, when it denies their language official status and ignores “anonymous” attacks on their holy sites, when their individuality is considered a violation of national unity, that country cannot speak out against other countries that treat their diasporas similarly.

The demand that the Jews of France, Germany or the United States be treated as equal citizens loses its validity when the country that demands this has made clear the Arabs aren’t wanted there and should “return to their homelands.” Such a policy undermines the right of Jews around the world to ask for equal treatment as French, American or German citizens.

Just as Israel is a state of its citizens that must view all of them — Jews, Muslims, Christians and Druze — as its reason for existing, Jews in other countries should be considered equal citizens. Each side is entitled to demand equal treatment for its people.

That is the essence of human rights and treaties signed by the countries that have embraced uniform definitions of those rights. French Jews who are fearing for their well-being and flocking to travel agencies should check if the price of refuge in the Jewish state includes forgoing the democratic principles they learned in France.

Netanyahu’s evil definition of citizenship – Opinion Israel News | Haaretz.

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with , , ,

Citizenship judge has jurisdiction to retest applicant – Lexology

2015/01/14 Leave a comment

For those interested, a recent judgement upholding the right of a citizenship judge to require an oral retest of the knowledge requirements. Got it right:

20     In my view, the Citizenship Judge had the jurisdiction to test the applicant’s knowledge of Canada at the oral hearing. The requirements set out in subsection 5(1) of the Citizenship Actare conjunctive: they must all be satisfied in order for the Citizenship Judge to recommend a grant of citizenship to the Minister: Wang v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 719. Further, the statutory requirements are contemporaneous. The statute does not provide that it is sufficient that at one point in time the applicant had an adequate knowledge of Canada; rather, the statute requires that the applicant has an adequate knowledge of Canada:Huang v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 576 and Santos v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FC 205. Thus, citizenship judges enjoy “a wide measure of discretion” to determine, pursuant to section 14(1) of the Citizenship Act, “whether or not the person who made the application meets the requirements of this Act”, Santos at para 23.

21     This conclusion is also consistent with established jurisprudence. Chief Justice Paul S. Crampton in Huang held that a Citizenship Judge may test an applicant’s knowledge of Canada notwithstanding that the applicant previously passed a written test: Huang at para 35. Although the Citizenship Judge may re-test an applicant, fairness requires that, “at a minimum, applicants be re-tested where there is a valid reason to do so”: Santos at para 26. In this case, the Citizenship Judge had a valid reason to re-test.

22     In this case, the Citizenship Judge had more than ample reason to administer a retest. The answers to the questionnaire provided more than sufficient basis for the decision to retest. The applicant had been absent from Canada for 134 days during the relevant period, and met the residency requirement by a mere 9 days. Her husband had never lived in Canada and lost his permanent residency status in 2012. Curiously, although the citizenship test was conducted on September 22, 2011, the residency questionnaire completed by the applicant, and declared to be true, indicated that on September 17, 2011, the applicant was in Shanghai. Further, in part 11 of the questionnaire eliciting absences from Canada the reason “vacation of 321 days” was noted. This alone was sufficient to trigger a re-examination. An absence from Canada for nearly a full year is not a vacation. The Citizenship Judge concluded:

“You have not lived in Canada since the day of your application for citizenship on July 5, 2010, more than 31/ 2 years ago, and since then you have only visited Canada for less than six weeks in total. Accordingly, a genuine concern arises that you have lost touch with Canada, its institutions, its people, its values and traditions. In order to find that you have met the knowledge requirement of the Act, I must be satisfied that you have preserved this basic understanding of Canada.”

Citizenship judge has jurisdiction to retest applicant – Lexology.

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with , ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →