Le niqab, source de discorde: Election positioning

2015/09/24 Leave a comment

Further to Chantal Hébert’s speculation that a future Conservative government would invoke the notwithstanding clause to avoid a Charter challenge to a niqab ban (Proposed niqab ban could be thin edge of the wedge: Hébert):

La délicate question du port du niqab s’est imposée dans la campagne électorale depuis que la Cour d’appel fédérale a confirmé que le gouvernement conservateur n’avait pas l’autorité d’empêcher, par une simple directive ministérielle, le port de ce voile aux cérémonies de citoyenneté. Les troupes de Stephen Harper ont porté le jugement en appel à la Cour suprême et promis de légiférer dans les 100 premiers jours s’ils sont réélus.

M. Mulcair appuiera-t-il une loi conservatrice ? « Pas plus que je voterais en faveur d’une loi qui vous enlèverait la liberté de presse, voyons donc », a lancé le chef du NPD à la journaliste qui venait de lui poser la question. « Un gouvernement ne peut pas enlever votre liberté d’expression ou la liberté de presse, pas plus qu’on ne peut interférer dans d’autres libertés. » L’obligation de se dévoiler en privé pour s’identifier, avant la cérémonie, est jugée suffisante par M. Mulcair.

Justin Trudeau est du même avis. Le chef libéral a fait valoir que personne au pays ne lui avait parlé de cette question et il a dénoncé « ces propositions de [Stephen] Harper, de [Gilles] Duceppe, en matière de division et de peur ».

C’est que les chefs conservateur et bloquiste se trouvent dans le camp adverse, voulant tous deux interdire le niqab pour le serment de citoyenneté. Dès la décision de la Cour d’appel fédérale tombée, l’équipe de Stephen Harper a aussitôt annoncé qu’elle prendrait la voix législative pour empêcher qu’une femme puisse demeurer voilée pendant la durée de la cérémonie.

Qu’adviendrait-il si la loi conservatrice ne réussisait pas le test des tribunaux ? Gilles Duceppe « serait pour le “ nonobstant ” si jamais une telle loi contrevenait à la Charte [canadienne des droits et libertés] ». Car la clause dérogatoire, permettant de l’outrepasser, a été prévue « justement pour faire face à des situations semblables », a fait valoir le chef bloquiste.

Stephen Harper a évité de s’avancer aussi loin, évitant soigneusement de répondre à la question. Le chef conservateur s’est plutôt dit « convaincu que nous avons la position correcte. […] Ça reflète nos valeurs et l’égalité des hommes et des femmes au Canada ». La clause dérogatoire n’a été utilisée qu’à une seule reprise, par Québec pour maintenir la Charte de la langue française.

Source: Le niqab, source de discorde | Le Devoir

Manon Cornellier’s excellent commentary:

Il n’est pas question d’ignorer la montée des intégrismes et leur manifestation dans l’espace public, mais ce n’est pas en transformant quelques femmes en chair à canon électorale qu’on fera avancer les choses. Quand, dans ce genre de débat, des chefs manquent de hauteur de vue et ne cernent pas la juste mesure du problème, ils alimentent, qu’ils le veuillent ou non, les préjugés contre les musulmans et les Arabes, et c’est désolant.

Voile politique

And one of the better English language summaries:

Gilles Duceppe Favours Notwithstanding Clause To Ban Niqab At Citizenship Ceremonies

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

Proposed niqab ban could be thin edge of the wedge: Hébert

2015/09/23 1 Comment

Chantal Hébert speculates on the possible invoking the notwithstanding clause in the event a new Conservative government is elected and, as promised, passes a niqab-banning law:

If the Supreme Court agrees to hear the government’s appeal of its latest reversal, it will not address whether there is an irreconcilable conflict between the charter-guaranteed freedom of religion and a veil ban because that is simply not at issue in this case.

As an aside, if the top court were ever asked to pronounce on whether a veil ban is constitutional, the Conservatives might not like the answer, even if it turned out to be positive.

If the principle of gender equality or the secular character of the Canadian state could sustain a policy that requires the removing of the Muslim veil in order to take a citizenship oath, would the same argument not apply to just about any religion-related vestment or accessory?

The main consequence of the Conservatives’ efforts to keep their technically flawed case alive by appealing it all the way to the Supreme Court has been to turn the matter into a wedge issue in the election campaign.

At is happens, both the Liberals and the New Democrats oppose a ban on veils on constitutional and legal grounds.

The Conservatives are not the only party that believes there are points to be scored on the niqab issue. Support for a veil ban runs nowhere higher than in Quebec, the long-standing locale of a debate over the accommodation of religious minorities.

In a campaign that has the Bloc Québécois clutching at straws to justify its ongoing presence in Parliament, leader Gilles Duceppe has seized on the fact that the NDP — its main opponent in the election — is offside with the majority of voters on the niqab.

Since Bloc-sponsored attack ads came out late last week, NDP campaign signs have been defaced, with the word Islam scrawled across the face of some local Montreal candidates.

This may be only the first half of a larger game to be played out — if the Conservatives secure a majority — after the Oct. 19 election.

Harper has promised, if he is re-elected, to pass the niqab ban into law. If he wanted to pre-emptively bulletproof such a law from an all-but-certain charter challenge, he could use the notwithstanding clause of the Constitution.

It allows governments to shelter a law from the dispositions of the charter for a renewable period of five years. Over its 30-plus years of existence, it has never been used at the federal level. Some Conservative strategists have been shopping for an issue consensual enough to allow their government to break what has become a political taboo.

Support for the niqab ban extends well outside the Conservative base. It enjoys the backing of many progressive Canadians, including more than a few feminists. It would be tailor-made for that purpose.

Those same strategists believe that once the ice is broken, the use of the notwithstanding clause to suspend the fundamental freedoms that get in the way of the government’s legislative ambitions could eventually become as banal as the now-routine production of catch-all budget bills.

From medically assisted suicide to life imprisonment without parole and including supervised injection sites for drug addicts, the list of issues on which the Conservatives could find it convenient to free themselves of an inconvenient charter of rights is an extensive one.

 Source: Proposed niqab ban could be thin edge of the wedge: Hébert | Toronto Star

Filed under Citizenship, Multiculturalism Tagged with ,

The Conservatives’ veiled pitch for the anti-Muslim vote: Delacourt

2015/09/18 Leave a comment

Delacourt has it right, both in terms of substance and politics:

What we have here is a textbook case of saying one thing and doing another in politics. The ‘saying’ part is for all the wrong reasons — the ‘doing’ part is for the right ones.

I suspect the Conservative government realized several years ago that it was legally impossible to ban veiled voting. Two attempts were made between 2007 and 2011. Both quietly died on the order paper.

Here’s why: It would amount to singling out certain members of the population for restricted rights. We do allow people to vote in Canada without showing their face at the ballot box — through proxies, or mail-in special ballots. How do you write a law that says some people don’t need to show their faces, but others do?

Moreover, a special law to prohibit the niqab would stomp all over Canadians’ rights to religious expression. That’s probably why the Justice Department lawyer felt he had to point out the non-mandatory aspect of the legislation in Federal Court.

Rather than explain this to Canadians, though, the Conservatives took the path of blustering about niqabs and sending dog-whistle signals to people uncomfortable or fearful about Muslims. Bad statesmanship. Easy politics, though.

We saw that earlier this year, as well, when the Conservatives sent out a fundraising email asking supporters to sign up if they agreed that it was “offensive” to wear a niqab or a hijab at citizenship ceremonies. The email left little doubt that the Conservatives were whipping up these sentiments for reasons of purest electoral politics.

The note was signed by Immigration Minister Chris Alexander and stirred up some controversy with his interchangeable use of ‘niqab’ and ‘hijab’; one is generally associated with full-face coverings, while the other, the hijab, is commonly used to describe a head covering.

To make things even more confusing, not all Conservatives have been using the word “offensive” when it comes to garments of religious expression. Kenney, for instance, said on Twitter in 2013: “A child is no less Canadian because she or he wears a kippa, turban, cross, or hijab to school.” Kenney sent out that missive in the midst of the Quebec debate over the wearing of religious symbols in public.

There’s still a month left in this election and it’s entirely possible that one of the eleventh-hour Conservative campaign promises will revolve around banning veiled voting — again. It would fit well with this week’s bluster on citizenship ceremonies.

This time we might ask them: Why did the last two attempts quietly die? Are they serious this time, or is this just another attempt to whip up some good old-fashioned intolerance?

What’s really being veiled here by all this talk about the niqab?

Source: The Conservatives’ veiled pitch for the anti-Muslim vote

Filed under Citizenship, Multiculturalism Tagged with , , , ,

Woman fighting ban on face-covering at citizenship ceremonies gets support from Ontario

2015/09/12 Leave a comment

Interesting that the Ontario government would take this step (and citizenship is exclusively a federal jurisdiction, unlike immigration which is shared):

The Ontario government is standing alongside a Mississauga, Ont., woman who is challenging the federal government’s ban on face-coverings at citizenship ceremonies.

It has filed its position, called a factum, with the Federal Court of Appeal in advance of a hearing scheduled to begin next week in Ottawa.

The province argues that requiring a Muslim woman to remove her niqab during the public oath-taking ceremony “with the result that if she does not she cannot become a Canadian citizen, fails to respect and accommodate the diversity of religious beliefs and socio-cultural backgrounds of Canadians.”

The factum goes on to say the government’s policy “tells Muslim women that if they wear the niqab, they are not welcome to join the Canadian community.”

The province is also of the view that “visual inspection of a person’s face does not prove that the person has actually spoken the words of the oath or affirmation. The proof is already provided by the existing requirement that citizenship candidates sign a certificate certifying they have taken the oath or affirmation.”

Source: Woman fighting ban on face-covering at citizenship ceremonies gets support from Ontario – Politics – CBC News

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with , ,

‘It’s classic wedge politics’: Tories continue to tout niqab ban as battle heats up in court of appeals

2015/07/18 Leave a comment

More on the electoral aspects:

Late last month, Prime Minister Stephen Harper told a crowd in Quebec voters have told him, “We want new citizens to take the oath with their faces uncovered.”

“It’s classic wedge politics” that distinguishes the Conservatives from the other parties, said Emmett Macfarlane, a political science professor at the University of Waterloo. Even if it turns out to be a losing issue legally, it may be a winning issue politically.

“This plays well with the Conservative base. Despite the party’s success with new immigrants and ethnic communities … and spearheading connections to those communities, a lot of the base still has a view that minority cultures have inappropriate practices.”

Various polls have shown that a strong majority of Canadians agree people should show their faces during citizenship ceremonies.

“It is a common-sense view … and has resounding support in Canada,” said Salim Mansur, a political science professor at Western University in London, Ont.

The policy was introduced in December 2011 and is grounded in the belief citizenship applicants must be seen to be saying the oath. Those who refuse to remove facial coverings will not receive their citizenship.

‘It’s classic wedge politics’: Tories continue to tout niqab ban as battle heats up in court of appeals.

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with

En niqab à sa cérémonie de citoyenneté

2015/05/11 Leave a comment

This week in Montreal.

She unveiled her face however when making the oath which reflects a certain willingness to compromise, even if the niqab still sends an overall signal of separation, not integration:

Latin American présence d’une candidate citoyenne vêtue d’un tel voile intégral est rarissime, selon une source gouvernementale.

La toute nouvelle citoyenne canadienne a toutefois respecté les règles en vigueur et s’est découvert le visage pendant quelques instants, le temps de prêter serment.

Certaines personnes dans l’audience ont ressenti un malaise face à la présence du niqab, ce voile intégral qui n’est percé que d’une étroite fente pour permettre la vision. Mais aucun esclandre n’est venu troubler la cérémonie, qui s’est tenue mercredi matin.

La femme était accompagnée d’un homme et de deux enfants. La cérémonie, tenue mercredi dernier au Centre hellénique de Montréal de Côte-des-Neiges, réunissait plus d’une centaine de personnes. Les individus sur le point de devenir citoyens canadiens étaient tour à tour appelés à l’avant de la salle pour prêter serment à la reine et au Canada.

«Ce sont des cas très, très, très rares, a indiqué une source gouvernementale. C’est minime, sur le nombre de cérémonies qui se tiennent.»

En niqab à sa cérémonie de citoyenneté | Philippe Teisceira-Lessard | National.

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with ,

Larry Miller and the case against the niqab – Wherry

2015/03/19 Leave a comment

Aaron Wherry’s two questions:

First, if the government wishes to see the niqab banned, why doesn’t it change the regulations to reflect that? I asked the office of Minister Chris Alexander that question and a spokesman responded, “We are not going to speculate on hypotheticals and we are going to make our arguments in court.” (In an op-ed published today, law professor Richard Moon suggests the government amend the regulations, though Moon notes that would trigger a Charter challenge, which the government would lose.)

Second, and more crucial, it seems to me, if the government adamantly believes the niqab should be banned during the oath, why did the government apparently tell the court that the directive was not mandatory, but optional? Here, again, are the first three sentences of paragraph 30 of Justice Boswell’s ruling:

The Respondent argues that this application is premature. In its view, the Policy is not mandatory and citizenship judges are free not to apply it. As such, there is no way to know what would have happened had the Applicant attended the ceremony and refused to uncover her face.

So it would seem that while the government is publicly declaring that wearing the niqab during the oath is unequivocally not something that should be allowed, it has otherwise defended the policy as quite open to equivocation. Beyond the legal arguments here, that seems to my untrained eye like a serious complication for the government’s political argument.

Whatever Larry Miller’s views of where the hell one should situate oneself, the government’s basic argument would seem to amount to this: that a citizenship ceremony is of a particular nature that the government should be able to impose a standard of dress for it, regardless of an individual’s claim to religious freedom, so far as the niqab is concerned. In light of all else—and, I might add, the Supreme Court’s ruling on when a niqab should be removed during a trial—it remains a weak and uninspiring argument. It is a principle without a practical basis that would have the government dismiss a fundamental right. It is to presume that the state can, without substantial cause, dictate attire and place a limit on one’s religious freedom.

Larry Miller and the case against the niqab – Macleans.ca.

Filed under Citizenship, Multiculturalism Tagged with ,

Banning the niqab harms an open society. So does wearing it: Omer Aziz

2015/03/18 Leave a comment

Omer Azis on the niqab debate:

Assuming it is genuine modesty and not an ostentatious display of conservative religiosity that motivates a woman to wear a black veil sequestering her from the rest of society, a cultural practice that demands of one sex to cover up is inherently misogynistic. If anyone should be required to cover their faces, it is the men who torture and kill their daughters and sisters for marrying of their own free will. Let us not mince words here: Women are certainly ‘free’ to wear the niqab, in the same sense as they are ‘free’ to enter the mosque from the side and ‘free’ to stand behind the men while praying. This is a blinkered idea of freedom, but liberalism requires tolerating and legally protecting illiberal attitudes.

The main problem with the niqab, though, is that it diminishes liberal democracy. What separates liberal societies from dictatorships is that the former are open, allow for face-to-face consultation, encourage dissent, and recognize individuals as equals. Liberal societies must allow one citizen to see another citizen’s face when in conversation or contact. When only one party’s face is visible, the informalities of open conversation disappear, body language is eliminated, the natural empathy we humans feel when looking at our fellow human’s face is extinguished. A veil over the face of one citizen permanently alters the terms of the discussion, which is why niqabs have no place in classrooms and other institutions where free discourse is designed to flourish. Imagine a society where all women covered their faces, as some of the more totalitarian Islamists would impose. Call this society what you like, but it would be the farthest thing from liberal democracy.

The enemy of the open society, the late Czech playwright-president Vaclav Havel once wrote, ‘is a person with a fiercely serious countenance and burning eyes.’ Both the politician who seeks to ban what a woman may wear, and the patriarch who seeks to dictate what a woman must wear, are not friends of the open society.

Neither, however, is the niqab.

One of the most articulate commentary yet.

Banning the niqab harms an open society. So does wearing it – The Globe and Mail.

Filed under Citizenship, Multiculturalism Tagged with ,

NDP tones down their defence of face-covering niqab in Quebec

2015/03/16 Leave a comment

More on some of the internal NDP debates:

But headlines in French-language media that say NDP is “in favour of the niqab” were not well received by all New Democrats, and provided fodder for the party’s opponents in the province.

The niqab is a controversial subject in Quebec, where a promise from the separatist Parti Québécois to ban overt religious symbols among government workers was a major issue in the most recent provincial election.

One of the NDP’s best known Quebec MPs, Alexandre Boulerice, gave media interviews this week to explain his “uneasiness” with the niqab.

“It seems to be a symbol of oppression, which is not something that pleases me,” Mr. Boulerice told The Globe and Mail on Friday. “I think the niqab is at the junction of the limits of what is accepted by the Charter [of Rights and Freedoms] and what Canadian society is ready to accept.”

He also questioned the ability of fully veiled bureaucrats to provide services to the public, stating Canada might need a country-wide consultation on religious symbols similar to one in Quebec in 2007-2008. However, he added that the Charter needs to be respected, and accused the Conservative government of “going overboard” on the issue.

The Liberal Party jumped on Mr. Boulerice’s comments, arguing that on minority rights, the NDP says “one thing in Quebec, and something else in the rest of Canada.”

New Democrat officials said the party’s position has not changed: it will continue to support minority rights vigorously and defend the Charter, including the right of women to wear a niqab when swearing the oath of citizenship.

The party also renewed its assault on Prime Minister Stephen Harper for attempting to use the issue of the niqab to win support in Quebec. New Democrats explained that in much of the country, the debate is among three federalist parties, but that in Quebec, the separatist Bloc Québécois, a federal party, is scoring political points by criticizing the niqab.

“Stephen Harper is helping the separatists by giving them a lifeline, by fanning the flames of division on this issue,” NDP principal secretary Karl Bélanger said in an interview.

NDP tones down their defence of face-covering niqab in Quebec – The Globe and Mail.

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , , ,

Le Canada mûr pour une commission Bouchard-Taylor?

2015/03/14 Leave a comment

The Official Opposition struggles with the niqab issue and advocates greater public consultations rather than the current politicization of the Government. Hardly likely, a few months before the election:

Quelques heures plus tard, à sa sortie des Communes, le député est allé plus loin en s’opposant sans équivoque au port du voile intégral dans la fonction publique. « Moi, comme la plupart de mes collègues, on veut vivre dans une société où les gens sont à visage découvert. […] Je pense que la plupart des gens s’attendent à recevoir des services publics de la part de quelqu’un dont on peut voir le visage », a tranché le député. La veille, son chef Thomas Mulcair avait systématiquement refusé de préciser si le niqab était acceptable dans la fonction publique.

M. Boulerice ne va pas jusqu’à proposer de poser des balises légales. Avant tout, le Canada devrait à son tour — comme l’a fait le Québec il y a huit ans — consulter citoyens et experts.

« Il y a une espèce de vacuum en ce moment au niveau fédéral. Et ce qu’on voit, c’est des conservateurs qui jouent sur des préjugés et des amalgames pour essayer de marquer des points politiques. Et ça, on le déplore », a reproché le député de Rosemont.

…Le NPD croit au contraire que le niqab ne pose pas problème lorsqu’une femme prête un serment personnel, mais qu’il ne devrait pas être accepté lorsque cette même femme est en relation de services avec le citoyen. M. Boulerice doute d’ailleurs qu’une seule fonctionnaire fédérale porte le niqab. Le bureau du ministre Clement — qui s’est dit convaincu cette semaine qu’il y en a — a indiqué au Devoir qu’il ne « recense pas ce genre d’information ».

Thomas Mulcair était du même avis que son député, en avril dernier. « Le visage découvert, pour livrer des services au public, est tout à fait respectueux des libertés », avait-il réagi lorsque Philippe Couillard a promis une charte de la laïcité édulcorée.

Le chef néodémocrate a toutefois refusé de répondre à cette même question mercredi. Son bureau n’a pas répondu aux courriels du Devoir lui demandant si le chef partage la position de M. Boulerice.

Le Canada mûr pour une commission Bouchard-Taylor? | Le Devoir.

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →