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 , , , ,

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 ,

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 , ,

Barbara Kay: Chinese signs, native ‘medicine,’ niqabbed women — a busy week on the multicultural front

2014/10/23 Leave a comment

Barbara Kay on the niqab issue and citizenship:

Finally, there is our old friend, the niqab, back in the news, with Pakistani-Canadian Mississauga, Ont. resident Zunera Ishaq suing the federal government because the Conservatives’ ban on veiled oath-taking in citizenship ceremonies allegedly violates her Charter right to religious accommodation. (She withdrew from such a ceremony on that account.)

Yawn. Can we please once and for all jettison the false belief that Muslim women are required by Islamic doctrine to wear the niqab? It is a cultural custom observed only in the most tribal and misogynistic of Islamic societies. The question has been put to, and answered, by a plethora of Islamic scholars. And if some niqab-wearers remain ignorant of their own religion’s demands, that’s their problem, not ours. The general timidity amongst pundits to “go there” is irksome.

What a pleasure it therefore was to read in a recent Maclean’s interview the bracingly commonsensical words on this subject from Quebec premier Philippe Couillard. While dismissing the PQ’s contentious Charter of Values, whose sweeping proscriptions of religious symbols helped to bring that party down last April, Couillard explained that the niqab is a case apart from mere crosses, kippahs and hijabs: “Certain principles have to be clarified. One is the question of the face. I think this is a line in the sand for many Quebecers and Canadians: That if you’re going to give services or receive services, your face should be uncovered. That’s about all we’re going to do, and frankly all that needs to be done.” Hear, hear.

While I agree with her praise of Premier Couillard, the issue is not whether or not the niqab is required or not by Islam or whether the belief that it is sincere or not.

Rather, is it acceptable for a niqabi to give or receive government services, take the citizenship oath, obtain a driver’s licence or passport etc, in the context of Canadian society and integration?

Barbara Kay: Chinese signs, native ‘medicine,’ niqabbed women — a busy week on the multicultural front

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with ,

Ottawa should allow the niqab at citizenship ceremonies – Globe Editorial

2014/10/21 Leave a comment

Globe editorial forgets that accommodation requires flexibility on both sides. And citizenship requires participation, even if at least symbolic.

Religious freedom is not absolute, like other freedoms needs to be balanced against other freedoms and responsibilities:

We think she should have accommodated. But we’re not her. A religious freedom is a religious freedom; it’s not something you practise only when it’s convenient to the broader society – except in the most particular cases. Canadian courts have recognized that it may be important to require Muslim women to remove their niqabs when testifying in criminal court cases, but only if doing otherwise would jeopardize a fair trial. Is the ceremony of the citizenship oath equally critical? Hardly.

Ottawa should allow the niqab at citizenship ceremonies – The Globe and Mail.

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with ,

Australia’s Parliament House Lifts Face Veil Ban – NYTimes.com

2014/10/21 Leave a comment

Update on earlier story and follow-up to PM Abbott’s expression that ban was wrong:

The announcement was made a few hours before the end of the final sitting day of Parliaments last two-week session and had no practical effect.

Hours before Parliament was to resume on Monday, the Department of Parliamentary Services, or DPS, said in a statement that people wearing face coverings would again be allowed in all public areas of Parliament House.

It said face coverings would have to be removed temporarily at the security check point at the front door so that staff could “identify any person who may have been banned from entering Parliament House or who may be known, or discovered, to be a security risk.”

“Procedures are still in place to ensure that DPS security manage these procedures in a sensitive and appropriate manner,” the statement said without elaborating.

The ban on face veils in the public galleries had been widely condemned as a segregation of Muslim women and a potential breach of federal anti-discrimination law.

Australia’s Parliament House Lifts Face Veil Ban – NYTimes.com.

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , , ,

Ex-immigration minister Jason Kenney ‘dictated’ niqab ban at citizenship ceremony, court told

2014/10/18 1 Comment

I’m with the Government and Kenney on this one.

Not for the stated reason that this allows the citizenship judge and officials to ascertain that the oath is being said (one can mouth the words or move one’s lips with different meanings, and impossible, unless blatant, to closely monitor each and every individual in a ceremony with typically 50 people).

But rather, that becoming a citizen means becoming part of the Canadian society and community, and the niqab is essentially a symbol of rejection of broader participation in the community.

Accommodation requires flexibility on both parties and Ishaq was given the opportunity to be seated in a less visible location:

Government lawyer Negar Hashemi said the case is about finding the “right balance” between respecting differences and maintaining Canadian core democratic values.

The niqab ban, she said, is part of a larger scheme to ensure everyone vows loyalty to Canada. Other non-veil-wearing candidates caught not doing so, such as elderly people with language difficulties, can also have their citizenship certificates withheld.

“There is no hidden agenda in this case,” she said.

Hashemi said Ishaq did not seek accommodation prior to her scheduled citizenship ceremony and declined the offer to take her oath at the front or the back of the citizenship court after the legal action was initiated.

She noted that the applicant unveiled herself to have her driver’s licence photo taken, and the brief unveiling at a citizenship ceremony would be no different.

“She had a choice of becoming a citizen or adhering to her religion,” said Hashemi. “Becoming a citizen is a privilege, not a right.”

Lorne Waldman, a co-counsel for Ishaq, said the Citizenship Act does not stipulate that a candidate must be seen or heard taking the oath — something witnesses for the immigration department agreed is hard to enforce and ensure.

“This policy was dictated by the immigration minister Kenney that there had to be a change, and there’s no willingness to provide any accommodation,” said Waldman, adding that officials confirmed there are fewer than 100 cases a year across Canada where someone wears a niqab to the ceremony.

Ex-immigration minister Jason Kenney ‘dictated’ niqab ban at citizenship ceremony, court told | Toronto Star.

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with , , ,

Un jugement aveugle sur le niqab | Le Devoir

2014/10/01 Leave a comment

More on the niqab in Quebec, where a Quebec journalist, writing about the niqab (apparently in a balanced manner) had to pay damages to a niqab-wearing woman for publishing her picture without permission. Formality (requirement for permission) and substance (niqab provides anonymity):

En juin 2012, M. Cristea a publié un article où il décrit l’émoi causé par la vue d’un niqab au marché aux puces de Sainte-Foy. Son texte était accompagné d’une photographie de la femme en voile intégral en compagnie de son mari. La lecture de l’article ne révèle aucune intolérance, le texte soulignant seulement le choc culturel causé par le niqab dans une société non musulmane ; quant à l’identification des personnes photographiées, elle s’avère pratiquement impossible. Comme l’a écrit François Bourque, chroniqueur au Soleil et ancien président de la Fédération professionnelle des journalistes du Québec, le reportage incriminé est « sobre et factuel » et « n’incite pas à la haine, au mépris ou à l’intolérance » ; au sujet de la photo, le même journaliste affirme que « sauf pour des proches, il semble impossible de reconnaître la femme et difficilement son conjoint » Le Soleil, 30 janvier 2013.

….On peut s’étonner de cette décision de la Cour. D’abord, la question de l’identification des personnes est fort discutable : le niqab n’entraîne-t-il pas en effet l’occultation complète de l’individualité ? En outre, selon le juge, la publication de la photographie n’était pas d’intérêt public. Or, le sujet traité, le port du voile intégral, est d’une grande actualité et anime de nombreux débats tant au Québec qu’ailleurs dans le monde. Publier une photo d’une femme en niqab en complément d’un article qui porte justement sur le voile intégral afin de montrer aux lecteurs d’un journal que cette réalité existe bel et bien dans leur milieu, n’est-ce pas tout à fait fondé sur le plan journalistique ?

Enfin, le juge n’a pas tenu compte du fait que la photographie a été prise dans un espace public et non dans l’intimité d’une résidence privée. La femme musulmane, en se présentant au marché aux puces en niqab, devait savoir qu’elle quittait la sphère privée et qu’elle s’exposait ainsi aux regards et au jugement d’autrui. Elle aurait dû accepter toutes les conséquences de ce geste fait volontairement au sein d’une collectivité peu habituée à ce genre d’habillement.

En fait, le juge a retenu surtout l’argument du non-consentement, négligeant les aspects sociaux du litige. C’est là une tendance forte de nos tribunaux d’aujourd’hui qui, en vertu de la prédominance qu’ils accordent aux chartes des droits de la personne, en sont arrivés à évacuer la perspective sociale au profit de la seule perspective individuelle.

Cette cause soulève de façon très vive la question de la liberté de presse. Les tribunaux doivent certes intervenir devant les dérapages possibles des médias, particulièrement quand il s’agit de tromperie ou de diffamation. Mais ce n’est manifestement pas le cas ici. Le juge s’est permis, dans cette affaire, de condamner le travail d’un journaliste qui avait pourtant écrit un texte d’intérêt public dans un style très respectueux et avec une photo des plus pertinentes. Citons encore François Bourque, dans un autre article : « On note que [les] balises [établies par la Cour suprême] peuvent ouvrir la porte à une interprétation très restrictive de l’intérêt public. Ce n’est pas une bonne nouvelle pour les médias. »

Nous avons fait la connaissance de M. Cristea et nous avons pu constater combien il était sensible aux dangers que comporte le communautarisme dans lequel les immigrants risquent de s’enfermer et à quel point il avait à coeur de favoriser avant tout leur intégration pleine et entière à la société québécoise. En guise de remerciement, nos tribunaux n’ont trouvé rien de mieux que de le condamner à 7000 $ en « dommages moraux » au profit d’un couple qui n’a pas hésité à afficher le niqab en public, vêtement sexiste que le premier ministre Philippe Couillard lui-même entend faire interdire en tant que signe d’« instrumentalisation de la religion pour des fins d’oppression et de soumission » (Le Devoir, 26 septembre 2014). Il faut encourager M. Cristea à faire appel pour que le bon sens prévale dans ce pays. Nous l’assurons de tout notre appui dans cette démarche.

Un jugement aveugle sur le niqab | Le Devoir.

Filed under Multiculturalism, Religion Tagged with , , ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →