Sorry, let me be clear - I'm not accusing anyone of overt, explicit or even conscious racism.
That's what it looks like to me.
By this model, people who don't greet each other with an uncovered face and a smile - which includes a million Muslims for whom that's not really part of their way of doing things, as well as Russians, who usually don't go in for 'polite' smiles - aren't properly Canadian.
Not all Canadians greet each other with a smile. Many do, and offer a "hi" or "good morning/evening" along with the smile. And yeah, sometimes this even happens on elevators and public transit. Some other people never smile, or even bother to acknowledge anyone else's existence - one reason why there are some businesses I will never go into again, btw. I don't insist on a smile, but when I go somewhere to buy something, I do expect the sales staff to notice that they have a prospective customer.
...that doesn't necessarily mean that the people advocating for no-headscarf ceremonies are themselves against Muslims, they've just bought into an exclusionary concept of Canadianness. Does that make sense?
I did not advocate for "no-headscarf ceremonies." I have no objection whatsoever to hijabs, any more than I object to Hutterite kerchiefs or Mennonite headwear (caps? Not sure what to call those odd little black things Mennonite women wear on their heads).
What I do object to is the niqab and/or burka. These cover the face and make it impossible to identify the person underneath, and to interpret body language to figure out if it's congruent with the words the person is speaking. If there were two women in front of me, both speaking the same words, but one wears a hijab and the other a niqab, then assuming they both use the same tone of voice, I'm very likely going to feel more comfortable and trusting of the one whose face I can see.
I'm sorry, but I think you have no idea what you're talking about and don't realize that these sort of face coverings are not very common in the Muslim world. Most Muslim women wear a hair covering - a hijab, which does not get in the way of any of the things I have a problem with. Our Prime Minister has a problem with hijabs, but I don't.
I wonder if Harper has a problem with Sikh men wearing turbans at citizenship ceremonies?
You'd think that Canadians might be a little more sensitive when it comes to matters of assimilation, clothing and national identity, given
their sordid history in that area.
Don't throw residential schools at the Canadian CFC members. None of us had anything to do with instituting those, and I daresay that all of us were either children, teenagers, or not yet born when most of these schools were shut down. Granted, some were still operational into the '90s when I was an adult... but again, I had nothing to do with them, and have acknowledged several times over the years on this forum that the residential schools and also the internment of Japanese Canadians during WWII were two very shameful parts in Canada's history.
True. The question is where did a million Muslims in Canada come from? I can't imagine there is a very high conversion rate, so presumably they are all fairly recent immigrants (one or two generations) and I just never would have thought Canada was a really strong destination of choice in the Islamic world.
As the LaBatt Blue Bear would say, "C'mon, we're talking about an entire country that's north of Buffalo."
I've met people from every continent on the planet (except for Argentina, and you can even include that if any of the penguins in the Calgary Zoo were hatched there). Some of them are Muslim. And Red Deer isn't very big compared to the large cities (still a little shy of 100,000 people).
However, all of them would look at you confusedly if you suggested that a friendly greeting necessarily involved an uncovered face and a smile. The value that you're calling 'Canadian' isn't theirs.
Okay, next tell me how I would even know that they are looking at me "confusedly"
Actually don't - you've been throwing out incorrect and even insulting assertions in this thread that don't really contribute to the conversation any.. so I shouldn't expect you to answer that question in any meaningful way either.. but maybe you can surprise me?
Yep, it's impossible to tell if someone wearing a niqab or burka is wearing a confused expression on her face. That's the point. Maybe they should hold up a sign that has
on it?
If Canada is vastly different than the US on this it is news to me, but my experience with smiling openly at strangers is that it arouses more suspicion than anything else in most quarters, so I find this whole "a friendly greeting with uncovered face and a smile is part of the cultural fabric they are opting into" to be a bit dubious.
I keep hearing about this "smiling = suspicion" thing and it's a sad way to live, in my opinion. Smiling isn't compulsory by any means, but it's usually just a non-verbal way of conveying, "Hi, nice day" or "Good morning/evening."
I am reminded of the American cop who went to Calgary during the Stampede and wished he had a gun so he could have shot the young men who offered him and his wife a friendly greeting and asked if they'd been to the Stampede yet (a very common question that gets asked in Calgary at that time of year).
If you were born in Quebec, are 100% fluent in French, have no intention of ever leaving Quebec, and are of the "right" political persuasion (separatist or at least sovereignty-association), there are some people there who think that's the best and only kind of people acceptable as citizens there - especially when it comes to the question of the right to vote.
Compulsory smiles? What nightmarish dystopia is this.
There's no need to take it literally.
I've never taken part in a citizenship ceremony (having been born here, I never needed to), but I've observed a couple in person and also on TV. What I noticed is that nearly everyone
is smiling, because they're happy to have achieved their citizenship. Not everyone who tries actually makes it.
I think this is bothering me because the entire point of New World civic national identity is that it's got basically no required cultural content and is supposed to be infinitely flexible within the bounds of following laws built on respect for individual autonomy. Instituting a membership dress code kinda seems contra that spirit.
Someone with a different standard of modesty should be able to be exactly as Australian or Canadian or USian or New Zealander as anyone else.
I'm pretty sure that the people whose standards of modesty include running around either topless or completely naked wouldn't be welcome at citizenship ceremonies, either. Although there are some places in Canada where it's legal for women to be topless in public, I never heard of anyone doing so at an official ceremony. I'm reasonably certain the judge would tell her to put a shirt on if it were ever to happen.
