Citizenship vs. hijabs/niqabs/burkas. Fight!

Canadian values - we are all here working together on an open, inviting community. If you want to join this community but would like to have your face covered at all times.. that runs counter to what we are building here.

Now.. Covering your face is fine, but not in all cases. I would even say it's usually fine - one of our values is also the freedom of personal choice. However, in some cases you just can't do that - you need to be identified.

So while we have our values that run counter to someone having their face covered 24/7, we also have values that allow for personal freedom. In this case the contradiction can be removed by only expecting for someone to show their face during very specific times - ID check at the airport, swearing in ceremony, etc.

The swearing in ceremony is your acceptance of Canadian values - and your reaffirmation that you are ready to join our open community. By showing up to this ceremony with your face covered is telling me that you are not in fact ready to accept Canadian values and become a part of Canadian society.

 

Hehehehe.

It's good, isn't it?

 

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

However, in accordance with the charter, she has the right to cover her face if she chooses regardless of others feelings on the issue. And in the case of Ms. Ishaq, she was willing to allow her identity to be confirmed for the purpose of citizenship, so I don't think she'll suddenly refuse when the time comes to get a bank account or something similar.

 

I think people who want to cover their faces are just shy. Nothing wrong with being shy, as far as I know.

 

That 'etc' is the problem. It basically means 'we will have to determine other specific times when these expectations are going to be applied...and we are already sliding towards 'just arbitrary' as the deciding principle'.

A reasonable case can certainly be made for 'ID check at the airport' and even for 'ID check at the swearing in ceremony, which is no doubt why the woman agreed to support that. But the 'during swearing in so we know you support Canadian openness', since there is no reasonable need at that time based on identification, opens a whole filing cabinet of circumstances.

A store owner wants a 'friendly' environment and associates masks with robbers, so he insists. That's not something respect for individual rights should support, but it is the same reasoning used in this "openness at the swearing in"... so how as a society do you resist the store owner? That's just one. The etc expands endlessly, primarily because you are setting a precedent beyond identification purposes.

 

There are definitely a lot of grey areas here and a lot of details that need to be worked out.

I just don't think that somebody coming to this country who refuses to show their face to other Canadians is really going to make a good Canadian and a good member of Canadian society.

Having said that though, I do think it should be allowed in most circumstances - as much as I think it goes against many things that this country stands for.

As for the swearing in ceremony, if you want to be a citizen, you should at least be willing to make some compromises. That's not so unreasonable. Refusing to show your face during the swearing in ceremony just sends the wrong message. The message you should be sending is "Yes, I am willing to integrate in with Canadian society! Open your arms and I'll open mine!".. and not "Don't look at my face". We are an open society based on mutual respect and community - if you come here and want to be a citizen you should be willing to integrate and adapt to our ways of doing things - especially if the ask is not a very big one, such as in this case.

 

Mutual respect is very easy, if you're both very similar, eh? But inject significant differences, and the mutual respect becomes much more difficult. I thought Canadian society was big on tolerance, and embracing differences? Or am I thinking of the US, instead?

 

Ok well my opinion on this is that I would like to see ALL religious clothing and items banned in public. Leave that at home and to your holy building, I want a 100% fully free from religion public environment.

 

Tolerance yes, but not tolerance of everything.

Embracing differences yes, but not all differences. If all differences in the world were for some reason equal then you'd have a point.. but..

Why are you putting the emphasis on acceptance on the Canadian state here? Out of the two parties involved here, it is the immigrant who should be looking to accept the cultural norms of the new country moreso than the Canadian state should be looking to bend its laws and norms to the wishes of the immigrant. It does go both ways, but the immigrant is the one who decided to come here - more of this burden thus lies on his/her shoulders.

 

Once Canada realized it had been harboring the citizenship of Ted Cruz, it changed for the worse.

 

We speak English round these parts, and you don't dress up the wrong way, ya'hear boy? Get it straight or get back the way you came.

 

Sigh, way to mischaracterize and oversensationalize my position.

 

I think you're potentially opening up a dangerous line of reasoning there - you could just as fairly replace 'immigrant' with 'citizen' and 'come' with 'remain'. I don't think the state really should be bending anybody or telling anybody how to think and act, beyond the absolute minimum limits required by good order and public education. When people talk about 'national' character, they're nearly always talking about the attributes shared by the most powerful people in that country. I think public institutions should strive to accommodate as many people and practices as possible rather than trying to shoehorn everybody into a mythical 'national' one-size-fits-all box.

 

Not my intent. Sigh all you want, but you're being unflattering to the people who have said that before. They just have very sensible standards regarding building an open society where people wear clothing that's open and of common values and also speak a language that is open so everyone can share understanding.

 

Potentially, if what i'm saying is taken to an extreme and applied to the type of shoes you're allowed to wear, what sort of things you're allowed to say, what you're allowed to think, and so on.

But it hasn't been taken to that extreme by me - only by those who disagree with my position.

"Do whatever you want, within reason, just like don't always cover your face, especially at times when we need to see who you are. We are an open society and you should be ready for that and willing to conform to our standards of what it means to live together" seems pretty sensible to me.

Canada is one of the most open countries on the planet - letting in a lot of immigrants, per capita. I don't get why it's such a giant deal to people that we'd want to only let in those people who are actually willing to integrate with our society and community - and have rules for those who want to join Canada and become citizens.

 

My experience around women who wear a niqab has occurred only in large cities and in every experience they appeared to be exceptionally quiet and well behaved individuals. I have noticed that they’re often accompanied by a male or several other niqab wearing females but never alone. I have not witnessed the niqab in public universities or colleges, but have noticed in one city that they attend a school specially designed for niqab wearing women only. I have not witnessed anyone dressed in a niqab in a form of employment however.

I gather from these observations that it is important for a women wearing a niqab to be surrounded by individuals who share her values and thus she would not succeed well or at least feel comfortable in a smaller city or community where there are people unlike her. It is this concern that makes me question whether this individual would have any desire to contribute to Canadian society if they cannot function in a diverse country that has fought and continues to fight for the inclusiveness of women.

 

If the individual is already a Canadian citizen, or a visitor, they can wear whatever they want. The country however is under no obligation to afford these values to prospective Canadians, no matter how unsavory that may seem.

 

Warpus, I think this response is one you would do well to consider. Your "well, asking you to uncover your face is no big deal really" amounts to you getting to determine what is or isn't a big deal to someone else. I might personally think that nudity is 'no big deal', but that doesn't mean I would be surprised that other people thought differently if I don't get dressed before I go out to get the paper...or that it is somehow incumbent upon them to 'just get over it'.

If this business of facial covering is really 'no big deal' how is making her remove it justifiable? She has already acknowledged the identification requirements and accepted them.

 

If she is willing to uncover her face during those very infrequently occurring scenarios, then I have 0 problem with people walking around through Canada with their faces covered.

 

So it's just a matter of needing the pound of pride, the kowtow? Not anything to do with security? Even if this, like the 2013 conversation revolving around hijabs and the Massachusetts Bar Exam, results in succinctly saying, "We want no devout Muslim women of this type as citizens of our country/to be lawyers in our state?"