Citizenship vs. hijabs/niqabs/burkas. Fight!

If you had a serious disease, or a medical condition that would put stress on the healthcare system it's unlikely you would be admitted entry to Canada in the first place.

 

Sure, Canada has the right to decide what the immigrant must be in order to be welcomed into Canada. Their clothing, their religion, their eating habits, their sexual preference, their skills etc. Canada has the right to regulate all of of those in the people coming into their borders. Should it, though? The immigrant really has no right to protest. They're strangers, and this isn't their home yet.

But maybe Canada should consider being a little more thoughtful, and understand that some concessions are not the end of democracy, and will ease the immigrant into the transition rather than make it harder.

 

Canada has the reputation for being one of the most welcoming countries in the world, though.

All they really ask of the immigrant is that they become Canadian.

 

Oh they might. They just don't necessarily possess the right not to be removed or the right to be granted citizenship so it might, perhaps, be unwise to protest. I remember a lot of people asking quite pointedly where the immigration enforcement officials were during the million immigrant march in D.C. some years back.

 

That can be a bit ugly when 'become Canadian' is essentially code for 'be white and Christian'. I would suggest that the sort of sentiments that Warpus is coming out with often end up disguising just that idea.

 

.. .. ..

Extenuating medical circumstances are valid exceptions for almost every single law I can think of.

That's what we're talking about, right? Someone's face being burned, preventing them from removing their facial covering? Why wouldn't that be a valid exception to this law?

If we're just talking about someone who is super ugly, then.. I don't know? It doesn't seem like a valid exception to me - but perhaps a psychologist would be able to better answer that than me.

More thoughtful than what?

I'm not asking people to remove their underwear during their swearing in ceremony while they recite all Canadian cities alphabetically, and then from east-to-west.

There are plenty of concessions in our immigration system. How do you think they let my family into the country in the first place?

Man, you're reaching for straws within straws here..

"If anyone wants to become Canadian, they need to accept some of our values and not cover their face during certain important processes, such as the swearing in ceremony." = "White power!"

I'm not even Christian, so I don't get how you think I'd want everyone who comes here to be a Christian - it would have meant that I wouldn't have been allowed to become a Canadian citizen either..

 

No, we were talking about somebody whose face had been dismantled, burned, blasted and so on to the point that they wear a covering because they're fed up of being stared at in the street and having parents usher their children away - I know quite a few people like that personally. As you rightly said, it would be extremely cruel to ask somebody like that - say a war veteran with an eyepatch to hide a particularly gruesome facial wound - to humiliate themselves needlessly during a public ceremony. That's not a matter of being 'just super ugly' at all.

Why does covering the face matter? I put it to you that nobody in Canada even though about it until they realised that Muslim women cover their faces. As I said, if somebody is doing it as a gesture of disrespect or defiance, that's one thing, but that's not what we're talking about.

Incidentally, when you say 'our values', whose values, precisely, are those?

 

Yeah, sounds like a potentially valid medical exception, perhaps partially psychological in nature.

I've explained it plenty already, I don't want to keep repeating myself. I mean, I could, but my fingers are getting tired man...

I don't even know why I'm responding to you, you pretty much called me a veiled racist.

If ninjas or Mexican wrestlers wanted to immigrate to Canada - the same standards should apply.

This is not an objection based on an anti-religious bias.

You are right that this is an unusual situation that only applies to a small subsection of humanity. But that's really beside the point.

The values that the nation of Canada is meant to embody. Now, please don't drag me into a debate about what exactly it means for a country to have values..

 

I'd say the key difference is that Saudi Arabians aren't patting themselves on the back for the free society they have created at the same time that they are demanding conformity to their customs. That seems to be a more North American approach.

 

I think there's no need for this for a swearing-in ceremony, but for a passport photo or a mugshot, you do actually have to show your face.

 

The Saudis don't seem to have a problem bothering other countries to allow Mosques to be built despite their own well, apprehension, to a church either.

It's a very important ceremony for many immigrants and Canadians alike. These ceremonies are highly cherished and often publicized in Canada.

 

I just don't see the value of drawing the line at the swearing in ceremony. There's no pressing need to see the person's face. There's no security issue. You can say it's a sign of respect for her to remove her face covering. I dunno, I think it's a sign of respect saying she doesn't have to.

 

Really? All I did for my USA(#1) citizenship was pass a test and swear that I'm loyal.

 

They do basically the same thing in Canada, but they have a lot of slow news days up there.

 

I can see the argument from both sides, when you put it like that, although the degrees of respect very wildly from example to example, IMO.

Look at it this way:

I own a home. It's a large home that has many spare bedrooms, so every once in a while I open the door and say: "Those in need who wish to live here, send in your applications. There is enough room here for a few more!"

I only have a couple rules. You can't be a dick to anyone who's already here. You have to contribute to the upkeep with $ and/or chores. You can't damage the house on purpose.

Furthermore, you have to learn the language we speak or at least try to, so that you can participate on social nights. Remember, you are a citizen here, you're expected to be a part of the community. This is not an apartment building for strangers, although we do not discourage introverts or individual pursuits - As Steve put it "Follow your goals as you see fit, but share them with the group over dinner if appropriate"

Finally, if your application is accepted, we will hold a ceremony officially welcoming you into the house and the community. Dress code is not enforced, but you are expected to look presentable. You will be presented with official documentation and will have to recite an oath. You may not hire a surrogate for this purpose - we have to see you in person.

Be respectful please, this ceremony goes way back and it's sort of a big deal. We want to embrace you into our community, so don't be shy - if we can't see your facial expressions we can't fully bond as humans and accept you into our midst.

---

If someone shows up to this ceremony with their face covered, their value system is seemingly obviously not compatible with ours. Not by a long shot. Or they have put on a mask to make a mockery of our fine traditions. Either way, not somebody who should be allowed to live in the house, by my standards, the owner of the house.

So while it would be respectful of us to just let anyone in, whether they have covered their face or not, out of respect for their people's traditions, it would be far more respectful for them to respect the wishes of the owners and inhabitants of their new home. They aren't asking for much - the least you could do is show your face.

It goes both ways - and if you're going to move to a place where people already live - you should be open to compromise and some manner of integration. If you're not, then you can't be upset when you're not let in. Maybe the inhabitants of the house would rather welcome people who are more open to being a part of this community? Do you blame them?

 

What is intrinsically "Canadian" about an uncovered face? (Easier to get donuts in, apologise unnecessarily, and watch hockey I'd imagine.)

 

Good question! Heck, when I was in Canada I wore a scarf around my face, now that I think about it.

 

Nothing intrinsically Canadian about an uncovered face.

However, what is intrinsically Canadian is welcoming someone with an uncovered face and a smile.

Especially when they're throwing you a goddamn ceremony for welcoming you into the goddamn country.

Should I even bother looking up the psychological studies done on the importance of facial recognition in terms of reading another person's mood, intent, etc. ? A face says a lot.

A visitor coming in to your home - especially a stranger - who refuses to expose his face is not a very welcoming gesture. That might not be a universal concept, but it does happen to correspond rather closely to Canadian values.

I am not just making this stuff up you guys, this is honestly what my position is. I don't know if I can explain it any clearer than that. So you can stop trying to pick away at pieces of it, because the coherent whole actually makes sense - and you'll never see it fall apart into pieces.

Having said that, for those of you just joining us and just asking questions - please excuse my hightened tone - there is a masked man in my home who claims to go by the name of Steve. I feel rather uneasy as a result..

 

Wel, I have to take my fair share of responsibility for pushing on Warpus...and in my opinion he has held up reasonable courtesy.

And I have to admit that at one point in my sales career I encountered that unusual customer couple with wife wearing facial covering came along. I say unusual because I couldn't really understand why she was there at all as she didn't seem to have any input, but there may have been communication between them that I wasn't catching. As a salesman having a customer who I could not really see was uncomfortable, and it did turn out to be not a great display on my part. I made the deal but I distinctly felt like I had left money on the table.

Which is not to say that I think religious freedom should be compromised for the comfort or income of car salesmen, but I do get where Warpus is coming from.