Citizenship vs. hijabs/niqabs/burkas. Fight!

Hang in there warpus, you are right! Walking around with ones face covered is just fine, but there are times when you have to set aside religious (or other customs) as a member of the community. If a request to uncover is made under circumstances listed below, the covered person should comply.
*For identification purposes by government officials in their work capacity
*When conversing with your teacher or the teachers of those you are guardian for
*A person with whom you are engaging in a transaction of monetary value

If no request is made, then no need to uncover.

In the US selling alcohol to a minor or intoxicated person is a criminal offense. The only way to verify the identity and age of covered person is to see their face and ID at the same time.

If the person in the face covering is buying alcohol there is reason to think she should not object to showing her face on religious grounds.
 
If the person in the face covering is buying alcohol there is reason to think she should not object to showing her face on religious grounds.
But the majority in this thread seem to think they shouldn't have to. Religious freedom does not trump everything.
 
But the majority in this thread seem to think they shouldn't have to. Religious freedom does not trump everything.

I think pretty much everyone agreed that for identification purposes it was necessary. I did think the 'buying alcohol requires ID' was a pretty funny aspect of that though! In my car selling example the wife never drove the car and did not sign any documents, so there was never a need for identification. She also was not technically involved in the monetary transaction so that didn't apply either.
 
I think pretty much everyone agreed that for identification purposes it was necessary. I did think the 'buying alcohol requires ID' was a pretty funny aspect of that though! In my car selling example the wife never drove the car and did not sign any documents, so there was never a need for identification. She also was not technically involved in the monetary transaction so that didn't apply either.
Great! So when she makes a CC purchase and I ask to see her driver's license, I can also ask to see her face?
 
Great! So when she makes a CC purchase and I ask to see her driver's license, I can also ask to see her face?

I should think so. Any activity that leads to checking ID pretty much has to involve revealing the face. I think if you are in a situation where you have regular clientele who need to show ID and you expect a lot of trade with people who prefer to cover their face it would be a courtesy and a good business decision to provide a way they can be more comfortable (like trying to keep at least one female cashier on, arranging your checkout so the customer isn't facing half the store) but I'd certainly not support forcing you to do so.
 
Where would you draw it, then?

Is it OK for a host country to demand monogamy but not FGM, for instance? Or vice versa?

Is it OK for a host country to demand that you speak the dominant language but not subscribe to the dominant religion?

How do you feel about transnational loyalties like the Muslim brotherhood or international Zionism? Is it OK for a prospective citizen to have divided loyalties or not?
Canada requires that if people are married, it's to one person at a time. Note that same-sex marriage is legal in all 10 provinces and 3 territories. If they want a second spouse, they are expected to either divorce the first or be widowed (and not by killing their spouse!). FGM is an obscenity that has no place in any civilized part of this world. It's just wrong. And please don't derail the thread in that direction, as we have an old one on that topic you can bump if you have something new to say about it.

Canada does require new citizens to speak, read, and write either English or French. If they choose to live in Nunavut or the Northwest Territories it would be best if they tried to learn some Inuktitut as well, as that language is official in both those territories.

Canada does not require new citizens, or anyone at all, actually, to be of any particular religion. There are some issues in various regions, however, as to whether or not people get adequately served according to what they do or don't believe in.

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.
The Charter protects people here from being discriminated against on the basis of sexual preference. The sodomy laws were struck down a long time ago. Granted there are bigoted people who haven't noticed what century we're living in (ie. two women got kicked out of a local restaurant here because they kissed in public)... but I'm reasonably sure that citizenship can't be denied to a non-straight person on that basis alone.


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.
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.
That's... just... I can't even think of a suitable word. :huh: I've met immigrants and refugees from many parts of the world, and as long as they make an effort to learn English, obey the laws, behave with common courtesy, and don't scare my cats if they happen to come to my home, I do not give a damn what religion they are, or what color their skin is.

Of course it would be dishonest to say that there aren't Canadians who do prefer that immigrants be white and Christian, or at least learn to fake it. My mother was a bigot like that. The day I was with her when she pulled into a gas station and asked the kid at the pump "Is this gas station owned by whites?" was the day that I was ashamed to be seen with her. The kid was flabbergasted, to say the least.
 
That's... just... I can't even think of a suitable word. :huh: I've met immigrants and refugees from many parts of the world, and as long as they make an effort to learn English, obey the laws, behave with common courtesy, and don't scare my cats if they happen to come to my home, I do not give a damn what religion they are, or what color their skin is.

Of course it would be dishonest to say that there aren't Canadians who do prefer that immigrants be white and Christian, or at least learn to fake it. My mother was a bigot like that. The day I was with her when she pulled into a gas station and asked the kid at the pump "Is this gas station owned by whites?" was the day that I was ashamed to be seen with her. The kid was flabbergasted, to say the least.

Sorry, let me be clear - I'm not accusing anyone of overt, explicit or even conscious racism. I'm merely pointing out that 'not a Muslim woman' is tangled up in the conception of Canadianness that is coming across. Warpus' post gives a great example of that:

Warpus said:
What is intrinsically Canadian is welcoming someone with an uncovered face and a smile.

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. It creates an inescapable link between 'act like a Canadian' and 'act like a not-Muslim Canadian'. Moreover, which I think is perhaps more important, it is (deliberately or not) creating a situation whereby a citizenship ceremony is quite enjoyable and comfortable, provided that you don't have any worry about uncovering your face. It's making suffering and humiliation an integral part of becoming a citizen for people who do. I can't help but feel there's an element of subordination in there, the idea that 'we' the 'real' Canadians (or 'real' Americans, 'real' British people and so on) have the right to force others, painfully, to be like us. But 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?
 
There are a million Canadians who walk around with their face covered at all times due to their Muslim faith?

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.

"OMG a million muslims" isn't a lot when there's over 1.6 billion muslims worldwide.
 
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 would have been confused on this given the 2013 thread on the hijab and "all head wear" being banned from being worn during the Massachusetts bar exam, I'm glad you've decided that observant Muslim women should be allowed to practice law in the state of Massachusetts! That's actually pretty cool.
 
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.
 
All I'm saying is, the historical association between Canadian-ness and white-European-Christian-ness has historically been a Bad Thing, so it seems wise to tread carefully on that ground. And you could say the same thing about any Western countries with a colonial legacy. It's a pretty general problem for countries in the global North, reconciling their declared pluralism with their historical chauvinism, and minimising the part of emotive responses to alien dress in lawmaking- even in cases like this, where the response is to some extent an understandable one- is an important part of that.
 
All I'm saying is, the historical association between Canadian-ness and white-European-Christian-ness has historically been a Bad Thing, so it seems wise to tread carefully on that ground.

I never brought up race into this discussion - I don't think you need to be white to be Canadian. My standards of Canadian-ness are very low, anyway. I mean, c'mon, all I said so far is that you need to be able to show your face and smile - I have made no other comments about what it means to embrace "Canadian values". The way some people here would have it, such standards should not exist at all.

This race thing was pushed into the discussion for no reason whatsoever that is conductive to a civilized conversation. It's basically just "Hey, let's ignore everything else and.. say you're racist maybe."
 
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?

Well, sure. I can think it's a rude thing to have your face covered at a ceremony, etc. I just don't see why it should be a law that they have to do so. Our Charter allows for reasonable permissions in the light of religious or cultural traditions.

The law is a pretty heavy hand, and I'm just not seeing the upside. Are we trying to only allow in people who can swallow their shame? Or are we trying to only allow in people who don't have this cultural baggage?
 
I never brought up race into this discussion - I don't think you need to be white to be Canadian. My standards of Canadian-ness are very low, anyway. I mean, c'mon, all I said so far is that you need to be able to show your face and smile - I have made no other comments about what it means to embrace "Canadian values". The way some people here would have it, such standards should not exist at all.

This race thing was pushed into the discussion for no reason whatsoever that is conductive to a civilized conversation. It's basically just "Hey, let's ignore everything else and.. say you're racist maybe."
I'm not saying the requirement to "show your face and smile" is in itself racist (although it's frankly a bit Stepford Wives for my liking), but that it has to be considered in the context of the historical legacy of racism. When Canadian-ness has been historically defined along racial lines, we have to examine our contemporary definitions of Canadian-ness and ask whether any of these are actually necessary requirements for participation in a Canadian national community, or whether they're just the residual chauvinism of the country's colonial past. It's about asking why some things are acceptably "Canadian" and other things aren't, when these things don't appear to have any obvious bearing on a person's ability to participate in civil society. Citing the residential schools serves as a reminder that people in the past who were every bit of convinced of their even-handedness of you have screwed up pretty horribly, and that this should encourage a greater degree of self-criticism among people today.
 
In the US selling alcohol to a minor or intoxicated person is a criminal offense. The only way to verify the identity and age of covered person is to see their face and ID at the same time.

That's not the only way, that's a single way, and not a very effective one.

But the majority in this thread seem to think they shouldn't have to. Religious freedom does not trump everything.

As far as I'm concerned, "religious freedom" is irrelevant when talking about the freedom to do "things".

If a thing is allowed for a religious person, it needs to be allowed for any areligious person as well, freedom of religion doesn't give you bonus rights that nobody else has.

Great! So when she makes a CC purchase and I ask to see her driver's license, I can also ask to see her face?

No, Visa/MC/AE merchant agreements typically prohibit asking for ID when making credit card purchases.
 
"OMG a million muslims" isn't a lot when there's over 1.6 billion muslims worldwide.

It does seem to me to be a surprising lot of Muslims among only 35 million Canadians. Are there really a million Muslims in Canada?
 
No, Visa/MC/AE merchant agreements typically prohibit asking for ID when making credit card purchases.

:blush:

Okay, I just have to say that when BirdJag asked about "CC purchases" I was still thinking of his previous point and took CC to mean 'Canadian Club' not 'Credit Card'.
 
Top Bottom