Canada Ping!
Posted on 02/14/2015 6:14:34 AM PST by Dartman
A free society should never dictate to the people such day-to-day issues as what clothes to wear. That’s why burqa bans are so unsavoury.
This should be regardless of your view of the religion they come from, or the fact that it’s a bizarre garment to put on in a Western culture. Sure, the attire seems to contradict our approach to gender equality. It also runs counter to how facial expressions are such a large part of communication.
So it’s simply a matter of freedom of attire, then? Largely. At least when it comes to walking about, living your life.
But it’s not so cut and dry when it comes to wearing a religious covering during a citizenship ceremony.
On Thursday the prime minister announced that the government is going to appeal the Federal Court's recent ruling that strikes down a 2011 prohibition.
Back then Jason Kenney – who was the immigration minister – unilaterally banned the wearing of the niqab during the citizenship oath ceremony.
Last October Kenney tweeted: “I believe people taking the public Oath of Citizenship should do so publicly, w/ their faces uncovered.”
The prime minister said on Thursday: “I believe, and I think most Canadians believe that it is — it is offensive that someone would hide their identity at the very moment where they are committing to join the Canadian family… This is a society that is transparent, open and where people are equal, and that is just, I think we find that offensive; that is not acceptable to Canadians and we will proceed with action on that.”
However in the court’s ruling, Judge Keith Boswell writes that the government ban violates the government’s goal of “allowing the greatest possible freedom in the religious solemnization or the solemn affirmation thereof.”
Shouldn’t there be a limit to this though? It’s true that attending a citizenship oath ceremony isn’t the same as boarding a plane or getting pulled over by the police.
It’s also true that the woman in question has no problem unveiling herself in private to an official so they can confirm she is in fact the person she claims to be.
So this is largely a symbolic issue. But it’s the ultimate symbolism. It’s about pledging your loyalty to a country. It’s about the sanctity of civic life.
Shouldn’t civic values be given priority over religious values during a civic ceremony?
Being overtly religious during a citizenship ceremony suggests that you place your religious duties before your civic duties. That’s a problem. It suggests that if the two duties ever come into conflict, you’re going to side with your co-religionists over and above your fellow countrymen.
If you want religion to dictate everything you do in the private sphere, that’s your business. But religious duties must be lower than civic duties when the matter on hand pertains to citizenship and your obligation to the state.
It’s like the argument about where and when Sikhs can take their kirpans. Of course they shouldn’t be allowed in Parliament. “But you don’t understand,” some will argue. “The kirpan isn’t your average dagger. It’s a religious symbol.”
No, it doesn’t work that way. A weapon doesn’t stop becoming a weapon just because you want to label it a religious prop. Likewise excusing a face covering in the name of religion doesn’t mean it’s no longer a face covering.
We’d tell someone to take off their ski-mask at a citizenship ceremony, wouldn’t we? And here’s where some people chortle: But that’s different! One is a religion! That many millions of people believe in?
So what? The state shouldn’t be in the business of enumerating and approving what is and what isn’t a religion. Once this happens you’ll have Jedi insisting they can take their lightsabers into Parliament or into the citizenship ceremonies.
Instead we just need firm laws that are adhered to regardless of religious values. Sure, some could go over and above common sense. Like, say, asking someone to curse a religious figure before they testify in court. That’s just hostile.
But saying no knives and no face coverings, immaterial of faith, is just setting rules.
Looking at the logic behind the ruling, there’s a good chance this appeal will fail. It seems this is just how they’ve interpreted religious accommodation.
That said, regardless of the rules that are on the books, the question needs to be put to those who let religion permeate their every interaction with society: Why do these things matter to you so much that you’re willing to go to the courts to insist your religious obligations should be recognized as superior to your civic obligations? Even during those most important moments in civic life?
Zunera Ishaq, having not even become a Canadian you were trying to change our rules of becoming a Canadian.You are continuing along this path as a new Canadian.
My question to you is,"Why did you wish to become a Canadian?", If you do not like our rules and our ways then why bother to come to this place when the ways of life and the social norms that you like are prevalent in the country you are trying to leave. We do have a different society here than the one in Pakistan. If you like our way of life and the way this country is then immigrate and take on the job of standing up for your new land. Enjoy it. However if you want things here to be as they are in your former land why not save us all a lot of time and hassle and just stay where you were. If you are taking the oath to become a citizen then you will take it in public and we want to see your lips moving! If you are having a problem with this then DON'T take the oath. Don't become a Canadian, and Don't stay here. It is not our job to adjust our land to your wants. It is your job to adjust to ours. This should not be negotiable. You do NOT have to join us. You should want to, if you do not want to, then that is just fine, Don't! Just go back from whence you came to that wonderful system that you really liked so much that you wanted to leave. That is fine as well.
ping
"Civic life" and rules are man made.
"Religious obligations" are what God wants done.
Religious obligations will trump man made rules if they conflict.
Naive dumb Infidels still don't understand Islam. -Tom
“Shouldn’t civic values be given priority over religious values during a civic ceremony? “
WHY would there even be a conflict? Better question: With which religion did a problem occur? Many people are VERY religious and yet they seem able to reconcile any “problems” that arise between their convictions and civic duty. ISLAM is the problem.
Me? I'm just another Infidel.
That's why I mentioned Islam in my post.
The last thing a Muslim should be doing is going to another country like Canada USA, France, England, Sweden etc. to become a part of the Infidel society.
Muslims obligations are to follow the Koran and Hadiths and bring Sharia law to govern them.
They should not obey Infidel laws which go against what Allah wants, and those wants are spelled out in the Koran.
Any Muslim who integrates into Infidel society would be considered a heretic and punished for it.
That is why so many so-called Muslims are killed by fundamental Muslims, as those Infidel collaborators are traitors to Islam.
Fortunately for us Infidels, there are plenty of these traitorous to Islam Muslims around.
Otherwise with over a billion Muslims on the planet we would be in big trouble.
We are in trouble now with a small percentage of Muslims following their religion as written. - Tom
I am in favor of letting them wear their burqua.
I like to know who my enemies are.
Just like flag burning.
Beyond any symbolic value, burqas facilitate bank robberies and are becoming a big problem in western countries.
Canada Ping!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.