Zunera Ishaq cleared by court to take citizenship oath wearing niqab
- Thread starter Avatar
- Start date
Here's the thing. Lefty politicians like Mulcair and Trudeau and their supporters think they are courting the Muslim vote by supporting the niqab. What they fail to realize is that many Muslims are opposed to the niqab. For example, how many Muslim women actually wear the niqab? Extremely few.
Marion Boyd, an NDPer of course, was ready to implement sharia law in Ontario thinking that she would get support from the Muslim community. What she discovered was that many (probably a majority) Muslims do not want sharia law.
"But outspoken opponents of sharia fear that well-intentioned politicians seeking to steer family feuds away from courtrooms will, through religious arbitration, end up ensconcing outposts of fundamentalism in the West. "It's happening in England, it's happening in Sweden," Ms. Arjomand said."
http://www.yorku.ca/lfoster/2005-06...ariaLawInCanada_GenderInequalityExercise.html
Marion Boyd, an NDPer of course, was ready to implement sharia law in Ontario thinking that she would get support from the Muslim community. What she discovered was that many (probably a majority) Muslims do not want sharia law.
"But outspoken opponents of sharia fear that well-intentioned politicians seeking to steer family feuds away from courtrooms will, through religious arbitration, end up ensconcing outposts of fundamentalism in the West. "It's happening in England, it's happening in Sweden," Ms. Arjomand said."
http://www.yorku.ca/lfoster/2005-06...ariaLawInCanada_GenderInequalityExercise.html
Unless you old stock guys make a habit of hanging out a citizenship ceremonies, how would this one instance (bringing the overall total since Confederation to 3 as far as anyone knows) be requiring you to accommodate anything?
And when you and me and all us other 'old stock' guys made democratic government by the rule of law and freedom of religion supreme Charter values were we just bullshitting? Or were we promising to each other and all Canadians and would-be Canadians that they could expect exactly those accommodations?
You don't like the niqab? Don't look.
You may have telepathic insight into why Trudeau , Mulcair and others support this woman's right and condemn the government's illegal ban, but I suspect you do not. It doesn't matter if they were mistaken about popularity; they're right.
It's the government breaking the law, and defying Canadian values. But if you want government by diktat instead of democracy, no Charter rights, and popularity contests instead of the rule of law, vote Harper.
The real shame is the amount of bandwidth being taken up by this issue.
Its not a big deal, why aren't we talking about the TPP, C51, the economy, jobs or infrastructure?
Instead its all about what a handful of religious women wear.
All we are doing is missing our chance to talk about the important issues.
Its not a big deal, why aren't we talking about the TPP, C51, the economy, jobs or infrastructure?
Instead its all about what a handful of religious women wear.
All we are doing is missing our chance to talk about the important issues.
Apparently it is an important issue, that's why we're talking about it. You're just out of the loop.
Miss Ishaq started wearing the niqab when she was 15 ---- her parents did not not approve. She said she wears the niqab to show she is a devout Muslim (the implication being that Muslim women who don't wear the niqab are not devout Muslims). Her husband asked her to make some kind of accommodation when taking the oath. She refused.
Wearing the niqab is not a Muslim thing. The vast majority of Muslim women in Canada (not Afghanistan) do not wear a niqab. It might be a freedom of choice thing in which case anyone (Muslims and non-Muslims) taking the oath can cover their face and/or wear a crop top or whatever.
Wearing the niqab is not a Muslim thing. The vast majority of Muslim women in Canada (not Afghanistan) do not wear a niqab. It might be a freedom of choice thing in which case anyone (Muslims and non-Muslims) taking the oath can cover their face and/or wear a crop top or whatever.
You have said nothing that is relevant to the issue. I have no problem with nudity. There is an offence in law called public indecency. It was used against a woman who went topless and the government lost. And yes, the public indecency law exists precisely because nekkidness offends other people (not me though). So? What on earth do you imagine this has to do with banning the niqab?
The Canadian government acted illegally and did not do what the law requires they do; their 'ban' is null and void because it was never within their lawful authority. Their illegal acts deprived Ms. Ishaq of her Carter right to freedom of religion. They have never advanced any valid or persuasive reason why a woman who chooses to veil should be unlawfully forced to expose herself. Except they don't want to see a niqab.
You don't like the niqab? Don't look.
Actually it's not important at all. The Ishaq case has been decided, it only remains for Harper's government to act legally and administer the oath. That'll make her the just third veiled woman to become a citizen out of many millions. And there's no evidence that there's a single niqab-wearing swivel servant anywhere in Canada, although the same PM who couldn't find time to pass the law that could have made his ban at Citizenship oaths legal has now promised a law to make niqab wearing a firing offence in the public service will be his top priority of elected. There's a PM who knows what's important.
Ask yourself and your over-excited friends why he can't stop using this one woman and that insignificant scrap of cloth to pump up fear and loathing at election time. And why he didn't do his job right back in 2011 when he 'banned' it?
Important? No! But it's what his Rump wants, and right, wrong, or stupid, prejudiced and unbelievably petty, Harper always gives them what they want.
There never was a niqab ban
The Citizenship law doesn't give anyone in government any authority to enact a dress code for taking the oath. The law requires the Minister, and those acting for the Minister to make every reasonable effort to accommodate individual religious practices and beliefs. The government cannot dictate what those beliefs and practices are, or are not, because the Charter says each of us is free to believe and practice our religion without government interference. The majority government never changed the law, never changed the Charter. They just announced their 'ban' without a debate and nary a vote.
It took awhile, but eventually a woman who didn't want to be banned asked the Courts if this was legal. "Not at all," said the judges. "Not only do they have no power to ban and never did, but they always had the duty to do what they could to make the oath-taking work for you. Once you uncovered and were identified, there was no reason you couldn't recite the oath with the veil in place. Minister, let her take the oath".
That was the story three times. The third time, the judge pointed out the government hadn't offered any reason at all, not one, why this woman's case should be delayed any further. She's been unlawfully stopped from becoming a citizen for over three years. By Harper's fashion preference. Of course they're still unreasonable, still delaying.
I don't give a shit how many Canadians anyone imagines don't like someone else's clothing choices, or what they imagine they symbolize. The law says the government has no right to stop her and she has every right to take the oath. An outlaw government is important. Whether or not we can see if someone's wearing lipstick, or has awful teeth is so utterly trivial I can't imagine adults caring, let alone calling it a fundamental Canadian value.
All he had to do was pass a law.
The Citizenship law doesn't give anyone in government any authority to enact a dress code for taking the oath. The law requires the Minister, and those acting for the Minister to make every reasonable effort to accommodate individual religious practices and beliefs. The government cannot dictate what those beliefs and practices are, or are not, because the Charter says each of us is free to believe and practice our religion without government interference. The majority government never changed the law, never changed the Charter. They just announced their 'ban' without a debate and nary a vote.
It took awhile, but eventually a woman who didn't want to be banned asked the Courts if this was legal. "Not at all," said the judges. "Not only do they have no power to ban and never did, but they always had the duty to do what they could to make the oath-taking work for you. Once you uncovered and were identified, there was no reason you couldn't recite the oath with the veil in place. Minister, let her take the oath".
That was the story three times. The third time, the judge pointed out the government hadn't offered any reason at all, not one, why this woman's case should be delayed any further. She's been unlawfully stopped from becoming a citizen for over three years. By Harper's fashion preference. Of course they're still unreasonable, still delaying.
I don't give a shit how many Canadians anyone imagines don't like someone else's clothing choices, or what they imagine they symbolize. The law says the government has no right to stop her and she has every right to take the oath. An outlaw government is important. Whether or not we can see if someone's wearing lipstick, or has awful teeth is so utterly trivial I can't imagine adults caring, let alone calling it a fundamental Canadian value.
All he had to do was pass a law.
It's called a wedge issue. A smart politician will always exploit it. A wedge issue sunk John Tory's bid for the premierships, remember? The niqab is very important issue to many people, yourself included.
Its not called a wedge issue, its called the dead cat tactic by the Australian strategist helping Harper.
You throw a dead cat on the table, the niqab ban, to keep anyone talking about the real issues.
The sad thing is it works, here and in the media.
We can credit Miss Ishaq for the dead cat. Her parents disapprove of the niqab, her husband asked her to show some accommodation, the lawful government of Canada asked her to show her face at the ceremony but she had to be a shit disturber. The niqab is not a a Muslim thing. Hundreds of thousands of Muslim women in Canada do not wear the niqab. Are they any less Muslim?
Absolutely. Most immigrants know that Canada has a mostly Christian character and accept Christmas wishes in the positive manner they were meant. They also appreciate when Christians offer a greeting of Eid Mubarak, Happy Diwali, or whatever.
