Canucks try again to ban wearing niqab at citizenship ceremonies

This may be a picture of Zunera Ishaq, a Muslim lady who immigrated to Canada from Pakistan in 2008. Or maybe not. It's pretty hard to ascertain someone's identity, or even their gender, when their face is covered with the niqab.

It was for that reason that, in 2013, a Canadian judge who was about to administer the oath of citizenship to Ms Ishaq refused to do so unless she uncovered her face, as required by government policy. Ms Ishaq refused, saying that to show her face in public to men whom she did not know would violate the requirements of her religion -- Islam -- and the traditions of her culture. The culture of her adopted country didn't matter to her. Let Canada adapt itself to her, not the other way round.

As sure as God made little wormy apples and little wormy lawyers, a challenge under Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms ensued. Just as surely, the politically correct Federal Court ruled this year that the ban on wearing the niqab, mandated by the Canadian Minister of Immigration was contrary to the government's own immigration laws.

The court ordered the feds to lift the ban and allow Ms Ishaq to take the oath with her face covered. Mr. Justice Keith Boswell found that "to the extent that the policy interferes with a citizenship judge's duty to allow candidates for citizenship the greatest possible freedom in the religious solemnization or the solemn affirmation of the oath it is unlawful."

The Canuck government indicated at the time that it would appeal the ruling. But before the appeal could be heard -- today in fact -- the same government proposed a new "Oath of Citizenship Act" which, if enacted, will require all Canadian citizenship applicants to show their face while taking the oath of citizenship. Ironically, the new legislation was introduced in the House of Commons by the Minister of State for Multiculturalism, Tim Uppal, seen here wearing the turban which his religion -- Sikhism -- requires.

"The Citizenship Oath is an integral part of Canada's citizenship ceremony, and where new Canadians embrace our country's values and traditions, including the equality of men and women," said Mr. Uppal. "This bill will ensure all citizenship candidates show their face as they take the Oath. We believe most Canadians, including new Canadians, find it offensive that someone would cover their face at the very moment they want to join our Canadian family."

That's if the bill given first reading today becomes law, which seems highly unlikely, given that Parliament adjourned today for its summer recess, and the House of Commons won't sit again until after the election.

Any suggestion that the bill was tabled as a sop to the majority of Canadians fed up with "cultural accommodation" is absurd. So is the suggestion that Prime Minister Steve Harper's government was inspired by polls showing widespread support for the Québec government's reintroduction of legislation to ban the wearing of the niqab, announced just last week.

"Fancy that" Dept.": On Sunday morning (21/6) CBC News posted "Conservatives' niqab ban shaped by Quebec's secular charter battle". Perhaps the CBC follows WWW?

Québec reintroduces legislation to ban wearing of niqab

In the fall of 2013, the government of the Canadian province of Québec introduced legislation which would have banned the wearing of religious headgear and other "ostentatious" religious symbols in public. See "Multiculti types horrified as Charter of Québec Values bans religious headgear".

The usual gang of secular humanists and "progressive thinkers" howled that the proposed law was Islamophobic, racist, sexist, yada yada yada. In fact, as Walt's post shows, the ban would have applied not just to headcoverings worn by Muslim women -- hijabs, niqabs, and burqas -- but to turbans and kipas worn by Sikh and Jewish men, and large Christian crosses or crucifixed which might be worn by either sex.

In spite of the outcry from the celebrators of diversity, the Charter of Québec Values had strong public support among the real people of la Belle Province, and looked like being a winning ballot question when then-Premier Pauline Marois called an election. Sadly for her (and for the Charter), rookie candidate Pierre Karl Péladeau started ranting about sovereignty and separation, and the PQ was soundly defeated by Philippe Couillard's Liberals, who had taken the position that the proposed Charter went too far, and anyway there were more important things to worry about.

Fast forward to this week. Now that the more important things have been taken care of (???), M. Couillard's government has introduced Bill 62 -- legislation which would bar Québec public servants from wearing face-covering religious garments at work, and preventing members of the public from covering their faces while receiving government services.

Isn't this the same movie, produced by the PQ, that we saw in 2013? Well, no, said Québec Justice Minister Stéphanie Vallée. The "neutrality bill", as she calls it, wouldn't ban all religious symbols, and would accommodate certain symbols under certain conditions. "We don't judge people for their beliefs or absence of beliefs," she said. "We are convinced the way we are approaching this is respectful and will be a plus for society."

The formal title of Bill 62 -- click here to see the entire text in English -- is "An Act to foster adherence to State religious neutrality and, in particular, to provide a framework for religious accommodation requests in certain bodies". Catchy, eh? Here's the explanatory introduction.

The purpose of this bill is to establish measures to foster adherence to State religious neutrality. For that purpose, it provides, in particular, that personnel members of public bodies must demonstrate religious neutrality in the exercise of their functions, being careful to neither favour nor hinder a person because of the person’s religious affiliation or non-affiliation. However, this duty does not apply to personnel members who, in certain bodies, provide spiritual care and guidance services or are in charge of providing instruction of a religious nature.

Under the bill, personnel members of public bodies and of certain other bodies must exercise their functions with their face uncovered, unless they have to cover their face, in particular because of their working conditions or because of occupational or task-related requirements. In addition, persons receiving services from such personnel members must have their face uncovered. An accommodation is possible but must be refused if the refusal is warranted in the context for security or identification reasons or because of the level of communication required.

The bill establishes the conditions under which accommodations on religious grounds may be granted as well as the specific elements that must be considered when dealing with certain accommodation requests.

It specifies that the measures it introduces must not be interpreted as affecting the emblematic and toponymic elements of Québec’s cultural heritage, in particular its religious cultural heritage, that testify to its history.

Lastly, special measures with respect to educational childcare services are introduced to ensure that, among other considerations, children’s admission is not related to their learning a specific religious belief, dogma or practice and that the activities organized by subsidized childcare providers do not involve learning of a religious or dogmatic nature.

Walt likes that wording a whole lot, and congratulates the legal eagles who came up with language which looks (to Agent 3) to be 99.9% human-rights-challenge-proof. Canada's Minister for Multiculturalism -- yes, they do have such a thing -- appears to agree. Tim Uppal, a Sikh gentleman never seen without his turban, told reporters yesterday, "We broadly support Québec's legislation regarding the uncovering of faces for giving and receiving public services."

In fact, he said, the federal government will introduce a similar bill just before the House of Commons takes its summer break. It's just a coincidence, of course, that Steve Harper's Tories have to pick up a lot of Québec seats in the federal election due in October. "Our government will be moving forward in the coming days with legislation with respect to the face coverings at citizenship ceremonies," Mr. Uppal said, "and we will consider what other measures may be necessary."

Fact: The only people required by their religion to cover their faces are Muslim women.

Further reading on WWW: "Hijab, niqab, burqa -- what's the difference?" and "'Culture wars' in Canada? Really?"