Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Niqab citizenship ceremonies Trudeau versus Harper

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Niqab citizenship ceremonies Trudeau versus Harper

    What do people feel on this issue? It has turned into a political war at the moment.

    The Niqab is prohibited at border crossing, and when voting, but a court ruled it could be worn during citizenship ceremonies.

    As an atheist, generally I don't really care what religious garb people wear. I thought the whole Quebec thing on religious clothing was ridiculous. But the Niqab is a full face covering that only leaves a tiny slit for the eyes. Is that acceptable for a woman to be hidden that way when becoming a Canadian?

    http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/03...ainst-muslims/

    I think Trudeau is playing a dangerous dance here, because while liberties are important, extremism (which this outfit embodies with respect to women's rights), is something as a society we are trying to control.
    75
    Yes
    40.00%
    30
    No
    45.33%
    34
    Don't know
    1.33%
    1
    Don't care, just politics
    13.33%
    10

  • #2
    Do I understand or agree with the Niqab? No. I think that it is a symbol of oppression.

    However, this is from my cultural standpoint. I have no right to impose my worldview on other people. So long as women select to wear it of their own accord, how can it be right to force them to wear different clothes?

    I understand banning it for practical purposes. Going through airport security or a border would require taking it off for identification purposes. Banning it while driving is just common sense - how can you shoulder check while wearing one? But any time else, it is perfectly outside our mandate as a people to ban.

    I think it is a great idea to allow it in citizenship ceremonies. They are purely ceremonial after all (the "oath" is far less important than actually passing the test before hand - it is more of a celebration of being Canadian). What is more Canadian than respecting different cultures at the time they become one of us?

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Jaerdo View Post
      Banning it while driving is just common sense - how can you shoulder check while wearing one?
      Or religious leaders wearing a hoodie and driving

      Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 11-03-2015, 07:25 AM.
      Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

      Comment


      • #4
        ^ No kidding, or a balaclava while crossing a border, or a Halloween mask in either situation. All should be banned for common sense reasons - not because of what they represent, but because they quite literally have public safety ramifications if worn.

        Comment


        • #5
          What to wear?

          As I have thought about this more over the last while, I have changed my opinion on this issue.

          While, I do have concerns about religious or cultural oppression I don't think we should automatically assume every woman wearing a Niqab or other similar clothing is "oppressed". I also think we should not confuse religious observance or devotion with extremism. There are various Christian sects that have what many of us would consider certain odd or unusual practices, but we seem to be able to generally tolerate that without getting whipped up into a big frenzy.

          While there are legitimate concerns, I think our society is also getting a little carried away these days in its fear about terrorism. It is the government, not Mr. Trudeau, that is playing a dangerous game by pandering to a mix of these fears, some people's prejudices and other peoples concerns about oppression. I think its best for the government to stay out of telling people what wear for citizenship ceremonies.

          Comment


          • #6
            I don't think it belongs at the citizenship ceremony, not least because it symbolizes a separation from society at large, intentionally, whether imposed or by choice.

            But then, I don't believe that personal preferences based in religion, or purported to be based in religion should have any more weight than preferences based on anything else, and I believe that "reasonable accommodation" should apply at least as much to the person seeking special accommodation as to the institution that is being asked to accommodate. in this case, removing a face covering presents no particular hardship.

            In general, the expectation that a person's face should be uncovered is no different than our expectation that people wear clothes. It's a basic expectation in canada and the west, and was so intuitive that it was never written, but it should apply to everyone:
            "No shirt, No Shoes, No Visible Face? No Service"

            Comment


            • #7
              From a First Nations perspective the idea that one should dress like the rest of us Canadian "Natives", if you will, in a citizenship ceremony always strikes me as odd. Which these discussions inevitably get into.

              In which case how many settlers wore Eagle Feathers? Hides? Facial paint?

              I'm guessing very few if any.

              What is really the issue here and by who's perspective and what does it really mean to be a Canadian citizen and what is actually Canadian?

              These should not be considered superficial questions.

              Canada means multicultural and accepting cultural differences. Its what it means to me anyway.
              Last edited by Replacement; 11-03-2015, 08:18 AM.
              "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

              Comment


              • #8
                It's funny. I generally give absolutely everyone the benefit of the doubt upon first impressions, yet I struggle with niqab's. I have some inherent distrust of anyone I can't see. I guess it doesn't technically matter during the oath, as that's not when the pictures are taken or the identification is made, however I do find it distasteful that someone who wants to be part of a country, chooses to do so in hiding.
                "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Dave View Post
                  ... There are various Christian sects that have what many of us would consider certain odd or unusual practices, but we seem to be able to generally tolerate that without getting whipped up into a big frenzy....
                  I can't think of any practices by any other religion that is so public in nature, other than parades that are, for the ones that I'm aware of, only once a year and are pretty much a direct extension of the fundamental freedom of assembly.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Dave View Post
                    As I have thought about this more over the last while, I have changed my opinion on this issue.

                    While, I do have concerns about religious or cultural oppression I don't think we should automatically assume every woman wearing a Niqab or other similar clothing is "oppressed". I also think we should not confuse religious observance or devotion with extremism. There are various Christian sects that have what many of us would consider certain odd or unusual practices, but we seem to be able to generally tolerate that without getting whipped up into a big frenzy.

                    While there are legitimate concerns, I think our society is also getting a little carried away these days in its fear about terrorism. It is the government, not Mr. Trudeau, that is playing a dangerous game by pandering to a mix of these fears, some people's prejudices and other peoples concerns about oppression. I think its best for the government to stay out of telling people what wear for citizenship ceremonies.
                    If I can add to this even if the person is repressed the act of not allowing the wearing of the article is at best a superficial, albeit symbolic, but likely insignificant intervention in the persons life. As a society we aren't that successful with changing peoples ways, customs, or protecting them from harm and from domestic abuse harm.

                    The women forbidden to wear such an article in a ceremony and that follows such Canadian *doctrine* may actually put herself at risk of later recrimination or worse.

                    its hard right now not to make the connection that this is just the Harper government over reacting to everything.

                    I'm saddened by the zeal at which such cultural imperialism and demands of uniformity, sameness, integration are so supported.

                    ironically in Canada we engaged in enforced segregation, assimilation, beating out of pagan values, residential schools, etc in the name of cultural imperialism and religion.

                    We never learn.
                    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      If you have the right to cover your face indoors, I have the right to treat you with suspicion.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by moahunter View Post
                        I think Trudeau is playing a dangerous dance here, because while liberties are important, extremism (which this outfit embodies with respect to women's rights), is something as a society we are trying to control.
                        I've read a few articles lately that say that Harper's popularity is steadily growing in Quebec (at the expense of the Liberals) in part due to this very issue. It will be interesting to see if that prediction is true.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Chmilz View Post
                          It's funny. I generally give absolutely everyone the benefit of the doubt upon first impressions, yet I struggle with niqab's. I have some inherent distrust of anyone I can't see. I guess it doesn't technically matter during the oath, as that's not when the pictures are taken or the identification is made, however I do find it distasteful that someone who wants to be part of a country, chooses to do so in hiding.
                          In fairness this is a cultural perception. In some societies for instance eye contact is expected in making what is perceived as honest interaction. In others eye contact could be perceived as aggressive, impertinent, not respectful, invasive, and so on.


                          These are cultural mores. They are not universal.

                          I could go to a hockey game next week and see a thousand people not take off their hockey hat during the national anthem. These being Canadians. Should I take a view on that?

                          Yet here we are having complex, often intense dialog on the internet where none of can see each other's eyes, facial countenance, etc.

                          We also empower such things as polling online, want voting online, referendums on line, all without seeing anybody visually.

                          I will also add that if our first thought is to be suspicious then we will be suspicious. This is in us all and with respect to different customs, groups, values, mores etc.

                          Some food for thought perhaps.
                          "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by MrOilers View Post
                            If you have the right to cover your face indoors, I have the right to treat you with suspicion.
                            So what does the face mean to you, or tell you, given that you have a noted propensity to communicate online?

                            Apparently it isn't the black or white requirement (excuse pun) you or others might think it is for interaction to occur.

                            Its odd that in a time of history with non visual communication being embraced increasingly through means that weren't there before we pretend we are still reliant on face to face communication.

                            Yet all forms of business, economics, science, politics, religion, counseling, therapy, education, etc occur online and with implicit trust in those mediums and modes. The veritable world spinning online and our lives now depending on it. While we pretend we must see everything in order to trust.

                            This is not meant simply to you Mr Oiler but in general to challenge our preconceptions about what we trust and our alleged conditions of trust. Or illusion.

                            I think theres some mythmaking going on.
                            Last edited by Replacement; 11-03-2015, 08:31 AM.
                            "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              There is nothing in the Koran that specifies covering hair or face, rather it does state about covering the mostly "bosom", "private parts", "beauty spot". So even if you boil it down to religion it isn't in their holy book. It does state "jiljab" which means loose outer garment not a head covering.
                              http://www.quran-islam.org/articles/...8P1150%29.html
                              http://www.al-islam.org/hijab-muslim...uran-and-hijab

                              This is a similar problem to some Hutterites who think the Bible's mention of "graven image" means any picture so they refuse to have their picture on a driver's license.
                              http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hutter...court-1.791700

                              Personally if they want to cross a border, vote then they need to be identified, if you wish to wear a niqab, burka, latex bodysuit or go nude at home that is your business. I think for the citizenship ceremony you should be identifiable as well.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X