September 17, 2015

Most Canadians disagree with courts, as Feds vow to appeal ruling on niqab at citizenship ceremony

Brian LilleyArchive

The Federal government is going to challenge the court ruling that came out the other day saying that Zunera Ishaq could wear a veil when swearing her oath of citizenship.

An Ipsos Reid poll shows that 88% of Canadians disagree with the courts on this. It's a bad idea which we've talked about many times before.

Some including Justin Trudeau seem to think this is about minority rights but I don't know what right he thinks he's defending by saying you don't have to show your face while swearing an oath of allegiance.

Multiculturalism is about welcoming and respecting other cultures in Canada but it is not supposed to be about replacing Canadian culture with Sharia culture.


JOIN for more fearless news and commentary you won’t find anywhere else.

VISIT our NEW group blog The Megaphone!
It’s your one-stop shop for rebellious commentary from independent and fearless readers and writers.

Tell the Harper government to appeal the court's pro-burka ruling:

You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2015-09-21 12:06:40 -0400
‘According to your own viewpoint, a religious belief trumps everything.’
Nope, that’s not what I believe, or said. Sorry. Have quote?
commented 2015-09-20 01:29:19 -0400
There is a Time coming when Canada will no longer welcome these welfare consuming parasites that insist on covering their face. Keep telling us how nasty we are if we don’t cater to your every Islamic whim.
commented 2015-09-19 17:46:43 -0400
Terry Rudden. How so? According to your own viewpoint, a religious belief trumps everything. If you are back tracking on that, I would have to say I am being bullied about my religious beliefs based on bigotry.
commented 2015-09-19 17:17:03 -0400
Rick. Nope, I wouldn’t. See, your seizure of my home, possession and wealth would be contrary to Canadian law.
commented 2015-09-19 12:32:35 -0400
Terry Rudden. If I were an immigrant coming to Canada claiming my “religion” allowed me to seize your home, possessions and wealth making your family destitute, would you then agree I was simply refusing to be bullied about my beliefs? And all this without yet becoming a “citizen”.
commented 2015-09-19 07:35:32 -0400
Forcing women to completely cover themselves and claiming it’s for religious purposes is oppression. Just because it’s a religion doesn’t give Islam a pass on this. If you can’t show your face in public how can you participate openly in our society? How can we tell by your facial expressions if your lying or telling the truth? This isn’t poker. It’s Canada. Have a little pride about being here. We have security issues that trump your religious oppression freedoms.
commented 2015-09-19 05:48:24 -0400
The swastika is a sacred Buddist symbol. I know of no Buddist who would insist on displaying it at this ceremony. No baptist would insist on his or her right to show up at this ceremony dripping wet from being freshly baptized,but apparently Sikhs are permitted to wear their kirpan….I’m OK with that…..I am not a hoplophobe. But the ruling of the Supreme Court regarding the kirpan pretty much tells me that this appeal is a waste of time.

But if this woman is really truthful about her commitment to “hijab” then she and a group of like minded moslem women should stage counter protest to the “slut walk” and see how the SCC rules on the fallout from that. I foresee a day when some Ukranian who is a member of FEMIN shows up for the ceremony more or less naked with protest slogans painted all over her tits. Jay, you justcan’t win with political correctness. People can take offence at just about anything you do/say or refrain from/doing/saying…and the politically correct are going to vote Liberal because nothing else matters to them except political correctness. In fact I see more tendancy to be outspoken about bias in the NDP than the Liberals.

If I were the sitting member of my riding and Tom Mulcair demanded that I appologise to all of the Moslems in Canada for anything that I have said or for any position I have taken ….my response would be that there are no moslems in my riding and where I live a young man from Summerside would get beaten up at a pub in Souris because he is “from away” even though all concerned are Celtic and Catholic… no appology would be forthcoming .
commented 2015-09-19 01:59:35 -0400
Bizarre logic there Jay… Already 88 per cent of Canadians are against face covering and the almost immediate decision of the Conservative government to appeal the court’s ruling is only going to strengthen their vote… “No hope”???.. Just watch the polls in the coming days…
commented 2015-09-18 23:45:49 -0400
My point is that if the Conservative Party continues emphasizing face-coverings it will retain its base of, say, 25% and it will make certain bigots more vocal in favour of the Conservatives. It will certainly not attract new supporters. To its credit the Party has retained almost 30% support in popular opinion, but at this rate it has no hope of forming government.
This should not be just a Liberal or NDP campaign.
commented 2015-09-18 23:39:27 -0400
Edward, that is a good example. When women won the right to go topless some people expected o see women walking down the streets with no top on. Turns out it is kinda chilly and somewhat immodest and just doesn’t happen.
commented 2015-09-18 22:16:32 -0400
It is my honest opinion that if allowed to stand this will ultimately allow everyone to cover their faces anywhere they like and my reasoning is this. We all remember a number of years back women won the right to go topless in public. THeir argument was simply that this was discriminatory against women and the law saw it their way. So how could the law allow one group of people to cover their faces and not anyone else who wanted to. That would also be discrimination.
commented 2015-09-18 21:59:08 -0400
I stand corrected George, sorry Peter.
commented 2015-09-18 20:29:34 -0400
Last October in the small Ontario town where I live, a man with a long beard wearing a long white gown was terrorizing folks with a machete he either concealed beneath his gown or openly carried, waving it around, confronting people with it, etc.

He had a good lawyer, apparently, because police refused to arrest or charge him even after he stole a car and then crashed it in a ditch. They told the public he was harmless then drove him to a other community where he repeatedly stabbed a man and his poor dog.

But yeah, don’t be wary of the way people dress or accessorize. Do not cross the street, as I do, if a big man or gang of men swinging chains is walking toward you. That would be prejudiced.
commented 2015-09-18 20:02:45 -0400
Fern, do you often pass a Muslim on the street dressed in a niqab or a burqa? I have never met you so what is to say I might not pass you dressed peculiarly and you might stab me and run off?
commented 2015-09-18 19:58:26 -0400
Fern do you often pass a Muslim on the street dressed
commented 2015-09-18 15:42:53 -0400
At least the conservatives want to please the voters that put them in power! If the muslims come to our country and want to cover up, then they should be told to either change according to the law of the land or get out!! The mayor of Calgary is a “smiling muslin” whatever that means. But he dresses like any ordinary Canadian. Why can’t the other muslims do that? When a muslim covers totally up and you pass a muslim on the street like that, it makes me nervous. They could stab you and run off. How would the police ever arrest a muslim like that? Also, you think that is a woman but who knows maybe it could be a man under that garb! This full dress of muslim is a safety concern in our country! Thank God that Jason Kenny spoke out about it.
commented 2015-09-18 15:09:57 -0400
Bravo Bill Smith. That is right up there with some of the best analogies. I love it.
commented 2015-09-18 14:22:30 -0400
If there is a law that is contrary to what 88% of Canada’s desires. Does this not warrant an immediate change to this law? When we banned Christian writings in government buildings. Was this an existing law just being enforced or a new law?
I am not a Law expert, so correct me if I am wrong. Do Laws change and evolve justly to suit society’s wants and needs? I think yes, but I am not certain. If this is true and laws do evolve but the the constitution gets in the way. Should the constitution not be something that can change or evolve also.
The courts decision to allow the Niqab, which goes against the will of 88% of Canadians does no justice.
The courts decision that tells Harper that because of the constitution, it is against the law for him to attempt to change or get rid of the senate. If the will of the majority people wants to get rid of the senate. Does this not make our Constitution undemocratic. Should the constitution change and evolve also?
The chances of one province not wanting to abolish the Senate is extremely high. What Mulcair is promising about the Senate, like most of his promises, is a lie and against the law.
commented 2015-09-18 14:09:26 -0400
A little off-topic; but, allow me to sound off.
Since the ‘left’ is making a big deal over the use of the phrase “old-stock”, one must assume that they found no argument on PMSH’s fiscal management and policies… Granted, the left likes to invent new terms to sow new forms of disenfranchisement… example: period-shaming, fat-shaming, islamophobia, etc…
So, USA is commonly referred to as a ‘melting-pot’.. like a stew. In a stew, one can see carrots, peas, etc… buy every spoonful tastes like stew. Canada, on the other hand, is like a soup. We look like a stew, but a carrot tastes like carrot, a pea like pea, etc… It’s something Canada should be proud of. People come here from all over the world and add good things from their old country…. (unlike the above, where people want to add negative items from their old country)… So, when one makes soup, the first step is to make stock…. and when more soup is required, one must add new stock to the old stock. In other words, ‘old stock’ simply refers to any people that are already in Canada legally… including First Nations.
Liberals, such as cretien, original truedeau, etc.. have also used the term.
In any case, and again, if that’s the only thing that lefties can find to froth about, Harper clearly won the debate.
commented 2015-09-18 13:56:48 -0400
For me, this issue is about principle and rights.

The Citizenship ceremony is not just all about the new citizen. It is as much about the existing citizens welcoming into our shared citizenship the newcomer. We welcome newcomers as citizens after they affirm or swear allegiance to the Queen, to our laws and to us, the Canadian citizenry.

The reason I want Zainab and all similarly veiled women and men to show their lips (I don’t care if they hide their foreheads, eyes and noses, so long as I can see their lips move) is so that I, as a Canadian citizen, can bear witness to their oath of allegiance to us. That is my/our right.

The ceremony of citizenship is as much about our witness of allegiance as it is about the oath itself.

If we can’t confirm, with our eyes and ears, that Zainab and other similarly veiled persons are swearing allegiance to Canada and not to the Caliphate, the ceremony is utterly meaningless.
commented 2015-09-18 13:35:04 -0400
I would be most concerned about if this perceived right might apply to who enters the country. If the court has declared it is a persons religious right to cover their face how can they then argue it isn’t? If we trust someone in an oath swearing ceremony means us no harm why cannot we trust them anywhere else? This isn’t to imply anyone wearing a Niqab or Burkha will harm you but the same can be said of anyone wearing a mask or covering. If a person showed up at citizenship ceremony wearing a paper bag he would have been asked to remove it and no one would question the reason or fairness of such a request even if the person in question was simply a harmless leaf fan. It is the big we don’t know that is problematic.
commented 2015-09-18 13:22:00 -0400
As I have mentioned in another posting. There is no need for a law for what the majority of people perceive as reasonable behavior until someone challenges it. There was no need for a law saying you can’t parachute off a skyscraper or shine a laser in the face of an incoming flight until someone did it. The problem will most likely not end here. If it is determined it is a persons religious right to wear this kind of identity concealing clothing here it will most likely be used to expand the reach of these “freedoms” in other settings as they already are . There have also been challenges raised in other countries about photo I.D.
commented 2015-09-18 13:19:52 -0400
So tell me does she have to uncover her face to have the picture for her health card taken or are there
exceptions made there as well?
commented 2015-09-18 13:08:50 -0400
Peter Netterville wrote, “in my opinion if he gets a minority, a coalition will be just on the horizon”.
I hope that there is not one voter left that would think contrary to this comment. This is a certainty. " Canada being run by Justin and Mulcair." Hmm mm, Imagine this thought. Then splash some Aqua Velva on your face and say “Thanks, I needed that”
commented 2015-09-18 12:49:15 -0400
Terry Rudden writes, ‘Ah. That would be a Canadians right not to be bullied into compliance with a non-existent law.’ Except that she is NOT a Canadian until she removes her covering and takes the oath of alliance. So ‘Canadian’ law whether it exists or not does not apply to her at this time.
commented 2015-09-18 12:39:49 -0400
I think there is some confusion about the difference and similarities of Burkhas and Niqabs. Hope this helps. Great article George Dyer!
commented 2015-09-18 12:37:22 -0400
Peter and Liza;
I believe that the Niqab does indeed cover the wearer’s face, except the eyes.
It’s a Hijab that only covers the wearer’s hair and neck.
I think a Burka is a full body (including eyes) covering.
commented 2015-09-18 12:02:02 -0400
It is remarkable that the three parties remain almost exactly tied in opinion polls after several weeks of campaigning. It is not going to be a minority government—it will be a mess of a government with three parties essentially having a legitimate claim to govern. One of these parties will have to lash out with something new and creative. People assume it will be the Liberals who come forward, but it could be the Conservatives. But to do this they have to drop the focus on tired old issues like face-coverings. They need to express a vision for Canada.