Reasonable Accommodation

Ron Webb wrote: My take on it, FWIW: I think most Canadians see the niqab as an offensive symbol of the oppression of women's rights in fundamentalist Islam.  I understand that Ishaq doesn't see it that way, but in a Canadian citizenship ceremony, Canadian culture should be paramount. Once she is a citizen, she is free to walk down the street wearing whatever offensive apparel she wants.  Goodness knows we have enough T-shirts with offensive slogans and other symbols on our streets now, so one more item isn't going to make much difference.  However, at least for this one occasion she should be respectful of how Canadians see the niqab. Also, IMHO it wouldn't hurt for her to experience just once what it is like to be truly part of Canadian culture, and how it feels like not to wear a niqab in public.  She might like it.  If not, she can go back to the niqab; but she will never assimilate if she does.  She will remain socially isolated with her fellow fundamentalist Muslims. I'm pretty sure anyone wearing (what looks like) a swastika would be asked to remove it at an official government function -- even if that person were from China, where it is a symbol of good luck.  I'm also pretty sure that such a person would actually want to remove it, in order not to give offence.  The same rule applies here. Finally, I think it needs to be pointed out again and again that the niqab is not required by Islam.  The Quran states that women should cover their bodies "except for that which must (ordinarily) appear".  In Canada that means the face and hands. The niqab is not allowed on the Hajj, the religious pilgrimage to Mecca, and probably the most holy time in a Muslim's life.  If they can remove it then, they can remove it for the Canadian citizenship ceremony.

I agree... if one is asking citizenship into a country but is unwilling to acquiesce to that country's ways... is unwilling to fit it...
 then should one really even be asking, or especially, be granted, citizenship?


Edited by Caringheart - 20 October 2015 at 11:25am

My take on it, FWIW:

I think most Canadians see the niqab as an offensive symbol of the oppression of women's rights in fundamentalist Islam.  I understand that Ishaq doesn't see it that way, but in a Canadian citizenship ceremony, Canadian culture should be paramount.

Once she is a citizen, she is free to walk down the street wearing whatever offensive apparel she wants.  Goodness knows we have enough T-shirts with offensive slogans and other symbols on our streets now, so one more item isn't going to make much difference.  However, at least for this one occasion she should be respectful of how Canadians see the niqab.

Also, IMHO it wouldn't hurt for her to experience just once what it is like to be truly part of Canadian culture, and how it feels like not to wear a niqab in public.  She might like it.  If not, she can go back to the niqab; but she will never assimilate if she does.  She will remain socially isolated with her fellow fundamentalist Muslims.

I'm pretty sure anyone wearing (what looks like) a swastika would be asked to remove it at an official government function -- even if that person were from China, where it is a symbol of good luck.  I'm also pretty sure that such a person would actually want to remove it, in order not to give offence.  The same rule applies here.

Finally, I think it needs to be pointed out again and again that the niqab is not required by Islam.  The Quran states that women should cover their bodies "except for that which must (ordinarily) appear".  In Canada that means the face and hands.

The niqab is not allowed on the Hajj, the religious pilgrimage to Mecca, and probably the most holy time in a Muslim's life.  If they can remove it then, they can remove it for the Canadian citizenship ceremony.


Edited by Ron Webb - 03 October 2015 at 5:59pm

Women like Zunera Ishaq needn�t feel obliged to wear their veils while swearing the citizenship oath. Religious freedoms can be respected by simply allowing them to take the oath in a room where no men are present. In that case, exposing their faces would not conflict with their religious values.

This is what the law calls a �reasonable accommodation,� a gesture that harms no one but allows affected individuals to respect their beliefs. Ms. Ishaq has shown flexibility, removing her veil for identification purposes, her driver�s licence photo and at airport security. But the Tories would have the country in an uproar because Ms. Ishaq drew the line at exposing her face yet again in a room full of male strangers when there is no practical reason to require it.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/theres-a-simple-solution-to-niqabs-and-oath-swearing-but-harper-wont-allow-it/article26611044/