The Muslim Canadian Congress (MCC), a grassroots organization of secular and liberal Muslims hosted an event in Toronto on Sunday to thank Minister Kenney for his courageous stand in banning the face veil from Canada's Citizenship ceremonies. The decision enjoys widespread support among Canadians across the country.
While most members of the audience were supportive of the Minister's decision, a few objections were also raised at the event with respect to the constitutionality of such a ban.
For example, Fatema Dada of the Canadian Muslim Lawyers Association invoked the religious freedoms argument in the following manner when she stated, "If somebody believes in it [the niqab] then it's their right to practice it." According to Dada, it should be up to individual Canadians to determine and express their own unique religiosity.
True, but does the argument stop here? Do some religious practices still warrant restrictions? And how does Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms come to bear on this issue?
The Charter includes the following freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion; (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and (d) freedom of association.
What constitutes a religious right under the Charter then? Is deviant religious practice a religious right according to the provisions of the Charter? Yes, most certainly. Fatema Dada is correct in pointing out this aspect of the Charter. The whole purpose of separating religion and state is to ensure that the state maintains a certain degree of neutrality towards diverse religious practices. It is therefore not up to the state to determine the authenticity of a particular religious practice. If some individuals believe Islam mandates the burka or face veil, then the state must not question that understanding.
This interpretation of Charter provisions would certainly confer legitimacy on the practice of wearing the burka, even though its proponents hold a minority opinion deemed fallacious by the Muslim majority.
The question however remains: Like other religious rights, is the right to wear a burka an absolute right, or can it be subjected to reasonable limits, and if so, what are those limits?
Some religious practices, however deviant, are benign, while others may be quite inimical to society. Furthermore, some religious rights impinge on the rights of other individuals or of society, in which case, is it justified to place limits on them? The burka or face coverings most certainly fall under this category as crime-enabling garbs.
The right to wear the burka is not an absolute right. The Minister, in mandating removal of the face veil in citizenship ceremonies has taken an important and admirable first step in regulating burka use in public.
Follow Farzana Hassan on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@FarzanaHassan1
Candy Spelling: No Burkas in the Boardroom
Tarek Fatah: Burka Ban Triggers Feminist-Islamist Hysteria
HuffPost Radio: Both Sides Now w/ Huffington & Matalin -- On Race-Baiting, Rangel & Mosques
Widespread support for burka ban, Jason Kenney ... - National Post
Jason Kenney on banning niqabs, burkas during citizenship oath ...
Niqabs, burkas must be removed during citizenship ceremonies ...
Widespread support for burka ban, Jason Kenney ... - Canadian Times
What's next? Surgical masks? Motorcycle helmets? Can I wear a football helmet with a blacked-out visor and a heavy duty cage while riding a streetcar, or is Jason Kenny gonna go all Frodo on me?
Farzana Hassan does not speak for all Muslims. If she really cares about reducing crime, how about banning something a little more linked to crime, like baseball bats and frying pans?
Our Supreme Law protects the right to religious freedom, freedom of thought and association. Banning one particular garb from any public place would have to be solely based on non-religious, non-cultural, non-ethnic reasons. Ok, so security it is. Then we have to ban ski masks, scarves, toques (only on really cold days), face paint, masquerade masks, medicals masks, big stylish sunglasses... Let's stop pretending that banning the burqa isn't an ideological push.
Also, most crimes are committed by people with their face uncovered, so I don't know why someone would even come up with stuff like this. For a paranoid person anybody can be a potential threat, regardless of what they wear. The burqa worn by a relatively small number of women in Canada is no more of a threat from my POV than anyone wearing a suit or jeans and running shoes.
I have a feeling that this isn't about the burqa as a security threat to Canadian society, it's more about the author's dislike of the burqa itself, and making a (for me rather senseless) argument against it, pulling the "security" card that may appeal to those prone to giving in to fear mongering.
No more than a 'Guy Falkes mask' & despite the hundreds of peaceful protestors arrested in the streets of New York (many wearing them) the lot of them could not commit the same level;of crime as one Wall Street Banker.
Do absurd CEO bonuses enable crime?
You Betcha!
Does the Burka enable crime?
From this article, I have absolutely no idea, but I am sure that Farzana Hassan enables a lower standard of debate.
The same rule apparently applies to the burqa, a woman was refused passage for not removing her burqa.
How do religious rights differ from basic rights of autonomy that every individual enjoys? If I want to wear a veil, should my right to do so be greater if it's for a religious reason than if I just like veils?
My point was actually provoked by this sentence: "Like other religious rights, is the right to wear a burka an absolute right, or can it be subjected to reasonable limits, and if so, what are those limits?" I read this as carrying an implicit assumption that "religious" rights can be absolute or have some special weight beyond the simple secular right of individual autonomy, and I reject this assumption vigorously. The fact that someone's motive to do something is religious should give it no special status over someone else's desire to do the same thing for a secular reason. If the state can lawfully prohibit concealing one's face in public, then I don't think "religious freedom" should carve out an exemption to that law that non-religious people don't also enjoy.
The other side of this is that the state should not single out a practice and try to ban it based on its religious association. If it's lawful for people to do something for non-religious reasons (e.g. wearing a mask to a costume party) then it should be lawful to do for religious reasons. It's pretty clear that if it were some other religious group and not Muslims wearing the burka, this proposal would never have come up.
Really taking the oath should be from the heart not show off and please let us stop saying Muslim Canadian Congress a grassroots organization of secular and liberal Muslims they are nothing but a self seeking individuals who got no support what so ever! They would talk about injustice and discrimination against muslims but what they really do is to create a conflict between Canadians.
Well that may make political sense but it is very bad for our country. And finally let me say it does not have to be religion it can be a choice of wearing what ever you like and if not appropriate on the occasion the people in charge can say you can not wear this thing on this occasion it is that simple not a ministers job to make so big as if this is the concern of every one.
In the past 40 years I have heard many stories of people being given immigrant status only to become "Canadians for convenience sake" - they were issued a Canadian Passport.
In the last few days we have learned of one man who fought deportation to his native country to face charges of :inciting geonicide, and Im sure if one to look back there would be other instances of this.
It makes perfectically good sense to me that a judge in our citizenship courts be able to see just who is repeating the oath.
Is this really a major problem to be number one job for the minister? and tell me why it is major story for the media?
I don't know about you but any one who have a shred of honesty will tell you this is not about immigration judge wanting to see if some one repeating an oath, but it is Canada's red-neck party to make a political statement! to create a conflict between Canadians. It is a normal for any Red-Neck party in the world Canada, USA, France and UK to hide behind other issues instead of doing the people's work!
When a democrat or in Canada liberal party is in power they work hard to build the nation make sure the economy is growing education and health is taken care of plus create sense of belonging every citizen feels proud but when Conservative in Canada or a Republican in the USA or Conservative in France or UK is in power, people regret they elected them because all they do is do nothing.
Talk about gays, immigration and religion that is it nothing more! So my hope is Canadians will learn their mistake and next election they will elect a Liberal Party, NDP that cares..
Its ridiculous and xenophobic.
The burqa and the niqab do just that, exactly like a mask. If they are allowed to wear a mask (burqa/niqab) because [insert reason that they find good enough here], then any canadian should also have the right to wear any mask they want for [insert reason that they would find good enough here]. Every canadians *should* be equal before the law.
In the city of Halifax someone wearing a hoodie with their head covered will be asked to remove the hood before entering the bus (public transit) or entering some retail outlets, that same law should should be applied to anyone covering their face.
In the province of Quebec some years ago a teenager in high school was found not guilty of having a dangerous weapon on his person. The weapon was a 6 inch dagger, supposedly worn as a religous symbol, I have often wondered what would be the penalty if someone outside that religion were charged with having the same weapon in their possession in a public place.
If we are to have laws that are applied equally and fairly to all then exemption on grounds of religious freedoms cannot and should not be considered.