There’s an ongoing controversy on the use of a Niqab while taking the citizenship oath. Zunera Ishaq, Pakistani national and Canadian resident, is attempting to gain Canadian citizenship but wants to wear a Niqab while taking the oath. Current rules prohibit any sort of face concealment, and the federal government refuses to make an exception. Zunera has won in court, but the feds are appealing.
I’m generally against religious exceptions. As far as I’m concerned the government has no business deciding what is or isn’t a religion, and especially what is or isn’t a requirement of someone’s religion. But I’m glad Zunera won her case and hope she continues to win. Not because of the religious exception, but because of the arbitrariness.
There’s a concept in jurisprudence that government can only infringe upon freedom of religion if it has a compelling reason to do so. If failure to infringe would endanger people’s lives, that sort of thing. Once that needed is established the measures taken must be as non-restrictive as possible to ensure safety. In Canada, this is established by the Oakes test, from the R v Oakes case in the Supreme Court. This is inevitably cited by the government when it is sued for infringing people’s rights.
Most notable, from what I can remember, in the case of Sikh boys being allowed to carry Kirpans (ceremonial knives) in public schools. Whoa there, knives in schools? That’s dangerous! Well, as it turns out, it wasn’t really considered all that dangerous, because they eventually carved out an exception to preserve religious freedom.
In that case, as in this one, the ruling found that a regulation was unnecessary and burdensome, and so it could be overturned on religious grounds. But in both cases the ruling only applies to people of that religion! This strikes me as terribly biased. It puts the government in a position to decide the legitimacy of religious beliefs. It presents religions with a moral hazard, the opportunity to craft their sacred tenets in such a way as to gain them some advantage.
The solution seems to be obvious. If a regulation is not necessary, overturn it for everyone. Let people wear Niqabs in citizenship ceremonies. Why not? Let them wear veils, as well… or scarves, or hats, or giant foam “We’re #1” fingers. Or let them skip the pointless ceremony altogether. If Sikh boys can carry a kirpan, let Sikh girls carry kirpans as well, and let all the other students carry knives of their choosing.
In some cases this will become a problem when everyone does it. Like with national parks… if one person drives through that field it’s fine, if all 50,000 people at the park do it the field will be destroyed. In those cases don’t let anyone have that privilege. But in more cases, as with the citizenship ceremony, it might be fine to just do away with the rule altogether.
Niqab controversy: Judge struck down ban without referring to charter http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/niqab-controversy-judge-struck-down-ban-without-referring-to-charter-1.2994954?cmp=rss
Baloney Meter: Is niqab ban needed to prove citizenship applicant’s ID? http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/baloney-meter-is-niqab-ban-needed-to-prove-citizenship-applicant-s-id-1.2994562
Niqab-citizenship ceremony ruling will be appealed, PM says http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/niqab-citizenship-ceremony-ruling-will-be-appealed-pm-says-1.2955418
Kirpan Case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multani_v_Commission_scolaire_Marguerite%E2%80%91Bourgeoys
No comments:
Post a Comment