Vincent J. Curtis
16 Sept 15
From the CBC News website:
Zunera Ishaq, a 29-year-old woman with devout Muslim beliefs who came to
Ontario from Pakistan in 2008, refused to take part in a citizenship ceremony
because she would have to show her face.
On Tuesday, the Appeal Court dismissed the government's appeal of an
earlier Federal Court ruling on Ishaq's case that declared the ban on face
coverings at such ceremonies was unlawful.
The three-judge panel ruled from the bench, saying they wanted to proceed
quickly so that Ishaq could obtain her citizenship in time to vote in the Oct.
19 federal election.
One of Ishaq's lawyers, Marlys Edwardh, said the Immigration Department
would be contacted this week so she could attend a citizenship ceremony — accompanied
by her lawyers "just in case."
From the Hamilton Spectator:
At Tuesday's half-day hearing
in Ottawa, a Justice Department lawyer told court that the government never
meant to make it mandatory for women to remove their face coverings for
citizenship ceremonies — a position that left both the judge and Ishaq's
lawyers scratching their heads.
The
admission appeared to be a change from the Conservative government's past
position on the issue. The controversial edict was a regulation that had no
actual force in law, Justice Department lawyer Peter Southey told a Federal
Court of Appeal hearing.
Canada has been
admitting large numbers of Muslims as immigrants since the 1980s. This group includes women who routinely wear
some form of facial covering. There is
nothing in Islam itself that requires Muslim women to wear facial coverings,
and it appears to be a tribal practice that carried over into a cultural
artifact of Islam as practiced in some areas of the world.
Islamic Supremacists
insist, however, that facial covering by women is mandated in Islam, and require them to
wear them on pain of rape or beating. Now,
women can be as fundamentalist as men can, and the insistence of a woman on the
wearing of facial covering in Canada is a sign of Islamic fundamentalism. Adherence and insistence on Sharia law
follows from Islamic fundamentalism.
My comments are as follows:
Incompetent legal representation by Canada’s Justice
Department has led to the absurd situation that people can take an oath while
their fingers are crossed.
It will be interesting to see if Mexicans and Americans will
be allowed to wear traditional cowboy masks when they take an oath in Canada.
The wearing of a niqab in public is routinely accepted by
Canadians, who are used to seeing the bizarre superstitions of non-European
cultures on display. However, the taking of an oath of citizenship is a
serious matter, and the wearing of a face covering in Canadian culture is a
sign of deceit. The conclusion that a Canadian reaches about face
coverings in the course of taking an oath is that the oath is not sincere.
Oh, the person sincerely wants the rewards that goes with
taking the oath but rejects the obligations that go with it.
In the case of citizenship, that obligation includes sincere
acceptance of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms runs clean
contrary to the principles of Sharia Law. And what Law is being upheld by
the wearing of a niqab: Sharia Law or Canadian law? This sign of
adherence to Sharia Law in the course of accepting Canadian law is a second
cause of suspicion that an oath of citizenship is not sincere.
The niqab wearers would be astonished to find the Christian
interpretation of face covering by women, which is found in Genesis 38:15.
A fine mess created by the government.
-30-
Genesis 38:15 reads: “When
Judah saw her, he thought she was a harlot, for she had covered her face.”
No comments:
Post a Comment