12

Kenney insists Canadians support burka ban

Minister defends the policy at Muslim Canadian Congress in Toronto


 

Federal Immigration Minister Jason Kenney says there is widespread support in Canada for his government’s ban of face coverings at citizenship ceremonies, a measure Ottawa announced last month. Speaking at a gathering in Toronto of the Muslim Canadian Congress, a non-profit advocay, Kenney reportedly cited polls that found eight out of 10 Canadians support the ban, which will prevent Muslim women from wearing burkas or niqabs when being sworn in as Canadian citizens. “It is only a sign of respect for your fellow citizens when you are pledging to them your commitment to live in a community with them, to show your face and who you are and that your pledge is heartfelt and authentic,” Kenney was quoted as saying by the National Post. Opponents of the ban argue that Muslim women should be free to cover their faces according to their own religious customs, and should not be forced to remove them. But, Kenney reportedly insisted, since the oath of citizenship is a public ceremony, those participating shouldn’t be allowed to conceal their identities.

Source: http://www.nationalpost.com/todays-paper/Widespread%2Bsupport%2Bburka%2BKenney%2Bsays/6035821/story.html


 
Filed under:

Kenney insists Canadians support burka ban

  1. I have rather mixed feelings on this one. It seems Canada is asking for a show of respect by refusing to respect their beliefs.

    I can see asking for proof of identity prior to the swearing-in, but once that obligation is met, while I would certainly encourage them to take the oath with face visible, I don’t know that I would make it a condition of the swearing-in.

    More broadly, though, I think people who come to Canada to live here ought to do so with an intention of being Canadian – full stop: no hyphenates. That doesn’t mean one should completely abandon one’s heritage, but it should mean a fair degree of assimilation. If all someone wants to do is recreate their country in a pocket of Canada, where their language and traditions predominate (and I’m not just speaking of any one group here; there are a number who do this) then I would argue they are taking far too great an advantage of our openness and are perhaps here for the wrong reasons. Such self-ghetto-izing behaviour, sadly, encourages misunderstandings and intolerance on both sides of the divide.

    • If you pour hundreds of thousands of people into Canadian cities every year, ethnic enclaves are inevitable. Chinese and South Asian immigrants generally have zero intention of becoming ‘Canadian.’ This is particularilly a problem with Investor/Entrepreneur immigrants. Here, in Calgary, we have a Chinese-only cemetery section, Chinese-only long term care facilities (Wing-Kei, supported by Provincial funding and non-Chinese donors), Chinese-only malls, children of immigrants who can’t function in English, etc. In Northeast Calgary, you see burqas, niqabs, hijabs, turbans, beards and taqiyahs, saris, salwar kameez, etc. Co-ethnic only real estate transactions are frequent–try to get the Human Rights ‘courts’ to take THOSE cases. Ethnic hiring occurs frequently (e.g., trucking). And politics are troubling. Not only do people bring their ‘third world brokerage politics’ with them (e.g., the fraud-ridden Devinder Shory nomination), but ‘very ethnic’ voters tend to only vote for people of their ethnicity. An example is Brampton-Springdale: ALL of the candidates were Punjabis, despite that group comprising merely 20-odd percent of the riding’s population. This is because ‘ethnic’ associations frequently hijack nominations (as in Northeast Calgary, East Calgary), and party leaders realise that ‘very ethnic’ voters will only vote for people of their ethnicity.

      We need to sharply reduce immigration, axe multiculturalism, and find a way to break up ethnic enclaves. Little Bejings, Little Khalistans, or little Islamabads have no place in Canada.

    • I too feel newcomers should adopt to Canada’s norms – a country where they may practice their religion as they see fit without state interference. DOWN WITH THE BURKA BAN!

  2. ur screwed. and you dont know what canada wants

  3. Canadian citizenship is a privelage, and not a right. And would-be Canadian citizens should respect the cultural norms of their host country. Contrary to forty years of Turdeauist multicultist propaganda, Canada has a Christian-informed, Western culture which is the antithesis of everything the burqa, niqab, and hijab stand for. If the Salafists and other don’t like our culture, they can stay in their home countries.

    If anything, Kenney is quite a few degrees to the left of most Canadians’ opinions on the issue. Polls consistently show broad (>80%) support for outright bans on niqabs and burqas, going far beyond the Citizenship Oath. And increasing numbers of Canadians are frustrated with the continued bulk-import of warm bodies, particularilly from the third world, even during periods of recession. On the immigration issue, politicians, the media, academics, and business lobbies are grossly out of touch with the public mood.

  4. The MCC also supports the ban and expanding it, as do most Canadians.
    With their misleading headline, Macleans implies that the Minister is defending against criticism.

    Burkas and niqabs are cultural items, not religious requirements. They are not mentioned in the Koran. Regardless, people have to show their faces to prove they are who they say they are.

  5. Kenny’s intolerance makes me ashamed for my country.

  6. Burkas and other face coverings are a cultural issue, not a religious one. One shouldn’t confuse tolerance with respect. Canadian law, custom and culture should take precedence in this country. Many of these immigrants arrive from countries where women are harrassed, arrested, beaten and abused for not conforming to cultural dress and/or other standards. To many Canadians burkas and niqabs are symbols of this type of oppression and evoke anything but respect.

    • grow up.

  7. Is a pledge less heartfelt and less genuine when someone observes their religious rituals and covers a portion of their face?

    These ideals are meant for public areas, perhaps for a fee covering the costs a private ceremony could be available for those that need to cover themselves in public? Then the minister could satisfy himself that the faces were exposed and the pledge was genuine and heartfelt.

    What a lameassed rationalization.

    How can you get accurate face recognition data from the camera at the ceremony when someone covers their face?

  8. I agree with the government’s ban on the wearing of any face covering by
    anyone, male or female, taking the citizenship oath. In fact I would
    take it much further.

    The niqab and burka are masks. Masks are intended to hide the identity
    of the wearer. In our culture we cannot allow people to hide their
    identities when exercising the rights and privileges of citizenship
    because we have no idea who the masked person really is. I believe it
    is a universal impulse to associate a masked man with murder and
    thievery. But in some muslim cultures (and other traditional cultures
    that limit women’s rights and freedoms), women are not allowed full
    participation in society. And in those places, wearing of the veil or
    mask can be viewed as a virtue, as long as one sets aside the potential
    human rights abuses entailed in this practice.

    But in our society there can be no distinction made between a masked man
    and a masked woman. This practice is utterly incompatible with a
    participatory democracy based on equal rights between men and women. It
    also weakens the rule of law, which depends on individual
    accountability. Therefore on the basis that all forms of masks hide the
    identity of the wearer, it should be self evident that no masked person
    should be entitled to participate in any of the following privileges in
    our society:

    obtain citizenship

    vote

    enter a bank (would we allow a masked man to do so?)

    obtain a driver’s license, health card, passport or any other photo ID card

    use a photo ID of a masked image to identify oneself

    drive a car

    write a test or exam used to evaluate the individual

    obtain a degree or diploma that recognizes the achievement of an individual

    apply for or receive welfare or other social assistance

    cross a security checkpoint (i.e. airport, border, etc.)

    Perhaps this seems harsh but my reasoning is simple. When such
    privileges are extended to a person in a mask, we cannot know to whom
    they are being extended. The potential for fraud and other criminal
    activity is obvious.

    Having said that, I would not ban the practice altogether. If any woman
    ‘chooses’ to wear the burqa, niqab or other style of mask in our society
    she should be ‘free’ to do so as long as she and her family accept the
    self-limitations implied by it’s wearing. To aid the vulnerable,
    provisions could be made to photograph and reveal the individual’s face
    in the presence of some authorized female representative wo could
    ‘identify the person to others.And of course my comments do not apply at
    all to the hijab, which is not a mask.

  9. A very simple observation shows that these Burka users are abusing the welfare system.
    The probability of working  outside home or getting a job in a  company with Burka is close to zero, These women stay on welfare for life. Even who works under  Burka (cover) in some Muslim owned   ? !  companies they are paid cash (no tax, no statement , no labor laws but high exploitation). Some times they are paid a monthly payment which in most cases are  a quoter of the minimum wage. Some times even they are not paid ( because the business owner knows they can’t complain). In all these cases in general women and  society  is suffering.  

Sign in to comment.