Does anyone have this type of hotilne in their country?

A current hot topic in Canada is the upcoming election scheduled for Oct 19th. The current leaders in the polls, the Conservative party, seem to owe their front running status to their recent publicised opposition to a person wearing a face covering, the niqab, in a citizenship ceremony. See details here Canada to press for ban on Islamic veil at citizenship ceremonies | Canada | The Guardian

A new development is a promise for a hotline, or a easily accessible telephone line, to report “barbaric cultural practices” This seems to be an attempt to get even more popularity based on the anti-niqab sentiment, although the Conservatives deny this. Canada's Conservatives vow to create 'barbaric cultural practices' hotline | Canada | The Guardian I made a Lingq lesson of this article here: Login - LingQ

Does anyone have this type of hotilne in their country? What is your opinion on this?

I would not necessarily read the Guardian for views on what is happening in Canada. There are many issues in the Canadian election, not the least of which is the qualities of the leaders of the three main parties.
As to the issues of the niqab, Niqāb - Wikipedia, I am in entire agreement with the position of the Conservative party that no one should be sworn in as a citizen of Canada while covering their face, whether with a niqab, a balaclava or a batman mask. I am not in favour of multiculturalism whereby immigrants come to Canada and simply continue living as they did in their home country without respect for the habits, customs and practices of the host country. Canada receives 250,000 immigrants a year, and another 200,000 temporary workers, many of whom stay. If all of these people simply establish a diaspora branch in Canada, Canada will be changed out of recognition. Most Canadians expect immigrants to assimilate, this has been demonstrated by polls regularly. This is the basis upon which the high level of immigration is supported.
As to the hotline, I support the idea. The most likely people to use the hotline are precisely those vulnerable members of immigrant communities who are the victims of parental or spousal violence, who might be able to obtain support and help which is not available within their family or ethnic community.


Following are links to basically the same article in Canadian papers both centre left and right leaning

About protest against the niqab in the citizenship ceremony:

Just to be clear, there is no need to identify anyone during these ceremonies. It is not like a passport photo. The identity of the participants in the ceremony is established in advance.

As for the customs of Canada: I have trouble pinpointing some of the dominant mores of Canadian public appearance as a whole. I fully accept the turban, the head scarf, the piercings, the tattoos, the transvestites, men holding hands with men, women with women as both things that have emerged into public view during my lifetime and just another sight on the landscape.

About the hotline: I thought 911 covered emergencies.

Ceremonies are not about identifying people, they are ceremonies. The citizenship ceremony is, in fact, unnecessary. But we have it as a traditional rite of passage whereby immigrants are formally accepted as Canadians. To many Canadians and immigrants, this ceremony has great significance.

All countries have ceremonies, traditions, and symbols that provide some cement or glue to the society, which encourages mutual solidarity. If I emigrated to another country with the intention of becoming a citizen of that country, I would respect their traditions. Most Canadians are offended by new Canadians being sworn in as Canadians dressed with the symbols of the inequality of men and women, women as possessions of men.

Good on the Conservatives for making this point, one with broad based public support, when most political leaders, and media “intellectuals” prefer to stay within the bounds of official political correctness.

Happy Birthday Steve!

Check the Ministry of Immigration’s own website on this:

“Narrator: Next, it’s time to plan what you will wear to the ceremony. This is a special day, so choose something special but also suitable. Most candidates dress as they would for business or a special occasion. Some wear their ceremonial outfits.”

I concede your point that a lot of Canadians (“most” is debatable) agree with your stance on the niqab due to the swing in the polls the issue effected. However, lots of human inequalities that are now universally looked down upon were popular in their time. Principles matter. This is a civic, not religious ceremony.

Your restatement of the ceremonial nature of the citizenship underlines the pettiness and likely PR centred nature of this issue. Coercing women, one way or another, does not support women’s equality.

Whereas I personally think that women would assimilate much better into Canadian society without going around wearing such ridiculous garb, it doesn’t matter what I think.

There is an Indian doctor in my town whose wife decided she wasn’t going to wear a sari anymore and started wearing jeans. He protested at first, but she essentially said, “We live in America now. I’m not going to dress that way anymore. If you want to divorce me over this, I get half.” He stopped protesting and they are married still.

According to this article titled ‘Veiled threats’ from The Gazette (Montreal), which is cited in a Wikipedia article on the niqab, Salam Elmenyawi, head of the Muslim Council of Montreal, had estimated back in 2007 that only about 10 to 15 women in the entire province of Quebec might have shown up to vote that year wearing a niqab. But given the controversy that was created at the time, he wasn’t sure that any would turn out to vote.

That was 8 years ago. I would think that this issue would have been resolved by now.

The niquab the woman is wearing in the Guardian article is really not much more than a scarf and clearly she is not trying to hide her identity (as the cited Conservative statement implies) by any stretch of the imagination. On the contrary, she has been fully identified and is merely trying to express her Muslim identity.

I am certain that the officials at the ceremony knew exactly who she was, and they knew that she had completed all of the naturalization requirements over an extended period of time, or she wouldn’t have been allowed to participate in the ceremony in the first place.

What if the person were Joseph Merrick? Or a burn victim who didn’t feel comfortable showing their face during the ceremony? Would the state then argue that that person had to “openly, proudly and publicly declare their loyalty to their fellow citizens and country without their face hidden”?

I am sure this only became an issue because some official involved with that ceremony made it an issue. And I wonder how they went about telling her that she couldn’t wear that veil?

Besides, a federal appeals court has already found the ban on veils to be unlawful. I guess the state wants to take it all the way to the supreme court so that it can be settled once and for all.

I would really just like to know what legal argument the state is trying to use in court?

In my opinion this is a non-issue that the incumbent party is blowing up hoping to get the irrational fear vote in the lead up to a tight election. You are correct, as long as the current charter of rights Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Wikipedia is respected it doesn’t matter what you or I think.

1 Like

I agree, this is a non-issue. And you’re probably right about the incumbent party trying to use such a non-issue as a wedge issue. But I’m not sure how successful that will be. All you have to do is read the comments in any of the online news articles about this case to see where people’s attitudes lie — on one side or the other.

A few of examples I randomly pulled from the Guardian article that you cited at the beginning:

“The Niqab and Hijab should be left at the border — never to be worn again.”

“If she wants to participate in being a citizen, they should at least know what she looks like. I am pretty liberal, but Muslims seem to be quite demanding and inflexible when it comes to their culture.”

"I’ve got no time for religion whatsoever, and no woman should ever be forced into these things. But unless it’s doing anyone else any harm, attacking a purely personal choice seems wholly unnecessary and a bit petty. "

I have to wonder about people who actually believe that whatever legal argument the state is trying to use will succeed in court. I guess they’ll get their answer if and when this reaches the supreme court.

The Charter of Rights allows for limitations if “the purpose for the government action is to achieve what would be recognized as an urgent or important objective in a free society,” Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Wikipedia so I guess tax money is being used to fight on this front.