Last year, when the City of Barcelona enacted a law banning the burqa and niqab from all government buildings, I wrote a blog condemning the lawmakers. Although I do see the niqab and the burqa as symbols of female oppression, I argued that the law infringed upon people's right to freedom of expression. This week the issue came up again, but this time it was a lot closer to home. On Monday, Canadian immigration minister Jason Kenney announced a new law forbidding prospective Canadians from wearing face-covering garments while reciting the oath of citizenship. The rationale behind the law was apparently two-fold. The first reason was purely pragmatic. The ministry had received several complaints from immigration judges that Muslim women were wearing the burqa or niqab when citing the oath and therefore it was impossible for officials to confirm that the oath was actually being spoken because the women's mouths weren't visible. The second reason is more symbolic, although not without merit. According to Kenney, it's a matter of principle that every new Canadian's face should be visible when they stand up and take the oath in front of their fellow citizens.
Personally I'm no fan of oaths or any other form of loyalty pledges. Since those born in Canada never have to take one, I don't see why naturalized Canadians should be forced to take it. Especially when the oath affirms allegiance the monarch of one of the more vile empires of the past 500 years. And especially when neither the reigning monarch nor any of her predecessors has ever apologized for the atrocities perpetrated on behalf of the crown. And especially when that empire is partly responsible for the forlorn state of the nations from whence the vast majority of Canada's immigrants have fled.
However, having said all that, I still support the law. If non-Muslims must endure the indignity of uttering an oath as hideous Canada's oath of citizenship in full view of the public, I see no reason why Muslims should be exempt. In defending the new law, Kenney has been quick to point out that neither the burqa nor the niqab is a requirement of the Muslim faith. My response to that is "who cares?" . I support freedom of expression, including religious expression. But in cases where the well-being of society is impacted, it is sometimes appropriate to place constraints on those expressions, whether they are religious or not. As a thought experiment, suppose Mr. A. happens to be a nudist. Does Mr. A. then have the right to drop his kids off at kindergarten wearing only his birthday suit. Now suppose, on the other hand, that Mr. A. happens to be a Nudist, the capital "N" signifying that this is a religious denomination whose tenets and mythologies (like those of all religions) have absolutely no basis in science, history, or anything this else that's provable. Does this suddenly give him the right live out his nudist agenda in full view of his child's horrified classmates? I should hope not.
