First, keep in mind that the sentence you quoted was related to a possible ban on public servants wearing the niqab.
I found it bizarre that the Conservative government would double down on the niqab issue by suggesting that they may ban public servants from wearing it. Doubling down on an issue that Justin Trudeau was gaining so many points on struck me as an admission that either they were running out of money, or they were competing against the NDP to be official opposition. It didn't make much strategic sense, especially considering former-PM Harper's 'old-stock' Canadian quote.
But, nothing about the last years of Conservative rule - from his fight against the public service, to his fight against science, to the Mike Duffy kerfuffle - made a lick of sense. It shouldn't have felt so bizarre that Harper would run a disjointed campaign, but he was otherwise an amazing campaigner.
As for the niqab during citizenship, I likely can't convince you because you'll mention that niqab's aren't even necessarily part of Islam. And, you'll mention that there is a possibility that their use is coerced.
All of those arguments are true and, for the record, I'm not a huge fan of the niqab, but I'm Catholic and I was born in Canada, so my views aren't particularly informed.
Rather, my only argument is that the Supreme Court gave some very stringent requirements for making a witness remove a niqab during trial.[1] The Supreme Court ruled that an outright ban on niqabs during testimony was wrong as, "rights should be limited only to the extent that the limits are shown to be justifiable."
I don't believe that we should have a lower standard during citizenship ceremonies. So ultimately, I think that we need strong justification to make it okay to violate someone's freedom to get dressed as they see fit.
I'm not convinced that we need to see someone's lips move as there are other ways we can determine whether they are actually reciting the vow. If the Supreme Court argues that a witness whose face is covered does not always violate an accused person's right to a fair trial, I don't think we can argue that a person whose face is covered violates the sanctity of citizenship. Those arguments aside, I can't think of any other strong arguments against the niqab in citizenship ceremonies.
I found it bizarre that the Conservative government would double down on the niqab issue by suggesting that they may ban public servants from wearing it. Doubling down on an issue that Justin Trudeau was gaining so many points on struck me as an admission that either they were running out of money, or they were competing against the NDP to be official opposition. It didn't make much strategic sense, especially considering former-PM Harper's 'old-stock' Canadian quote.
But, nothing about the last years of Conservative rule - from his fight against the public service, to his fight against science, to the Mike Duffy kerfuffle - made a lick of sense. It shouldn't have felt so bizarre that Harper would run a disjointed campaign, but he was otherwise an amazing campaigner.
As for the niqab during citizenship, I likely can't convince you because you'll mention that niqab's aren't even necessarily part of Islam. And, you'll mention that there is a possibility that their use is coerced.
All of those arguments are true and, for the record, I'm not a huge fan of the niqab, but I'm Catholic and I was born in Canada, so my views aren't particularly informed.
Rather, my only argument is that the Supreme Court gave some very stringent requirements for making a witness remove a niqab during trial.[1] The Supreme Court ruled that an outright ban on niqabs during testimony was wrong as, "rights should be limited only to the extent that the limits are shown to be justifiable."
I don't believe that we should have a lower standard during citizenship ceremonies. So ultimately, I think that we need strong justification to make it okay to violate someone's freedom to get dressed as they see fit.
I'm not convinced that we need to see someone's lips move as there are other ways we can determine whether they are actually reciting the vow. If the Supreme Court argues that a witness whose face is covered does not always violate an accused person's right to a fair trial, I don't think we can argue that a person whose face is covered violates the sanctity of citizenship. Those arguments aside, I can't think of any other strong arguments against the niqab in citizenship ceremonies.
[1] - https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/12779/inde...