Woman fighting citizenship oath niqab ban favours gender segregation


Locutus
+1
#1  Top Rated Post
— but not in Canada

---- oh dear.

didn't see this already posted by anyone, so...........



Zunera Ishaq: “I do respect Canadian society as it is.” J.P. Moczulski for National Post/Files
The devout Muslim woman fighting to wear a niqab while taking the citizenship oath told a government lawyer last year she is in favour of separating men and women in some circumstances in her native Pakistan.

But in an interview Tuesday, Zunera Ishaq said she does not advocate such segregation in Canada.
“I’m not seeking any such separation,” she said. “I do respect Canadian society as it is.”
Her comments may add fuel to a national debate between the Conservative government, which says it is trying to uphold Canadian values with the niqab ban, and opposition critics, who say the government is disrespecting religious freedoms.

Ms. Ishaq, of Mississauga, Ont., shared her views on gender segregation during the discovery last April after she filed her legal challenge. A transcript was among the exhibits recently filed by the government in its appeal of last month’s Federal Court ruling overturning the ban on wearing the niqab in citizenship ceremonies.

During cross-examination, Negar Hashemi, the government’s lawyer, asked Ms. Ishaq why she preferred to live in Canada, rather than Pakistan, “a country with Islamic laws that includes your religious views.”

The woman replied she considered Pakistan a Muslim country, but not an Islamic one, because it was “not obeying the laws in, like, whatever Islam has told us to do.”

Males and females, for instance, are not educated in separate classrooms, she said. “They are not following this rule back home … it’s been co-education.”

She added there are “a lot of … fields” in the workplace where there could be a separation of genders, “but there is no separation.”

Asked by Ms. Hashemi whether she would like to see men and women separate during Canada’s citizenship ceremonies, Ms. Ishaq said such a move would “definitely give me something more than I asked” and her main objective was being allowed to keep her face covered while saying the oath.
“But if after that they can do for me some separation, it’s more than — yes, I do appreciate for this, too.”
On Tuesday, she said if the niqab ban were lifted, there would be no need for such an accommodation.

At one point in the cross-examination, Ms. Ishaq acknowledged she unveiled herself to get her driver’s licence photo and the photo was taken in a public space.

Ms. Hashemi suggested she should do the same to become a Canadian citizen.

“I would suggest to you that it does not take much longer [to say the oath] than the time it took to take your picture,” the government lawyer said.

But Ms. Ishaq said the purpose of unveiling for the driver’s licence was for identity and security, which was not the case when taking the citizenship oath. (She has said she has no problem confirming her identity in a private room before the ceremony.)

Ms. Ishaq, the mother of three, was sponsored to Canada by her husband and became a permanent resident in 2008. She was scheduled to attend a citizenship ceremony in January 2014, but postponed that to launch a legal challenge of the niqab ban, which was introduced in late 2011.

In a ruling last month, federal Judge Keith Boswell said the ban violated the government’s regulations because it “interferes with a citizenship judge’s duty to allow candidates for citizenship the greatest possible freedom in the religious solemnization or the solemn affirmation of the oath.”

This month, the government launched an appeal and asked for a stay of Judge Boswell’s order.
Ms. Ishaq is asking the Federal Court of Appeal to allow her to take the citizenship oath as soon as possible while wearing her niqab.

“I wished to vote in the mayoral election in Toronto, but was unable due to my status as a permanent resident,” she wrote in a recent affidavit.

“I wish to vote in the next federal election.”

National Post


Woman fighting citizenship oath niqab ban favours gender segregation €” but not in Canada
 
Cannuck
No Party Affiliation
+1
#2
Some people will grasp at any straw they can reach. They women's views on segregation, unionization or who is going to win the Stanley Cup are not particularly important to the issue of the niqab.
 
taxslave
Free Thinker
+1
#3
She could just return to wherever she came from if she doesn't like how we do things here.
 
Cannuck
No Party Affiliation
+1
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

She could just return to wherever she came from if she doesn't like how we do things here.

I don't like how we do things here. Actually most people have not liked how things are done. That's one of the reasons why our society continues to change.
 
BruSan
+1
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by Cannuck View Post

Some people will grasp at any straw they can reach. They women's views on segregation, unionization or who is going to win the Stanley Cup are not particularly important to the issue of the niqab.

She's not expressing her views about the Stanley Cup outcome; she's stating what she believes Canada should be prepared to do to accommodate her regressive religious tenets while at the same time professing to respect Canada's societal imperatives we've established at some effort on our part to maintain a strict balancing act of equal rights and freedoms.

By all means let's allow a retrograde religion to tear down the perception we need to keep at the forefront that all people are equal and deserving of protection while at the same time ensuring any oath taken is taken with complete compliance by the applicant.


"I want to be Canadian but only upon my terms and conditions"..... shouldn't fly for anyone who values this country's future.


Canada has been careful to strip those more repellant parts of religious fervour from the governing of our society and should do more, not less, to restrict their enactment in the first place.


Let all Muslims know that we will abhor the stupid and retrograde demand of any religion that women prove their chastity by remaining totally covered. Islam states men cannot control themselves nor should be expected to, so it falls to the woman to remove all temptation by covering herself completely. How freak'n regressive can you get to believe or encourage that crap?


What if this nincompoop stated her religion also forbade her responses being made to a male other than a family member while taking the oath? That too, is a tenet of her 'male dominance in all things' cult religion. Why is that one not in her bucket list of demands?


How about female genital circumcision/mutilation? You going to be O.K. with that too?


While pontificating upon segregated schooling; does she even think about Malala getting shot in the face for merely attending school? I find it convenient she had no problem modifying her belief to attain a driver's license when that particular little privilege is most assuredly forbidden by the Koran. in the same manner as is co-educational schooling.


This idiot woman is cherry picking the various tenets of Islam she wishes simply to challenge OUR beliefs.


I'm for turning the tide on these azzhats and force them to live as EVERY rule of the Koran suggests and see how long they can tolerate that before beating feet back to whatever dung heap they came from. Full burqha, mullahs following them everywhere they go forbidding them to talk to anyone at all other than their hubby, no shopping, no walking unescorted, no assuming they have decision making rights about their own welfare, maintaining a respectful distance behind the dominant male members (including her sons) of her family. Many, many other restrictive rules exist in Koranic writings this one is overlooking in her desire to be "in your face Canada".


I would simply tell them we have taken the time and utilized authoritative advice from the strictest of Mullahs to determine exactly what Canada should do as regards her "religion" and she's attempting to be "in for a penny; she's got no choice but to be in for the whole POUND".


My bet would be she's on the first flight back to Pakistan.
Last edited by BruSan; Mar 25th, 2015 at 07:42 AM..
 
Tecumsehsbones
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by BruSan View Post

My bet would be she's on the first flight back to Pakistan.

I doubt it. Unless she's dumber'n a fence post (a position for which there is some evidence), if you said "Our way or the airways," I bet she'd come around.

She's whining because Canada tolerates her whining. Pakistan wouldn't. I calculate she's got the mother-wit to understand that.
 
Cannuck
No Party Affiliation
#7
She's asking to wear a niqab during an oath. That is all. If and when she goes to court to push for segregation...well...I'll concern myself with that then.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by Cannuck View Post

She's asking to wear a niqab during an oath. That is all. If and when she goes to court to push for segregation...well...I'll concern myself with that then.

How bout a compromise? Y'all can let her wear a paper bag over her head.
 
BruSan
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by Cannuck View Post

She's asking to wear a niqab during an oath. That is all. If and when she goes to court to push for segregation...well...I'll concern myself with that then.

Yeah but she's asking for it in the name of her religion which if agreed to on that basis, will open the door for a flood of other crap. How do you say O.K to part without being later required to agree with the parcel?
 
Locutus
#10
she's a troll spurred-on by other trolls. nothing more. she'll lose and she'll place Canadians on ignore.
 
Cannuck
No Party Affiliation
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

How bout a compromise? Y'all can let her wear a paper bag over her head.

I don't think she should be allowed to wear anything over her head. I don't believe anybody should be able to use their religion, race or culture to circumvent rules as long as the rules are reasonable. That's another issue though.

Quote: Originally Posted by BruSan View Post

Yeah but she's asking for it in the name of her religion which if agreed to on that basis, will open the door for a flood of other crap. How do you say O.K to part without being later required to agree with the parcel?

She's not asking for segregation. Her views on that have no bearing on the case.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by Cannuck View Post

I don't think she should be allowed to wear anything over her head. I don't believe anybody should be able to use their religion, race or culture to circumvent rules as long as the rules are reasonable. That's another issue though.

But she could claim she's a Leafs fan! That's not a culture, or certainly not much of one.
 
IdRatherBeSkiing
#13
Am I missing something? This is overkill by both sides. Once the person's identity is confirmed, then they should be able to wear a clown suit for the ceremony itself.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by IdRatherBeSkiing View Post

Am I missing something? This is overkill by both sides. Once the person's identity is confirmed, then they should be able to wear a clown suit for the ceremony itself.

I'm perfectly good with making that mandatory.

Or you could make everybody take the oath nekkid. Can't be too careful.
Last edited by Tecumsehsbones; Mar 25th, 2015 at 09:55 AM..
 
Cannuck
No Party Affiliation
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by IdRatherBeSkiing View Post

Am I missing something? This is overkill by both sides. Once the person's identity is confirmed, then they should be able to wear a clown suit for the ceremony itself.

Yes and no. From my perspective, the issue is whether or not we are willing to make reasonable allowances based on religious/racial/cultural bases and what is considered reasonable. I was against the legion in its refusal to allow turbans because that was not, in my opinion reasonable. In fact, I stopped supporting the legion altogether over that one. Turbans in the RCMP was a different matter. The powers that be, claimed that they wanted to keep the uniform a-religious. Catholic members were required to keep a crucifix (if they wore one) hidden. In that instance the argument became about a turban when it should have been about all religious symbols and whether they should be allowed as part of a national police uniform. In any event, the rule allowing the turban was a mistake unless the uniform code allows for any religious symbol to be worn. It's all about treating people equally before the law.
 

Similar Threads

50
Childhood Gender Segregation
by karrie | Jan 27th, 2007