OTTAWA — Whether or not women should have to uncover their faces when taking the oath of citizenship has become a wedge issue in the federal election.
The explosive issue vaulted to the forefront of the campaign last week when the Federal Court of Appeal upheld a previous court ruling allowing Zunera Ishaq to take the oath without removing her niqab. At issue in the case is a 2011 directive by Jason Kenney, then immigration minister, requiring people taking the oath to show their faces. The court ruled that a ministerial directive could not override regulations that urge citizenship judges to make all possible efforts to accommodate religious beliefs.
Conservatives
Stephen Harper’s government appealed the initial ruling, with Harper asserting that it’s “offensive” for someone to cover their face when joining the Canadian family. The government lost the appeal but is now seeking leave to appeal the matter further to the Supreme Court of Canada. In the meantime, it is seeking a stay of last week’s ruling to ensure that Ishaq and women like her are unable to take the citizenship oath in time to vote in the Oct. 19 election.
Harper is also promising to introduce a law banning the niqab at citizenship ceremonies if he’s re-elected.
“Look, when someone joins the Canadian family there are times in our open, tolerant, pluralistic society that as part of our interactions with each other we reveal our identity through revealing our face. When you join the Canadian family in a public citizenship ceremony it is essential that that is a time when you reveal yourselves to Canadians and that is something widely supported by Canadians.”
NDP
The NDP’s position has been somewhat murky. But Leader Tom Mulcair clarified Wednesday that he supports the existing law, under which would-be citizens are required to show their faces to prove identity during the citizenship process but are not required to remove face coverings for the purely symbolic, public oath-taking ceremony.
“I understand that many view the niqab as a symbol of the oppression of women. And on that let me be clear. No one has the right to tell a woman what she must or must not wear. I am in agreement with the existing rule under which anyone seeking citizenship must uncover their face to identify themselves before swearing the oath, in accordance with their religious beliefs.”
Liberals
Justin Trudeau staked out an unequivocal position in a major speech last March, arguing that banning the niqab during citizenship ceremonies violates the Charter of Rights.
“You can dislike the niqab. You can hold it up as a symbol of oppression. You can try to convince your fellow citizens that it is a choice they ought not to make. This is a free country. Those are your rights. But those who would use the state’s power to restrict women’s religious freedom and freedom of expression indulge the very same repressive impulse that they profess to condemn. It is a cruel joke to claim you are liberating people from oppression by dictating in law what they can and cannot wear.”
Greens
Green Leader Elizabeth May supports the right of women to wear the niqab during citizenship ceremonies, at which she says new Canadians are encouraged to wear traditional garb.
“It’s 2015 — there are real challenges that face Canada. But a woman being entitled to wear a niqab in a citizenship ceremony is an issue? Excuse me, this is not an issue. This is a cynical manipulation.”
Bloc Quebecois
Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe has taken the hardest line, advocating the use of the constitutional notwithstanding clause to override the Charter of Rights, if necessary, to ban niqabs at citizenship ceremonies.
“I’d be for introducing the clause if ever such a law was found to contravene the charter.”
