Eideard

Muslim women will no longer be able to cover their faces as they take Canadian citizenship after the country’s immigration minister announced a ban on anyone wearing the niqab – the face veil – or burqa – full body and face covering – while taking the oath of citizenship.

He said that he had received complaints from citizenship judges who had claimed that it was difficult to ensure that individuals whose faces were covered were actually reciting the oath.

“They told me last month that it’s a fairly common problem. Every week, in every region of the country, we’re dealing with situations where applicants arrive with a veil on,” said Jason Kenney, the minister of citizenship and immigration. “Frankly, I found it bizarre that the rules allowed people to take the oath with a veil on.”

He added that the move was also not simply a practical measure, saying: “It is a matter of deep principle that goes to the heart of our identity and our values of openness and equality.”

Kenney said the oath of citizenship has to be done freely and openly and under equal conditions.

The announcement was made in the French-speaking province of Quebec, where a law passed last year banned the wearing of any face cover while applying for government services in the province…

Canada’s supreme court last week also heard arguments in a case where a Muslim woman wants to testify while wearing a niqab, pitting her right of religious freedom against her alleged rapist’s right to face his accuser in the trial.

I admit to occasional episodes of frustration with both of the sides that form up to battle over questions like this one.

The simplest and most democratic way I’ve come to political decisions on the question – is that civil law, the practices decided necessary by common law of the land, take precedence over religious custom. Or any other custom, for that matter, that lies outside the boundaries of law accepted as binding upon the whole country.

Two French female students have made a film of the pair of them strolling through the streets of Paris in a niqab, bare legs and mini-shorts as a critique of France’s recently passed law.

Calling themselves the “Niqabitches,” the veiled ladies can be seen strutting past prime ministerial offices and various government ministries with a black veil leaving only their eyes visible, but with their long legs naked bar black high heels.

Bemused passers-by can be seen gawping at the pair or asking to take photographs in the clip.

At one stage in the film, the two women approach the entrance to the ministry of immigration and national identity, only to be told by a policeman to go elsewhere. However, a policewoman also present is delighted by their clothes. “I love your outfit, is it to do with the new law?” she asks. “Yes, we want to de-dramatise the situation,” one girl replies. “It’s brilliant. Can I take a photo?” asks the policewoman, who will soon be required to fine public niqab wearers…

“To put a simple burka on would have been too simple. So we asked ourselves: ‘how would the authorities react when faced with women wearing a burka and mini-shorts?,” asked the students, one of whom is a Muslim…

“To dictate what we wear appears to have become the role of the State (as if they didn’t have other fish to fry …).”

We’re going through the opposite government morass here in Santa Fe. The question of public nudity – even as a form of protest – tied up city government for debate and ponderous discussion for days after a recent demonstration of nude and semi-nude bicyclists.

No doubt there will be prayers of praise at the Cathedral this Sunday for the final passage of a torturous ordnance that can hauled out next year for the world nude bicyclists’ protest. Or better yet – to bust some performance artist who poses in front of a tourist from Texas.

Daylife/Reuters Pictures used by permission

A human rights group says there is no need under Canadian law to establish guidelines for when Islamic women can cover their faces…

Fillion said passage of Bill 94 could deny public services such as health and education to women wearing face veils.

A spokesman for the Quebec Bar testified that while a section of the bill states that people offering or receiving public services must have their face uncovered, it is only necessary for reasons of “security, communication or identification.”

Bill 94′s sponsor, Justice Minister Kathleen Weil, says the purpose of the legislation is to establish the principle that people have their faces uncovered for “reasons of security.”

Security, eh? Can’t they figure out how to include “defend the children”, as well? They usually march arm-in-arm.

A Belgian parliamentary committee has voted to impose a nationwide ban on wearing face-covering veils in public…The ban includes any clothes or veils that do not allow the wearer to be fully identified, including the full-face niqab and burqa.

If passed, the measure would be the first clampdown of its kind in Europe…

With the governing parties and opposition in agreement, officials expect the full house to easily endorse the draft law…

“This is a very strong signal that is being sent to Islamists,” said Denis Ducarme, a French-speaking deputy from the centre-right Reformist Movement that proposed the bill. Ducarme said he was “proud that Belgium would be the first country in Europe which dares to legislate on this sensitive matter”.

“We have to free women of this burden,” said his colleague Corinne de Parmentier.

The vice-president of the Muslim Executive of Belgium, Isabelle Praile, warned that the move could set a dangerous precedent. “Today it’s the full-face veil, tomorrow the veil, the day after it will be Sikh turbans and then perhaps it will be mini skirts,” she said.

Well, the question as proposed to parliament is one of identification. I’m not certain mini-skirts are hiding much of anything – including recognition.

If endorsed, the vote would see the ban imposed in streets, public gardens and sports grounds or buildings “meant for public use or to provide services” to the public.

Exceptions would be allowed for certain festivities like carnivals if municipal authorities decide to grant them.

I think it appropriate to place all religious symbolism in carnivals.

French lawmakers have recommended a partial ban on any veils that cover the face — including the burqa, the full-body covering worn by some Muslim women.

The ban on the “voile integrale” — which literally means “total veil” — would apply in public places like hospitals and schools, and on public transport, a French parliamentary commission announced.

It would also apply to anyone who attempts to receive public services, but it would not apply to people wearing the burqa on the street, the commission said…

They will now recommend that Parliament pass a resolution on the partial ban. Such a resolution, if passed, would not make the wearing of a full veil or burqa illegal, but it would give public officials support when asking people to remove it…

By recommending a ban on full veils in public places such as hospitals and schools and by anyone receiving public services, the commission members said they wanted to assist those working with members of the public when asking that full veils be removed. That would include school teachers who meet children’s parents or ticket agents at train stations.

There is nothing in the Quran that directs women to cover their faces, said Imam Hassen Chalghoumi, who runs the Islamic center in Drancy, a Paris suburb. He said it is ridiculous to do so in France.

France already has a law against Muslim girls wearing headscarves in state schools. It sparked widespread Muslim protests when the French Parliament passed the law in 2004, even though the law also bans other conspicuous religious symbols including Sikh turbans, large Christian crucifixes and Jewish skull caps.

Separation of the state from religion. What an idea!