Upending Cultural Values
"All available legal options [kept open to be explored in the wake of the Federal Court overturning no-niqab policy]."
"New citizens are obliged to confirm their identity when taking the Oath of Citizenship, which is sworn or affirmed in public. It is simply common sense to require the removal of facial coverings or other items that hide new citizens' mouths from view."
Kevin Menard, spokesman, Citizen and Immigration
"[Government regulations require citizenship judges administer the citizenship oath] with dignity and solemnity, allowing the greatest possible freedom in the religious solemnization or the solemn affirmation thereof."
"[Not possible, if a policy requires candidates to] violate or renounce a basic tenet of their religion."
"For instance, how could a citizenship judge afford a monk who obeys strict rules of silence the 'greatest possible freedom' in taking the oath if he is required to betray his discipline and break his silence?"
Judge Keith Boswell, Federal Court of Canada
"The basis of my challenge was proved true."
"I feel that the governmental policy regarding veils at citizenship oath ceremonies is a personal attack on me, my identity as a Muslim woman and my religious beliefs.''
"I hope my wait [to become a citizen] is not very long."
Zunera Ishaq, 29, Toronto mother, permanent resident, Pakistan origin
Aaron Vincent Elkaim for National Post Zunera
Ishaq stands for a portrait in her home in Mississauga on Wednesday
February 11, 2015. She is excited about a court ruling that allows women
to wear hijabs while taking the Canadian citizenship oath.
In 2011 then-immigration minister Jason Kenney brought in a ruling that the niqab could not be worn during the citizenship swearing in ceremony. Zunera Ishaq, as a devout Muslim claims her religious beliefs obligate her wearing of a niqab at all times. She would refuse to unveil herself at the public citizenship ceremony. To begin with, though the covering of burqas and niqabs are held to be religious requirements, there is nothing in Islam's scriptures beyond modesty, claiming that women must be veiled, according to Islamic scholars.
So what this woman is arguing for, along with her legal team, is special treatment not on religious grounds, but cultural custom. Her argument is specious, and that it has been allowed to take up time in the Federal Court is yet another instance where the Canadian Justice system has been co-opted by political correctness; in this case, not with a religious standard in question, but a cultural one. Those migrating to Canada to join the citizenry of a pluralist country should recognize Canadian law, not plan to impose their view of how legal issues should be conducted to suit them personally.
No one entering the country is entitled to insist that Canadian rules and regulations be altered to address their personal issues, and this matter is one that sees an arrogant woman insisting on her exceptionality due to her religious devotion. When in fact, it is a case of a woman who has adopted a cultural stance claiming it to be a major tenet of her religion, which it is not. Yet Canadian jurisprudence is prepared to bow to her demands, claiming her Charter rights are offended.
While she has the unmitigated audacity to claim that a generalized regulation targets her personally in an obviously egotistical conceit, it is she, as a narcissist, who feels she has the right to hold the government to ridicule, claiming that she is offended not that she is offensive. Unsurprising that the National Council of Canadian Muslims have hailed the Federal Court ruling striking down the citizenship policy with the claim that it violates the government's own regulations.
Any time that organization can strike a blow on behalf of Canadian Muslims succeeding in forcing government to accede to their demands as a 'special' group, they are exhilarated in the hope that eventually Sharia law will take its place in Canada, the long-sought-for entitlement of Canadian Muslims finding justice under a law other than one that all other Canadians find legal shelter under; a reason for celebration.
The National Council of Canadian Muslims appear to be smirking discreetly into their cupped hands covering wide grins of appreciation for the Federal Court and Justice Boswell defying in his wisdom the actual work of lawmakers who have been elected to enact and uphold laws for the entire country, only to be overturned by activist, non-elected judges whose work is not to make new laws but to uphold laws put into place by those whose job it is to do so.
So, now, the 'basis of her challenge' was not proven true. What happened is that once again, Canadian justice seeks its utmost to challenge the Conservative brand of this current government which won a majority vote in the last election and which by and large reflects in its actions the will of the Canadian people. The sanctimoniously values-destructive behaviour and demands of immigrants who become citizens planning to overturn the prevailing indigenous cultural values by imposing alien substitutes bode ill for Canada's future.
Why would this country wish to grant citizenship to anyone who has no respect for its laws, its regulations, its values, its social contract, its culture?
Labels: Canada, Conflict, Immigration, Islamism, Social Welfare
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home