Our country, our rules
Re: Ten Reasons To Ban The Niqab, Barbara Kay, Sept. 30; Fight Over The Niqab Is Valueless, Andrew Coyne, Oct. 1. The niqab controversy, which is before the courts, is not valueless as Andrew Coyne contends, but of great value in establishing the camaraderie of all new citizens at the ceremony to swear loyalty to the Queen. One cannot make a connection to another human being by hiding one’s face.
Furthermore, one has to consider where a relaxation of the custom of showing one’s face at the citizenship ceremony may lead. What of immigrants wearing a balaclava or a clown’s nose or an “anonymous” mask? Immigrants should be courteous enough to enter the hall of Canadian citizenship in manner that is customary in Canada.
Jiti Khanna, Vancouver.
Andrew Coyne’s curious disquisition deprecating the importance of having one’s face uncovered during a citizenship swearing-in ceremony reveals nothing so much as his failure to understand the importance of visual communication. Covering one’s face, for whatever reason, while seeking to become a full member of Canada’s polity and acquire the right to vote, is an expression of distrust of the people who witness the ceremony and whom you, as an applicant for citizenship, are asking to welcome into their community as an equal.
People who live in Canada can think and believe what they want, but their conduct is constrained, both by the law and accepted perceptions of decency. Why would we accept as citizens those who choose to hide their faces from a large portion of the population most of the time?
James B.F. Cripps, Vancouver.
Barbara Kay’s column, “Ten reasons to ban the niqab” effectively disposed of Andrew Coyne’s position on the importance of the niqab debate.
It should be unnecessary to have to point out, yet again, wearing the niqab is not a religious requirement of Islam, as millions of Muslim women illustrate every day. Rather, it is a cultural practice or custom in vogue in the more backward and repressive countries, places like Afghanistan, Iran and Saudi Arabia.
Furthermore, it is a practice most Canadians find not only highly offensive, as described by Kay, but also somewhat intimidating for reasons that should be obvious. This unacceptable practice is certainly not in the same league as honour killing, but it is right up there with forced marriages, especially if the niqab is being worn under duress, and that is something we cannot ordinarily determine.
Since the issue does not involve religious rights, but rather the conflict between our customs and practices and those of certain immigrants, the courts have no business dealing with the matter. It should be left to our elected representatives to resolve the issue in Canada’s best interests.
Frank Casey, Calgary.
Andrew Coyne let the cat out of the bag when he noted, in his Oct. 1 column on the “ridiculous issue” of the niqab, only two women had been refused citizenship for refusing to lift the veil.
You see, Canada? Only two. Nothing to worry about. But what if the number had been 200? Or 2,000? Should we worry then? It’s not a numbers issue. There is a principle involved: people wanting to become Canadian citizens do not get to rewrite the rules to suit themselves.
Russ Peden, Dorval, Que.