07) LOOK AT THE FACTS ABOUT HARPER’S RACIST ANTI-NIQAB STRATEGY

 

By Kimball Cariou

 

            By early October, opinion surveys indicated that the federal election could hinge on an outrageous piece of political manipulation - the so-called “niqab” controversy.

 

            When this marathon campaign began two months ago, about two-thirds of voters were desperate for change, and the Conservatives faced a steep uphill climb to reach the 35 percent-plus they need to gain another majority. But progressive critics of the Harper regime’s austerity and war policies feared a “game-changing” incident which could be twisted to rouse the reactionary fears within many voters.

 

            At first, it seemed that the refugee crisis which dominated the headlines after the tragic deaths of Alan Kurdi might work the other way, painting the Harper Tories as cold and heartless. Even at that point, however, the growing electoral support in many European countries for racist, anti-immigrant, even fascist political forces was a sobering reminder.

 

            And then, the Tories found the incident they were hoping for: the Federal Court ruling on Sept. 15 that Zunera Ishaq could not be forced to take off her niqab to take part in a citizenship oath ceremony.

 

            The ruling was immediately seized upon by the PM and the Bloc Quebecois to change the discourse of the campaign. Racists suddenly became much bolder, demanding to jail immigrants and keep refugees out of Canada.

 

            The Tories are clearly hoping this ugly backlash may reverse their earlier slide in the polls. The niqab issue has even brought some NDP and Liberal-leaning voters back towards the Conservatives, who have the nerve to paint themselves as “defenders of Canadian values” even while they negotiate the TPP and CETA corporate trade deals which take the sellout of the country’s sovereignty to a whole new level.

 

            Amid the furore over the Sept. 15 ruling, very few media outlets have presented any in-depth factual analysis. One such commentary did appear in the Georgia Straight’s online edition, by Martyn Brown, a former chief of staff to ex-BC Premier Gordon Campbell. (Despite his background, Brown has become a rather effective critic of the current right-wing BC Liberal government led by Christy Clark.)

 

            Brown had the courage to admit that his initial gut reaction was to back the Conservatives, until he did some research which changed his mind. His first response was “incredulity, irritation, anger, and above all, intolerance. It was also unreasoned, unreasonable, and wholly ignorant of the facts. Which is to say, it was wrong and innately imbued with racism, as much as I like to tell myself that bigotry has nothing to do with me.”

 

            “What did I really know about the case in question? Nothing,” Brown writes. “Why was I so put off by the image of someone wearing a veil while taking her public oath of citizenship? My arguments were so much weaker than my inexplicable rancour. What did I know about the citizenship procedure? Zip.”

 

            He admits that he had no clue about the oath-taking process as it was formerly practised, or of how the citizenship judges’ discretionary power was fundamentally undermined by the policy changes. “To my ethnocentric and intolerant eye,” he writes, “those simple pieces of cloth seemed oppressive, coercive and inconsistent with Canada’s idea of women’s equality. Based on nothing but my ignorant suppositions and my unfamiliarity with the niqab’s cultural and religious significance, I felt quite self-righteous concluding that no woman should feel `compelled’ to wear a niqab while giving her oath of citizenship.”

 

            Then he goes on to express “appreciation of the facts that the courts have so ably articulated.”

 

            The case was brought to the Federal Court by Zunera Ishaq, a Pakistani national and a Sunni Muslim who took exception to being forbidden to wear her niqab, a veil that covers most of her face, while reciting the oath of citizenship, during the public citizenship ceremony.

 

            She objected on religious grounds that were previously accommodated by allowing people like her to swear their oaths in private, with or without their niqabs removed, in addition to signing an oath as proof of their commitment to its requirements.

 

            She did not oppose the requirement to be heard saying her oath, nor to removing her niqab to prove her identity, as she did when applying for a driver’s license. She was granted her citizenship in November 2013, after passing her citizenship test and removing her niqab to allow her identity to be confirmed.

 

            Ms. Ishaq’s identity is thus completely irrelevant to the current debate, except that so few Canadians are aware of what actually transpired.

 

            She was firmly committed to taking the oath that is legally required under the Citizenship Act, which states: “I swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.”

 

            As Martyn Brown concludes, “none of this was never a problem before the Harper government changed the rules, in December 2011.”

 

            At that point, the  government insisted that anyone taking the oath must be seen stating the words in public, with no face covering. (Brown points out, “presumably beards and droopy moustaches are just fine.”) And as Federal Court Justice Boswell noted, the new requirement also makes it impossible for a mute person or a silent monk to take the oath of citizenship.

 

            Essentially, the Harper government changed rules which had been in place for decades, for the specific purpose of forcing a handful of Muslim women to violate their religious beliefs by unveiling themselves in public, in front of strangers, as a precondition of Canadian citizenship.

 

            Why? In a CBC interview on December 12, 2011, Immigration Minister Jason Kenney simply stated that it’s “just not possible” to make a solemn commitment to respect Canada’s laws and be loyal to the country “with your face covered.” End of story, and no need for the Tories to accept court rulings that their policy is illegal and contrary to the Citizenship Act and to its regulations!

 

            The real explanation, of course, is that the policy change was a deliberate racist strategy to seek votes by painting Muslims as “un-Canadian”. Fortunately, there has been some push-back, including a resolution adopted unanimously by the Quebec National Assembly to condemn Islamophobia and intolerance. But time is short - all progressive-minded people have to stand up and expose this Tory maneuver before election day!

 

(The above article is from the October 16-31, 2015, issue of People's Voice, Canada's leading socialist newspaper. Articles can be reprinted free if the source is credited. Subscription rates in Canada: $30/year, or $15 low income rate; for U.S. readers - $45 US per year; other overseas readers - $45 US or $50 CDN per year. Send to People's Voice, c/o PV Business Manager, 706 Clark Drive, Vancouver, BC, V5L 3J1.)