The federal government’s attempts to ban women from wearing the niqab while reciting the oath of citizenship have sparked national debate. I contend that Canada’s multiculturalism policy does not preclude the government from taking this position.
Under existing law, a citizenship judge is instructed to “administer the oath of citizenship… [while] allowing the greatest possible freedom in the religious solemnization” of taking the oath.”
This qualifying language reflects the fact that our rights and freedoms, rather than being absolute, often conflict. The judiciary is tasked with assessing the legality of infringing on one right to preserve another.
Proponents of wearing the niqab at a citizenship ceremony rely in part on the principle of religious freedom – an essential component of Canadian multiculturalism.
Multiculturalism refers to state-sanctioned respect for the cultural, religious and ethnic distinctiveness of each member of society, and the protection against discrimination stemming from such differences. But a policy of multiculturalism is itself a balancing act between promoting personal freedom and constraining choices in order to preserve national unity.
At its most innocuous, our multicultural mosaic means we can appreciate the food, music, and language of people from various backgrounds. At its most egregious, cultural values have been used to defend criminal acts in Canada that can never be condoned. Honour killings, terrorism and female genital mutilation top that list.
Religious and cultural garb falls somewhere in the middle of the spectrum. Canada has generally sought to accommodate the individual’s desire to wear religious symbols, highlighted by the 1990 decision to permit Sikh RCMP officers to wear turbans while in uniform.
Wearing the niqab at a citizenship ceremony is more controversial.
Basic security requirements demand that the identity of the citizenship candidate be confirmed. Reasonable accommodation is achieved under the current arrangement that allows a citizenship clerk to see the person in private.
But the actual oath of citizenship is to be recited in public. Arguably, an implicit corollary of public oath-taking is obtaining visual assurance that prospective citizens are actually reciting the citizenship oath and doing so in a heartfelt manner. The niqab is an obstacle in this regard.
There are two additional factors that exacerbate anxiety about the niqab wearer. The first is that human beings rely on reading each other’s faces to interact and ascertain threat. A recent UC Berkeley study found that human facial diversity evolved from our highly visual social dealings. Animals, in contrast, rely on smell or sound. In her history of the salute, the National Post’s Jane MacDougall explains that the gesture originated from the act of displaying one’s face and hand to demonstrate that one posed no harm. She concludes that “showing oneself to defray concern and offer assurance is genuine and ancient and widespread.” The niqab conflicts with this basic human need.
The second compounding factor is that radical Islamists, who pose a significant security threat, force women under their control to don the niqab. Thus, the face covering, which already makes some uncomfortable on a primal level, is now perceived as a greater threat because it is associated with a movement that has embraced terrorist tactics.
Relatedly, many consider the niqab to be a tool of oppression against Muslim women, who are forced to dress “modestly” by hiding themselves entirely. No doubt there are some women in Canada who choose to wear the niqab. But there may also be citizenship candidates who are coerced by family or community members to cover up. How is a citizenship judge to know when wearing the niqab preserves a woman’s religious freedom and when it entrenches a woman’s inequality and subjugation?
There are no simple answers to these questions. Any multicultural society will ultimately face difficult choices between minority rights and social cohesion. Time will tell how this debate is resolved. But the government is not unreasonable to maintain that the niqab should be removed during a citizenship ceremony.
Sheryl Saperia is director of policy for Canada at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.
