During the 2015 Canadian federal election campaign, Zunera Ishaq challenged the government in court over a ruling that bans the niqab and any face covering while giving the oath of citizenship. Ishaq refused to remove her niqab during the citizenship ceremony, arguing that it was a violation of her religious freedom. The Supreme Court of Canada sided with Ishaq, claiming that a ban of the niqab during the oath of citizenship was a breach of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The government unsatisfied with the verdict, filed for an appeal that was dismissed after further review, the decision angered many Canadians because the niqab to them symbolizes oppression, gender inequality and violates Canadian values. However, Ishaq received much support from fellow Canadian’s who sympathized with her and acknowledged that in Canada wearing a niqab is choice unlike other parts of the world. Two opinion pieces with opposing viewpoints on …show more content…
Article A, written by Mansoor Ladha of the Edmonton Journal, argues that the niqab goes against Canadian values and should be banned. Article B, written by Mia Rabson of the Winnipeg Free Press, argues that the niqab debate pretends to be about women’s rights but distracts from women’s issues in Canada. After analyzing both opinions using a sociological lens, the position taken by opinion piece B is correct and the position taken by opinion piece A is wrong.
Objectivity is important when conducting any form of sociological research. However, there needs to balance between objectivity and sympathy. Max Weber, a prominent sociologist, believed that to understand the motives of others fully, we need verstehen – understand the meaning of an action from the actor’s point of view. It’s important to understand and explain an individual's behavior by listening to that person. When applying the concept of verstehen to the niqab, understanding why women choose to wear it and what it symbolizes to them