The federal court has not commented on niqab as being a violation of any putative Charter right, but rather has said that the court believes that the policy ought to be anchored in legislation or regulation as opposed to an administrative order from the Minister. We disagree with that. But this is not a Charter ruling.

I do believe there is absolutely space for legitimate debate in a liberal democracy about immigration selection, screening and integration.

I find the niqab symbol profoundly offensive. I believe it reflects a misogynistic culture that - a treatment of women as property rather than people, which is anchored in Medieval tribal customs as opposed to any religious obligation, but I do not seek to regulate people wearing this objectionable symbol if they choose to do so.

I thought very seriously having something more like a normal life where I might have my weekends and evenings off, and be able to read and have a more robust personal life.

My response to my friend Naheed Nenshi was simply to say that some of the hyperbolic language that's being used to critique this sensible reinforcement of the public nature of the citizenship oath is, I think, unhelpful, and is actually inflaming the situation.

You ought not to accept the claim that this is a religious practice. I think that's, frankly, problematic for Islam, for well-intentioned Liberals like you to say that this is a religious practice when the overwhelming consensus of Islamic scholars around the world, and the overwhelming majority of Canadian Muslims, believe this has absolutely - that the niqab as face covering, that this symbol of misogyny has nothing to do with Islam.

The public citizenship oath done in a court in front of a judge and one's fellow citizens should be done publicly.