View Poll Results: Should the Niqab be allowed during a citizenship ceremony?

Voters
75. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    30 40.00%
  • No

    34 45.33%
  • Don't know

    1 1.33%
  • Don't care, just politics

    10 13.33%
Page 1 of 11 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 1065

Thread: Niqab citizenship ceremonies Trudeau versus Harper

  1. #1

    Default Niqab citizenship ceremonies Trudeau versus Harper

    What do people feel on this issue? It has turned into a political war at the moment.

    The Niqab is prohibited at border crossing, and when voting, but a court ruled it could be worn during citizenship ceremonies.

    As an atheist, generally I don't really care what religious garb people wear. I thought the whole Quebec thing on religious clothing was ridiculous. But the Niqab is a full face covering that only leaves a tiny slit for the eyes. Is that acceptable for a woman to be hidden that way when becoming a Canadian?

    http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/03...ainst-muslims/

    I think Trudeau is playing a dangerous dance here, because while liberties are important, extremism (which this outfit embodies with respect to women's rights), is something as a society we are trying to control.

  2. #2
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    Do I understand or agree with the Niqab? No. I think that it is a symbol of oppression.

    However, this is from my cultural standpoint. I have no right to impose my worldview on other people. So long as women select to wear it of their own accord, how can it be right to force them to wear different clothes?

    I understand banning it for practical purposes. Going through airport security or a border would require taking it off for identification purposes. Banning it while driving is just common sense - how can you shoulder check while wearing one? But any time else, it is perfectly outside our mandate as a people to ban.

    I think it is a great idea to allow it in citizenship ceremonies. They are purely ceremonial after all (the "oath" is far less important than actually passing the test before hand - it is more of a celebration of being Canadian). What is more Canadian than respecting different cultures at the time they become one of us?

  3. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaerdo View Post
    Banning it while driving is just common sense - how can you shoulder check while wearing one?
    Or religious leaders wearing a hoodie and driving

    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 11-03-2015 at 08:25 AM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  4. #4
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    ^ No kidding, or a balaclava while crossing a border, or a Halloween mask in either situation. All should be banned for common sense reasons - not because of what they represent, but because they quite literally have public safety ramifications if worn.

  5. #5

    Default What to wear?

    As I have thought about this more over the last while, I have changed my opinion on this issue.

    While, I do have concerns about religious or cultural oppression I don't think we should automatically assume every woman wearing a Niqab or other similar clothing is "oppressed". I also think we should not confuse religious observance or devotion with extremism. There are various Christian sects that have what many of us would consider certain odd or unusual practices, but we seem to be able to generally tolerate that without getting whipped up into a big frenzy.

    While there are legitimate concerns, I think our society is also getting a little carried away these days in its fear about terrorism. It is the government, not Mr. Trudeau, that is playing a dangerous game by pandering to a mix of these fears, some people's prejudices and other peoples concerns about oppression. I think its best for the government to stay out of telling people what wear for citizenship ceremonies.

  6. #6
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    I don't think it belongs at the citizenship ceremony, not least because it symbolizes a separation from society at large, intentionally, whether imposed or by choice.

    But then, I don't believe that personal preferences based in religion, or purported to be based in religion should have any more weight than preferences based on anything else, and I believe that "reasonable accommodation" should apply at least as much to the person seeking special accommodation as to the institution that is being asked to accommodate. in this case, removing a face covering presents no particular hardship.

    In general, the expectation that a person's face should be uncovered is no different than our expectation that people wear clothes. It's a basic expectation in canada and the west, and was so intuitive that it was never written, but it should apply to everyone:
    "No shirt, No Shoes, No Visible Face? No Service"

  7. #7

    Default

    From a First Nations perspective the idea that one should dress like the rest of us Canadian "Natives", if you will, in a citizenship ceremony always strikes me as odd. Which these discussions inevitably get into.

    In which case how many settlers wore Eagle Feathers? Hides? Facial paint?

    I'm guessing very few if any.

    What is really the issue here and by who's perspective and what does it really mean to be a Canadian citizen and what is actually Canadian?

    These should not be considered superficial questions.

    Canada means multicultural and accepting cultural differences. Its what it means to me anyway.
    Last edited by Replacement; 11-03-2015 at 09:18 AM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  8. #8

    Default

    It's funny. I generally give absolutely everyone the benefit of the doubt upon first impressions, yet I struggle with niqab's. I have some inherent distrust of anyone I can't see. I guess it doesn't technically matter during the oath, as that's not when the pictures are taken or the identification is made, however I do find it distasteful that someone who wants to be part of a country, chooses to do so in hiding.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  9. #9
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave View Post
    ... There are various Christian sects that have what many of us would consider certain odd or unusual practices, but we seem to be able to generally tolerate that without getting whipped up into a big frenzy....
    I can't think of any practices by any other religion that is so public in nature, other than parades that are, for the ones that I'm aware of, only once a year and are pretty much a direct extension of the fundamental freedom of assembly.

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave View Post
    As I have thought about this more over the last while, I have changed my opinion on this issue.

    While, I do have concerns about religious or cultural oppression I don't think we should automatically assume every woman wearing a Niqab or other similar clothing is "oppressed". I also think we should not confuse religious observance or devotion with extremism. There are various Christian sects that have what many of us would consider certain odd or unusual practices, but we seem to be able to generally tolerate that without getting whipped up into a big frenzy.

    While there are legitimate concerns, I think our society is also getting a little carried away these days in its fear about terrorism. It is the government, not Mr. Trudeau, that is playing a dangerous game by pandering to a mix of these fears, some people's prejudices and other peoples concerns about oppression. I think its best for the government to stay out of telling people what wear for citizenship ceremonies.
    If I can add to this even if the person is repressed the act of not allowing the wearing of the article is at best a superficial, albeit symbolic, but likely insignificant intervention in the persons life. As a society we aren't that successful with changing peoples ways, customs, or protecting them from harm and from domestic abuse harm.

    The women forbidden to wear such an article in a ceremony and that follows such Canadian *doctrine* may actually put herself at risk of later recrimination or worse.

    its hard right now not to make the connection that this is just the Harper government over reacting to everything.

    I'm saddened by the zeal at which such cultural imperialism and demands of uniformity, sameness, integration are so supported.

    ironically in Canada we engaged in enforced segregation, assimilation, beating out of pagan values, residential schools, etc in the name of cultural imperialism and religion.

    We never learn.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  11. #11

    Default

    If you have the right to cover your face indoors, I have the right to treat you with suspicion.

  12. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    I think Trudeau is playing a dangerous dance here, because while liberties are important, extremism (which this outfit embodies with respect to women's rights), is something as a society we are trying to control.
    I've read a few articles lately that say that Harper's popularity is steadily growing in Quebec (at the expense of the Liberals) in part due to this very issue. It will be interesting to see if that prediction is true.

  13. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    It's funny. I generally give absolutely everyone the benefit of the doubt upon first impressions, yet I struggle with niqab's. I have some inherent distrust of anyone I can't see. I guess it doesn't technically matter during the oath, as that's not when the pictures are taken or the identification is made, however I do find it distasteful that someone who wants to be part of a country, chooses to do so in hiding.
    In fairness this is a cultural perception. In some societies for instance eye contact is expected in making what is perceived as honest interaction. In others eye contact could be perceived as aggressive, impertinent, not respectful, invasive, and so on.


    These are cultural mores. They are not universal.

    I could go to a hockey game next week and see a thousand people not take off their hockey hat during the national anthem. These being Canadians. Should I take a view on that?

    Yet here we are having complex, often intense dialog on the internet where none of can see each other's eyes, facial countenance, etc.

    We also empower such things as polling online, want voting online, referendums on line, all without seeing anybody visually.

    I will also add that if our first thought is to be suspicious then we will be suspicious. This is in us all and with respect to different customs, groups, values, mores etc.

    Some food for thought perhaps.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  14. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    If you have the right to cover your face indoors, I have the right to treat you with suspicion.
    So what does the face mean to you, or tell you, given that you have a noted propensity to communicate online?

    Apparently it isn't the black or white requirement (excuse pun) you or others might think it is for interaction to occur.

    Its odd that in a time of history with non visual communication being embraced increasingly through means that weren't there before we pretend we are still reliant on face to face communication.

    Yet all forms of business, economics, science, politics, religion, counseling, therapy, education, etc occur online and with implicit trust in those mediums and modes. The veritable world spinning online and our lives now depending on it. While we pretend we must see everything in order to trust.

    This is not meant simply to you Mr Oiler but in general to challenge our preconceptions about what we trust and our alleged conditions of trust. Or illusion.

    I think theres some mythmaking going on.
    Last edited by Replacement; 11-03-2015 at 09:31 AM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  15. #15
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,374

    Default

    There is nothing in the Koran that specifies covering hair or face, rather it does state about covering the mostly "bosom", "private parts", "beauty spot". So even if you boil it down to religion it isn't in their holy book. It does state "jiljab" which means loose outer garment not a head covering.
    http://www.quran-islam.org/articles/...8P1150%29.html
    http://www.al-islam.org/hijab-muslim...uran-and-hijab

    This is a similar problem to some Hutterites who think the Bible's mention of "graven image" means any picture so they refuse to have their picture on a driver's license.
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hutter...court-1.791700

    Personally if they want to cross a border, vote then they need to be identified, if you wish to wear a niqab, burka, latex bodysuit or go nude at home that is your business. I think for the citizenship ceremony you should be identifiable as well.

  16. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sundance View Post
    There is nothing in the Koran that specifies covering hair or face, rather it does state about covering the mostly "bosom", "private parts", "beauty spot". So even if you boil it down to religion it isn't in their holy book. It does state "jiljab" which means loose outer garment not a head covering.
    http://www.quran-islam.org/articles/...8P1150%29.html
    http://www.al-islam.org/hijab-muslim...uran-and-hijab

    This is a similar problem to some Hutterites who think the Bible's mention of "graven image" means any picture so they refuse to have their picture on a driver's license.
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hutter...court-1.791700

    Personally if they want to cross a border, vote then they need to be identified, if you wish to wear a niqab, burka, latex bodysuit or go nude at home that is your business. I think for the citizenship ceremony you should be identifiable as well.
    That would be a legitimate view except that faces really don't identify. Especially cross culturally. Or with age. So is everybody expecting facial exposure for identity or to convey some notion of openness and trust OK with lining up for voluntary finger prints at your earliest convenience. How many of you have done that or are in favor of that?

    ps Whats wrong with nudity at citizenship ceremony? I would say that's 100% open disclosure. Whats all this clothing stuff? What are you all hiding? (humor, but to make a point.) Oh, we ALL have conscripted humility of wearing clothing ingrained in us. The only difference being how much and when and where its worn.

    Being that this is the Canadian Hinterland and in honorable respect to Canadian tradition we should all be wearing deer or buffalo fur depending on season or latitude..
    Last edited by Replacement; 11-03-2015 at 09:48 AM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  17. #17

    Default Niqab citizenship ceremonies

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    I think Trudeau is playing a dangerous dance here, because while liberties are important, extremism (which this outfit embodies with respect to women's rights), is something as a society we are trying to control.
    I've read a few articles lately that say that Harper's popularity is steadily growing in Quebec (at the expense of the Liberals) in part due to this very issue. It will be interesting to see if that prediction is true.
    I have been wondering why the government is doing this and you may be right, this may actually be the political motivation for it. However, I am not sure it will play out the way Harper expects. A while ago, the previous PQ government in Quebec also tried to pass some restrictive laws on these things (which Trudeau also spoke out against) because they thought they had a politically winning issue. However, they were soundly defeated in the following election in which those laws were a major issue. Perhaps it is not the vote winner that it seems to be at first glance.

  18. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    I think Trudeau is playing a dangerous dance here, because while liberties are important, extremism (which this outfit embodies with respect to women's rights), is something as a society we are trying to control.
    I've read a few articles lately that say that Harper's popularity is steadily growing in Quebec (at the expense of the Liberals) in part due to this very issue. It will be interesting to see if that prediction is true.
    I think the greater issue is that the perception that the nutbar side of the closet reformist is coming out.

    I doubt Harper does this earlier in his incumbency. I guess he thinks he can now. Theres a fine line between the posterings and Xenophobia.

    Quebec poll will pander to anything in the moment but will vote for different things at election time. This is a pretty small crumb for Quebec. Harper playing this angle is also dangerous and with a large possibility of backfire.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  19. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Harper playing this angle is also dangerous and with a large possibility of backfire.
    I don't think so. This is a pretty safe stance to take.

  20. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave View Post
    A while ago, the previous PQ government in Quebec also tried to pass some restrictive laws on these things (which Trudeau also spoke out against) because they thought they had a politically winning issue. However, they were soundly defeated in the following election in which those laws were a major issue.
    The difference is, Harper has nothing to lose in Quebec. The Conservatives have had next to nothing in terms of support there.

    But if this issue helps the Conservatives win anything more than 6 seats in Quebec, it will be a brilliant move for them.

  21. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Its odd that in a time of history with non visual communication being embraced increasingly through means that weren't there before we pretend we are still reliant on face to face communication.

    Yet all forms of business, economics, science, politics, religion, counseling, therapy, education, etc occur online and with implicit trust in those mediums and modes.
    I disagree with you completely. It is not odd.

    There is a lot more fighting, name-calling, judgement, and condescension online than there is when groups of people are brought together face-to-face.

    Not that online interaction isn't an important tool, but in business communication all over the world, people still choose to meet face-to-face at great expense because of the important nonverbal context and bonding that only occurs when people communicate in person.


    Don't take this personally, but some of the stuff you post pisses me off more than almost anything else here. Seriously. Some of the things you say, I think are so ridiculous that I almost wish I could slap your face through my monitor to knock some sense into you. But I bet we'd get along great in person and have lots of laughs together, because there's ALWAYS better context in face-to-face communication than in written.

  22. #22

    Default



    Take this anyway you want but it's not meant to offend. This is some peoples reality.
    I remember a few years back it was New Years Day. On the evening news they were talking about Edmonton's first New Year Babies. One hospital showed the first new year birth. The man, women, baby were all doing well. The guy was pumped about his new baby and his wife was glowing. Another hospital when their first new year baby was born showed the father happy and pleased like he had squeezed the child out himself. Then they showed the wife sitting on the bed wearing a niqab. She seemed totally without any emotion, did not even speak. It was such a contrast to the first couple. It was almost like the guy was taking all the credit and the woman was secondary. Anyway, niqab should be burned, buried or banned and everyone should show their faces.
    Last edited by Gemini; 11-03-2015 at 12:27 PM.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  23. #23
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    5,566

    Default

    Have no problem if a woman wants (of her own free will) to wear a niqab.

    My problem is, it is customary to remove head gear when singing our national anthem, and I would assume, when taking the oath of citizenship.

    Put the thing back on scant nano-seconds after completing the oath for all I care, but give respect to your new country during what we believe to be a solemn ceremony.
    ... gobsmacked

  24. #24

    Default

    To me if someone is wearing a niqab it seems to suck all the energy out the room. I feel oppressed and I'm not even the one wearing it. Western women, no matter what shape they are tend to make the most of their assets. The niqab is shapeless, non flattering, almost like you want to disappear in it.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  25. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Its odd that in a time of history with non visual communication being embraced increasingly through means that weren't there before we pretend we are still reliant on face to face communication.

    Yet all forms of business, economics, science, politics, religion, counseling, therapy, education, etc occur online and with implicit trust in those mediums and modes.
    I disagree with you completely. It is not odd.

    There is a lot more fighting, name-calling, judgement, and condescension online than there is when groups of people are brought together face-to-face.

    Not that online interaction isn't an important tool, but in business communication all over the world, people still choose to meet face-to-face at great expense because of the important nonverbal context and bonding that only occurs when people communicate in person.


    Don't take this personally, but some of the stuff you post pisses me off more than almost anything else here. Seriously. Some of the things you say, I think are so ridiculous that I almost wish I could slap your face through my monitor to knock some sense into you. But I bet we'd get along great in person and have lots of laughs together, because there's ALWAYS better context in face-to-face communication than in written.
    heh. My actual job is confronting peoples thinking process and narrative in order for them to change destructive behaviors. So I tend to be direct and the directness that is welcomed at work tends to be habit forming. You don't learn to be direct and then just stop doing it and turning it off. It starts being the way you discuss and including my online dialog where I can really get to the point and challenge things.

    You're direct as well and actually I appreciate the disclosure even if negative. no doubt we would have some interesting discussion in person.

    That said think about this a little differently. Here we are, on the internet, voluntarily discussing things we probably have difficulty discussing with family, friends and topics we might even veer clear of in our personal lives. Yet the will to discuss such topics is strong. When I was in University these were the discussions people would have for interest. But in adult life you tend to learn that the easiest way to offend people is talking religion, politics, sports, haha.

    Yet again here we are deciding to talk about the most contentious issues online and having the trust to do that with complete strangers.

    Online communication has become the watercooler of our day and age and it being the domain where we most freely discuss our sides. Because theres less consequence to doing that online.

    That leads to the real crux of the issue is that people typically have less investment for others online. Less hesitiation in telling them off, trolling them, getting abrasive. I honestly try not to do that.(the sarcasm is built in sometimes and my own fault. )

    Heres another thing. Cognitive dissonance theory suggests that people don't like to have their thoughts challenged and that considering alternate thoughts creates confusion, uncertainty, stress. The theory expounds that people go on to gather information that supports their thought process and refute opinions that challenge. I tend to be a challenger not the least because I don't subscribe to most current NA values. I tend to have isolated opinions, values, mores. Doesn't make them wrong, just different. Its always harder too arguing against what most people believe in.
    When powerful feelings have been elicited its because some kind of nerve has been touched. Because we are discussing contentious things where substantive differences of opinions, feelings are virtually guaranteed.

    Again, don't try this at home..
    Last edited by Replacement; 11-03-2015 at 01:17 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  26. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave View Post
    A while ago, the previous PQ government in Quebec also tried to pass some restrictive laws on these things (which Trudeau also spoke out against) because they thought they had a politically winning issue. However, they were soundly defeated in the following election in which those laws were a major issue.
    The difference is, Harper has nothing to lose in Quebec. The Conservatives have had next to nothing in terms of support there.

    But if this issue helps the Conservatives win anything more than 6 seats in Quebec, it will be a brilliant move for them.
    What Harper always risks losing is Ontario. They tend to view him, and proto reformists as the current necessary evil. They don't trust him, still think he might come from mars, and can turn their view any time where the benefits of electing him start to get over run by the fears.

    Personal story. In the 90's I spent some time in Ottawa and participated in some political forums there as a westerner and at the time Reform supporter.

    The interesting thing is that at this time the dirtiest word in the country wasn't Separatist. It was reform. People actually stated that they can work with separatists but that the reformers were the devil. They literally communicated that. There were people in Ontario then that voiced wanting to retain Quebec and kick out Alberta. Or at least get rid of those reformers who were considered the worst thing to ever happen to Canada.

    Its still strange that Harper has the support he has in Ontario. Its not automatic either as its arguably historically speaking a liberal province. Or at least was.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  27. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave View Post
    A while ago, the previous PQ government in Quebec also tried to pass some restrictive laws on these things (which Trudeau also spoke out against) because they thought they had a politically winning issue. However, they were soundly defeated in the following election in which those laws were a major issue.
    The difference is, Harper has nothing to lose in Quebec. The Conservatives have had next to nothing in terms of support there.

    But if this issue helps the Conservatives win anything more than 6 seats in Quebec, it will be a brilliant move for them.
    I think it is most likely they wont gain much or lose much there by taking this position. My point though is that sometimes things are done for political reasons, which are probably not the best reasons to do them anyways and sometimes it doesn't even work out well politically.

    Personally, I think that if having a free society is important to us we should not be encouraging the government to make laws that restrict what people can wear unless there is a very obvious reason (ex. maybe safety while driving). Otherwise we risk becoming as intolerant as those countries we like to accuse of intolerance.

    I realize that I don't fully understand the religious and cultural reasons for the Niqab not being Muslim myself. I suspect like all religions, their rules on how to dress modestly are subject to different interpretations in different countries and by different sects. There is one western religion I know of that has rules about underwear that their followers apparently take very seriously. Even though that seems a bit silly to me, I don't think it is for me to tell them how to dress.

  28. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by McBoo View Post
    Have no problem if a woman wants (of her own free will) to wear a niqab.

    My problem is, it is customary to remove head gear when singing our national anthem, and I would assume, when taking the oath of citizenship.

    Put the thing back on scant nano-seconds after completing the oath for all I care, but give respect to your new country during what we believe to be a solemn ceremony.
    I still find possessive statements like this odd. As in its "our country, our nation, our anthem". The people that settled this land that signed treaties tend to disagree. As I feel they rightly should.

    So when we're really talking about this land forefathers of this land wore paint, head dress, etc. when communicating *anthems* with deities. They didn't take them off.

    There is no natural custom of Canada its one that was invented, borrowed and can easily get reinvented. As per a multicultural nation the likes of which we accepted decades ago. Or at least I thought.

    Its odder still that a nation that has almost entirely done away with customs like religions holds meaningless customs in such high steed. We're simply talking customs here. Which can easily be viewed as insignificant vestige and often with historical baggage we've outgrown. Or should.
    Last edited by Replacement; 11-03-2015 at 01:32 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  29. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    To me if someone is wearing a niqab it seems to suck all the energy out the room. I feel oppressed and I'm not even the one wearing it. Western women, no matter what shape they are tend to make the most of their assets. The niqab is shapeless, non flattering, almost like you want to disappear in it.
    How we feel shouldn't dictate other people's dress choices. I worked with someone who wore a niqab once and she was extremely easy to get along with. She had a good personality and it showed regardless of her face covering.

  30. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by faraz View Post
    How we feel shouldn't dictate other people's dress choices.
    How people choose to dress also shouldn't dictate that others cannot criticize how they are dressed.

  31. #31

    Default

    Considering one of the Conservative ministers even mentioned hijab (head scarf) in one of his tweets, I wouldn't be surprised if the niqab (face covering) is just a stepping stone and testing grounds towards the hijab (head scarf)

  32. #32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by faraz View Post
    How we feel shouldn't dictate other people's dress choices.
    How people choose to dress also shouldn't dictate that others cannot criticize how they are dressed.
    You can criticize all you want but as a society, we should not regulate it.

  33. #33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by faraz View Post
    I wouldn't be surprised if the niqab (face covering) is just a stepping stone and testing grounds towards the hijab (head scarf)
    I would.

    The issue is people covering identity by concealing the face.

  34. #34

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by faraz View Post
    How we feel shouldn't dictate other people's dress choices.
    How people choose to dress also shouldn't dictate that others cannot criticize how they are dressed.
    Criticising is fine. The only dictate involved here is telling people they can't wear a Niqab in the ceremony.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  35. #35

    Default Niqab

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave View Post
    A while ago, the previous PQ government in Quebec also tried to pass some restrictive laws on these things (which Trudeau also spoke out against) because they thought they had a politically winning issue. However, they were soundly defeated in the following election in which those laws were a major issue.
    The difference is, Harper has nothing to lose in Quebec. The Conservatives have had next to nothing in terms of support there.

    But if this issue helps the Conservatives win anything more than 6 seats in Quebec, it will be a brilliant move for them.
    What Harper always risks losing is Ontario. They tend to view him, and proto reformists as the current necessary evil. They don't trust him, still think he might come from mars, and can turn their view any time where the benefits of electing him start to get over run by the fears.

    Personal story. In the 90's I spent some time in Ottawa and participated in some political forums there as a westerner and at the time Reform supporter.

    The interesting thing is that at this time the dirtiest word in the country wasn't Separatist. It was reform. People actually stated that they can work with separatists but that the reformers were the devil. They literally communicated that. There were people in Ontario then that voiced wanting to retain Quebec and kick out Alberta. Or at least get rid of those reformers who were considered the worst thing to ever happen to Canada.

    Its still strange that Harper has the support he has in Ontario. Its not automatic either as its arguably historically speaking a liberal province. Or at least was.
    I think you are right. Harper originally grew up in Ontario before he moved to Edmonton then Calgary in the 1980's, so perhaps he has a bit better understanding of Ontario than the other reformers who were mostly from the west. However, I can't see this gaining him votes in Ontario and this is exactly the kind of thing that might make some in Ontario reconsider their support for him.

    It's one thing to be tough on terrorists, but making laws to restrict what law abiding citizens and citizens to be wear is going further down the slippery slope to big brother government than I want to travel. I'm a bit of a civil libertarian. In the past Harper has tried to appeal to us and many civil libertarians have voted conservative. However, lately he doesn't seems to be very favorable to civil libertarians.

  36. #36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by faraz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by faraz View Post
    How we feel shouldn't dictate other people's dress choices.
    How people choose to dress also shouldn't dictate that others cannot criticize how they are dressed.
    You can criticize all you want but as a society, we should not regulate it.
    When talking about everyday life, I agree. People should wear whatever they want.

    But in circumstances such as courtrooms or when taking oaths, I think there should be rules against concealing your identity.

  37. #37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by faraz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    To me if someone is wearing a niqab it seems to suck all the energy out the room. I feel oppressed and I'm not even the one wearing it. Western women, no matter what shape they are tend to make the most of their assets. The niqab is shapeless, non flattering, almost like you want to disappear in it.
    How we feel shouldn't dictate other people's dress choices. I worked with someone who wore a niqab once and she was extremely easy to get along with. She had a good personality and it showed regardless of her face covering.
    I'm not dictating how other people should dress I'm just saying how it appears to me. Westerners tend to celebrate their looks, their bodies. It's not only physically comfortable to be uncovered it also psychologically freeing. Why hide beauty in all its forms under a cloth that looks no more appealing than a sack. Nobody is saying people who wear niqab's are not good people. We are saying it from a Western perspective and culture. We are not used to face coverings and are used to doing business with open faces.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  38. #38

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by faraz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    To me if someone is wearing a niqab it seems to suck all the energy out the room. I feel oppressed and I'm not even the one wearing it. Western women, no matter what shape they are tend to make the most of their assets. The niqab is shapeless, non flattering, almost like you want to disappear in it.
    How we feel shouldn't dictate other people's dress choices. I worked with someone who wore a niqab once and she was extremely easy to get along with. She had a good personality and it showed regardless of her face covering.
    I'm not dictating how other people should dress I'm just saying how it appears to me. Westerners tend to celebrate their looks, their bodies. It's not only physically comfortable to be uncovered it also psychologically freeing. Why hide beauty in all its forms under a cloth that looks no more appealing than a sack. Nobody is saying people who wear niqab's are not good people. We are saying it from a Western perspective and culture. We are not used to face coverings and are used to doing business with open faces.
    Agreed to a certain extent Gemini. But as a society we routinely do business over the internet with people be it ebay, airlines, etc. I understand there is a higher level of comfort when we can see the person's face but to make it in a national issue when only a few hundred across Canada are doing it seems like a manufactured issue.

  39. #39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by faraz View Post
    I wouldn't be surprised if the niqab (face covering) is just a stepping stone and testing grounds towards the hijab (head scarf)
    I would.

    The issue is people covering identity by concealing the face.
    The minister refused to backtrack on his hijab (head scarf) comment even when pointed out by the media it is different than the niqab (face covering). And if Harper believes niqab is anti woman, I don't see why he can't use the same line of reasoning for the hijab (head scarf).

  40. #40

    Default

    The hijab and niqab are miles apart. Covering ones head is not the same as covering your whole face. If politicians are getting the two mixed up then they should educate themselves.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  41. #41

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by faraz View Post
    But as a society we routinely do business over the internet with people be it ebay, airlines, etc.
    But these businesses are already well-known. In our society we lose a large element of trust for someone who willfully hides their identity for others. This is true for doing business with people online as well.

  42. #42

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by McBoo View Post
    Have no problem if a woman wants (of her own free will) to wear a niqab.

    My problem is, it is customary to remove head gear when singing our national anthem, and I would assume, when taking the oath of citizenship.

    Put the thing back on scant nano-seconds after completing the oath for all I care, but give respect to your new country during what we believe to be a solemn ceremony.
    Should a Sikh remove their turban then as well? Or a Jew remove their yarmulke? Or, for that matter, a member of the military in uniform? There are always exceptions.

    Freedom of religion is right there in the Charter:

    2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
    (a) freedom of conscience and religion;
    (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
    (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
    (d) freedom of association.
    It's not up to us to tell people how to interpert their various holy books, within very specific limits. For example, Christians aren't allowed to stone non virgins to death at the edge of town.

    Deut. 22:13-21

    "If any man takes a wife and goes in to her and then turns against her, 14 and charges her with shameful deeds and publicly defames her, and says, ‘I took this woman, but when I came near her, I did not find her a virgin,’ 15 then the girl’s father and her mother shall take and bring out the evidence of the girl’s virginity to the elders of the city at the gate. 16 "And the girl’s father shall say to the elders, ‘I gave my daughter to this man for a wife, but he turned against her; 17 and behold, he has charged her with shameful deeds, saying, "I did not find your daughter a virgin." But this is the evidence of my daughter’s virginity.’ And they shall spread the garment before the elders of the city. 18 "So the elders of that city shall take the man and chastise him, 19 and they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give it to the girl’s father, because he publicly defamed a virgin of Israel. And she shall remain his wife; he cannot divorce her all his days. 20 "But if this charge is true, that the girl was not found a virgin, 21 then they shall bring out the girl to the doorway of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death because she has committed an act of folly in Israel, by playing the harlot in her father’s house; thus you shall purge the evil from among you." (Deut. 22:13-21).

  43. #43

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by faraz View Post
    But as a society we routinely do business over the internet with people be it ebay, airlines, etc.
    But these businesses are already well-known. In our society we lose a large element of trust for someone who willfully hides their identity for others. This is true for doing business with people online as well.
    Not really. We routinely buy from individuals on ebay and amazon whom we have never met or don't know. We grow attached to radio personalities and all we know is their voice. There are examples all around us on business and social level where the facial identity of the individual we are dealing with is hidden.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    The hijab and niqab are miles apart. Covering ones head is not the same as covering your whole face. If politicians are getting the two mixed up then they should educate themselves.
    Gemini, if our politicians can't even differentiate between hijab/niqab (which are miles apart as you said), how can we follow their lead in this matter?
    Last edited by faraz; 11-03-2015 at 02:13 PM. Reason: adding in Gemini quote for context

  44. #44

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Should a Sikh remove their turban then as well? Or a Jew remove their yarmulke? Or, for that matter, a member of the military in uniform?
    If they are hiding their faces with it, then yes they should have to remove it when taking oaths.

  45. #45

    Default

    Opening up a hijab issue is outright xenophobic. Christian nuns and Hutterite women still wear headscarves today. A nun's habit is very similar to conservative muslim dress. When I was a kid, women were expected to cover their heads when they attended church.

  46. #46

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by faraz View Post
    Not really. We routinely buy from individuals on ebay and amazon whom we have never met or don't know. We grow attached to radio personalities and all we know is their voice. There are examples all around us on business and social level where the facial identity of the individual we are dealing with is hidden.
    Yes, but we trust Amazon. We also trust the Canadian broadcast regulators.

    We simply don't trust people who are in plain view of us who choose to hide their faces. Ever wonder why hospitals don't allow their staff to wear masks on their faces all the time in the hospital (even though from an infection control perspective it is safer)?

    It is not difficult to understand that people psychologically do not react as well to people who wear masks.

  47. #47

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by faraz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by faraz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    To me if someone is wearing a niqab it seems to suck all the energy out the room. I feel oppressed and I'm not even the one wearing it. Western women, no matter what shape they are tend to make the most of their assets. The niqab is shapeless, non flattering, almost like you want to disappear in it.
    How we feel shouldn't dictate other people's dress choices. I worked with someone who wore a niqab once and she was extremely easy to get along with. She had a good personality and it showed regardless of her face covering.
    I'm not dictating how other people should dress I'm just saying how it appears to me. Westerners tend to celebrate their looks, their bodies. It's not only physically comfortable to be uncovered it also psychologically freeing. Why hide beauty in all its forms under a cloth that looks no more appealing than a sack. Nobody is saying people who wear niqab's are not good people. We are saying it from a Western perspective and culture. We are not used to face coverings and are used to doing business with open faces.
    Agreed to a certain extent Gemini. But as a society we routinely do business over the internet with people be it ebay, airlines, etc. I understand there is a higher level of comfort when we can see the person's face but to make it in a national issue when only a few hundred across Canada are doing it seems like a manufactured issue.
    Doing business over the internet works fine in most cases but the internet cannot pick up the mood in the room, body language, tension. For sure there is a higher level of comfort when a person is in the room with you and you can see their face. I cannot imagine a western business man/woman doing a deal that involves millions of dollars then shaking hands with a women wearing a niqab. Or going to a hospital and not seeing the face of the doctor that is looking after you. The west is an open face society, as of yet there are probably millions of us westerners not comfortable with full face coverings. If you are going to take an oath we want to see your face not a piece of cloth.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  48. #48

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aldergrove View Post
    Opening up a hijab issue is outright xenophobic. Christian nuns and Hutterite women still wear headscarves today. A nun's habit is very similar to conservative muslim dress. When I was a kid, women were expected to cover their heads when they attended church.
    Running the race card worked so well for other politicians

    www.cbc.ca

    Result

    www.citynews.ca

    www.thesuburban.com

    buckdogpolitics.blogspot.com
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  49. #49

    Default

    #dresscodePM going viral on twitter

    http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/03...odepm-hashtag/

    "In particular, Trudeau mentioned Immigration Minister Chris Alexander who recently said even wearing a hijab is a perversion of Canadian values."

    If someone as high profile as the immigration minister mentions the hijab and refused to backtrack on it, easy to see which direction Harper is ultimately headed.

  50. #50

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Running the race card worked so well for other politicians
    It has nothing to do with race.

  51. #51

    Default

    Right.

    And Harper's Machine doesn't know that immigrants tend to vote Liberal...
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  52. #52

    Default

    Harper has inspired a trending hashtag on Twitter. Some really good ones here.

    Sarah M @Metamorphocity
    Follow
    Sorry, @PMHarper, the cure for “anti-women culture” is not to tell women what they can and cannot wear. Nice try, #dresscodePM
    Harper’s niqab comments inspire snarky Twitter hashtag: #DressCodePM
    Thousands respond to prime minister's 'anti-women' niqab comments by asking him for style advice on Twitter


    Stephen Harper shared his thoughts on whether women should be allowed to wear niqabs at Canadian citizenship ceremonies, and now Twitter users are sharing theirs too.

    In fact, so many people have tweeted responses to the prime minister’s recent comments on the subject that, as of Wednesday afternoon, a hashtag meant to mock said comments was trending Canada-wide.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/harper-s-niqa...depm-1.2990939


  53. #53

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave View Post
    A while ago, the previous PQ government in Quebec also tried to pass some restrictive laws on these things (which Trudeau also spoke out against) because they thought they had a politically winning issue. However, they were soundly defeated in the following election in which those laws were a major issue.
    The difference is, Harper has nothing to lose in Quebec. The Conservatives have had next to nothing in terms of support there.

    But if this issue helps the Conservatives win anything more than 6 seats in Quebec, it will be a brilliant move for them.
    The other interesting thing is that Trudeau has offended Jewish groups by comparing past racist Canadian policies concerning Jews to this issue.

    ^odd that on that site I can't see any niqab's. The conservatives aren't talking about banning the hijab, or even the Niqab. But, they consider we should be able to see a persons face at a citizenship ceremony (I don't think a Spider-Man mask would be acceptable either). Per polls, 8 in 10 Canadians agree. In writing that, Harper probably went to far when he talked about "from a culture that is anti women" (as IMO you could write that of most religions).
    Last edited by moahunter; 11-03-2015 at 10:48 PM.

  54. #54
    C2E Super Addict
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Beautiful BC
    Posts
    1,657

    Default

    I for one am looking forward to wearing my traditional family gimp mask, nipple clamps, c0ck ring and butt plug next year at my citizenship ceremony. Vive la différence and all that.
    "The only really positive thing one could say about Vancouver is, it’s not the rest of Canada." Oink (britishexpats.com)

  55. #55

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by expat View Post
    I for one am looking forward to wearing my traditional family gimp mask, nipple clamps, c0ck ring and butt plug next year at my citizenship ceremony. Vive la différence and all that.
    As long as you keep it under your burqa...

    Women who wear niqabs, hijabs and other religious attire are at least showing modesty. Your rant is selfish exhibitionism is designed to offend.
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 12-03-2015 at 06:19 AM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  56. #56

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    And Harper's Machine doesn't know that immigrants tend to vote Liberal...
    Are you joking? Where do you get the ridiculous idea that immigrants vote Liberal?

    Lots of people from other countries hold Conservative values and exercise their vote that way.

  57. #57

    Default

    Counterpoint

    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  58. #58

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    And Harper's Machine doesn't know that immigrants tend to vote Liberal...
    Are you joking? Where do you get the ridiculous idea that immigrants vote Liberal?

    Lots of people from other countries hold Conservative values and exercise their vote that way.
    The polls will tell you that you are wrong. The majority of new immigrants and indeed Muslims do not vote PC. So using the xenophobia card helps harper strengthen his WASP base.


    http://www.punditsguide.ca/2011/09/w...-may-election/
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  59. #59

    Default

    ^ I am not wrong. That's not what you said.

    Don't be afraid to admit you are wrong once in a while.

  60. #60

    Default

    Well I think you know I meant newer immigrants. Other than First Nations people, we are all immigrants.

    Don't be obtuse.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  61. #61
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    ^ no, you're pretty wrong on "tend to vote liberal". Your own data shows that they Vote NDP, then Conservative, and are LEAST likely to vote liberal.

    Mr Oilers simply said 'lots" vote conservative, and the data show's he's correct. Look at the immigrant <10 years column

  62. #62

    Default

    Read the poll again

    The popular vote for the PC's was 39.6%, Liberals 18.9%

    In the immigrant <10 years column PC's was 28% (41% less likely), Liberals 21% (11% more likely) Yes the NDP made gains too but the NDP/Lib split vote helps Harper.

    Look at the Muslim vote PC's was 12% (330% less likely), Liberals 46% (243% more likely)

    Trudeau reads the tea leaves and understands that many people that are undecided in Canada get offended with Harper's xenophobic position and will jump to the Liberals.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  63. #63

    Default

    Oh, my mistake - I didn't realize that "Muslim" means the same thing as "immigrant".

    Good to know.

  64. #64

    Default

    We are talking about Niqabs aren't we???

    So when we speak of immigrants are you thinking I am referring the Ukrainians, German and Dutch that came in the 50's and 60's or the demographics of immigrants that are of more recent migrations that mostly come from non-European regions?
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  65. #65
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    6,793

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Well I think you know I meant newer immigrants. Other than First Nations people, we are all immigrants.

    Don't be obtuse.
    I am not of first nations but I'm not an immigrant, I was born here. I hadn't realized you all were immigrants.
    Last edited by Drumbones; 12-03-2015 at 09:09 AM.

  66. #66

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by expat View Post
    I for one am looking forward to wearing my traditional family gimp mask, nipple clamps, c0ck ring and butt plug next year at my citizenship ceremony. Vive la différence and all that.
    geez, some of us would pay to see that.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  67. #67
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    We are talking about Niqabs aren't we???

    So when we speak of immigrants are you thinking I am referring the Ukrainians, German and Dutch that came in the 50's and 60's or the demographics of immigrants that are of more recent migrations that mostly come from non-European regions?
    Yes but the point at hand was whether recent immigrants are conservative/liberal, and whether Harper's resistance to face-masking at when making an official oath is appropriate is likely to hurt at the polls.

    And recent immigrants apparently voted 21% Liberal last election, less than either of the other major parties. Hardly a "tendency"

  68. #68
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    asia
    Posts
    2,505

    Default

    Oops!

    To rally support against ISIS, Jason Kennry tweets photo of "Muslim women in chains".

    Unfortunatley, the photo turns out to be a historical re-enactment from a Shiite religious ceremony. Shiites being the west's main ally in the fight against ISIS.

    http://tinyurl.com/moqlk32

  69. #69

    Default

    When are politicians going to learn that tweets just get them into trouble?
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  70. #70

    Default

    ^ Boneheaded moves like that is the reason Harper has to be such a control freak over the MPs. After all, people get elected because they are preferred by more people, not because they are qualified.

  71. #71

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    We are talking about Niqabs aren't we???

    So when we speak of immigrants are you thinking I am referring the Ukrainians, German and Dutch that came in the 50's and 60's or the demographics of immigrants that are of more recent migrations that mostly come from non-European regions?
    Yes but the point at hand was whether recent immigrants are conservative/liberal, and whether Harper's resistance to face-masking at when making an official oath is appropriate is likely to hurt at the polls.

    And recent immigrants apparently voted 21% Liberal last election, less than either of the other major parties. Hardly a "tendency"
    That was just one poll I referred to.

    Interesting read
    Immigrants a key bloc for all parties in 2015 election
    Harper candidly credits his party's success to new Canadians' socially conservative values
    http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2..._election.html

    All the political parties are hard at work trying to get the immigrant vote. Harper still has to balance his message to his hardcore base.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  72. #72

    Default

    True colours are showing through. How dare they think that they'd have the freedom to choose what they wanted to wear here. I mean really!

    Tory MP tells niqab-wearers at oath ceremonies to 'stay the hell where you came from'

    Muslim women who want to wear a niqab while taking the oath of citizenship should "stay the hell where you came from," a Conservative MP told an Owen Sound, Ont., radio station.

    Larry Miller, who represents the riding of Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound, made the comment Monday in the wake of a Federal Court ruling that struck down a ban on face coverings during citizenship oaths.

    http://www.torontosun.com/2015/03/17...-you-came-from

  73. #73
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,374

    Default

    Interesting to note that Justin's dad didn't feel the same way as Justin does.

    ...
    Even Pierre Trudeau, the key architect of multiculturalism, regretted how multiculturalism had been warped to emphasize an immigrant's identification with his country or culture of origin rather than his assimilation of a Canadian identity. At a private luncheon with MPs in the mid-1990s, Trudeau was asked whether multiculturalism had developed the way he hoped. He replied: "No, this is not what I wanted."
    ...
    http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/...c-f00a225b2585

  74. #74
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    asia
    Posts
    2,505

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    True colours are showing through. How dare they think that they'd have the freedom to choose what they wanted to wear here. I mean really!

    Tory MP tells niqab-wearers at oath ceremonies to 'stay the hell where you came from'

    Muslim women who want to wear a niqab while taking the oath of citizenship should "stay the hell where you came from," a Conservative MP told an Owen Sound, Ont., radio station.

    Larry Miller, who represents the riding of Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound, made the comment Monday in the wake of a Federal Court ruling that struck down a ban on face coverings during citizenship oaths.

    http://www.torontosun.com/2015/03/17...-you-came-from
    The guy went majorly off-script. As I argued on another thread, I believe the Harper strategy is to dog-whistle the issue, but avoid saying anything outright racist, in the hopes that the Liberals respond with ill-considered statements that make them sound like dangerous cultural relativists. The idea is for the Conservatives to come off looking like moderate centrists, while the Liberals look like wild-eyed left-wing fanatics.

    But "Go back where ya came from" is way removed from moderate Canadian opinion will tolerate as a respectable opinion. Not that there aren't a lot of people who agree with the view, but most of them are already voting Conservative anyway.

  75. #75

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    How dare they think that they'd have the freedom to choose what they wanted to wear here. I mean really!
    The issue has much less to do with 'what" they choose to wear, and more about "where" and "why".

  76. #76

    Default

    Here's an article that rebuts pretty much all of the Harper Governments objections.

    Michael Spratt: Conservatives have neither the law nor the facts on their side in the niqab debate

    In an email to supporters, Immigration Minister Chris Alexander sounded the finger-crossing alarm. New citizens, he sermonized, “should recite the oath proudly, loudly and for everyone to see and hear.” Paul Calandra, parliamentary secretary to the prime minister, had the same concern, declaring “the citizenship judge is required to see that the person is actually reciting the oath of citizenship.”

    This position finds no support in law. No such requirement exists. The assistant director of citizenship program delivery told the Federal Court she was not aware of any legal requirement that the oath be seen or heard and the Federal Court confirmed that there is no requirement that there be “visual confirmation that the oath was said aloud.”

    Legally, the candidate’s signature on the citizenship form is the only proof of oath. You don’t need to be a legal scholar to intuit that this is the correct interpretation — as the Federal Court noted, any other interpretation “would make it impossible, not just for a niqab-wearing women to obtain citizenship, but also for a mute person or a silent monk.”

    ---

    On the niqab the Conservatives don’t have the facts, they don’t have the law and they don’t understand the Charter. This is the reason the Harper government has lost in court, time and time again.

    http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/03...-niqab-debate/

  77. #77

    Default

    The RCMP officer opens the ceremony in the name of the Queen,[20] followed by the clerk introducing the applicants for citizenship, stating: "Your Honour, these people assembled here have qualified for Canadian citizenship and appear before you to take the Oath of Citizenship"[20] or "Judge, Mr. Mrs. Ms. [name of citizenship judge or presiding official], in accordance with the provisions of the Citizenship Act, it is my privilege to present to you [number of] applicants for citizenship who have complied with the requirements of the Citizenship Act and are now ready to take the oath of citizenship and become Canadian citizens."[21] The judge addresses the crowd with a short speech outlining the duties and responsibilities of being a Canadian citizen, after which the clerk instructs the participants to stand, raise their right hand, and state their name and the judge or presiding officer leads the applicants in the recitation the Oath of Citizenship in both French and English; all those speaking the oath must have their faces uncovered.[22] The judge then presents each new citizen their Certificate of Citizenship and, after some closing remarks from the judge, the ceremony is concluded with the singing of the national anthem in English, French, or both.[23]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of...enship_(Canada)
    Highlighted by me.

    I can see someone having to uncover their face to ensure the person taking the oath is the right person. I know person(s) wearing the niqab may want to remove their niqab and take the oath in private, but isn't that going against the grain of what Canada is about. You're just taking the oath to become a citizen but you are removing yourself from the all inclusive society you want to belong to. I want to belong to Canada but I don't want people to know who I am?. Sounds rather contradictory to me.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  78. #78

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Here's an article that rebuts pretty much all of the Harper Governments objections.
    Very silly article you quote, this is about someone who is not a Canadian citizen, the charter does not apply to them. Interestingly the judge in the case which is being appealed made no reference to the charter.
    Last edited by moahunter; 17-03-2015 at 05:25 PM.

  79. #79

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Here's an article that rebuts pretty much all of the Harper Governments objections.
    Very silly article you quote, this is about someone who is not a Canadian citizen, the charter does not apply to them. Interestingly the judge in the case which is being appealed made no reference to the charter.
    Actually, the charter does apply to non-citizens. One example:

    Section Seven of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

    Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a constitutional provision that protects an individual's autonomy and personal legal rights from actions of the government in Canada. There are three types of protection within the section, namely the right to life, liberty, and security of the person

    ---

    The wording of section 7 says that it applies to "everyone". This includes all people within Canada including non-citizens.[4] It does not, however, apply to corporations.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section...s_and_Freedoms
    And another:

    Section Two of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

    Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the section of the Constitution of Canada that lists what the Charter calls "fundamental freedoms" theoretically applying to everyone in Canada, regardless of whether they are a Canadian citizen, or an individual or corporation.

    2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
    (a) freedom of conscience and religion;
    (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
    (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
    (d) freedom of association.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section...s_and_Freedoms
    Very silly that you base your argument on something that isn't true.

    Also, the requirement to uncover your face is not established in law but through a directive by Jason Kenney in 2011, a directive that the judge struck down. He didn't even have to consider the charter, the evidence was sufficient without invoking the charter.

    Niqab controversy: Judge struck down ban without referring to charter

    "A court will look at whether a law violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as a kind of last resort," said Audrey Macklin, a professor and chair of human rights law at the University of Toronto. "Courts don’t tend to go to the charter first, they tend to go to the charter last."

    So Boswell focused on whether the government had violated its own law — the Citizenship Act — by imposing such a ban.

    Under the section "Ceremonial Procedures of Citizenship Judges," the act states that a citizenship judge shall “administer the oath of citizenship with dignity and solemnity, allowing the greatest possible freedom in the religious solemnization" of taking the oath.

    In his ruling, Boswell said that Kenney's policy manual that banned the wearing of the niqab while taking the oath contradicted the act. A judge couldn't comply with both the policy manual, which said one thing, and the act, which said another, Boswell suggested.

    ---

    As the Citizenship Act is a law passed by Parliament and the policy manual is a directive from a cabinet minister, the act naturally trumps the policy manual, Boswell reasoned.

    "The minister is not authorized to make law. He doesn’t have that power," said Macklin. "And if he purports to make law or make a rule or command a citizenship judge to do something that takes away from the citizenship judge's discretion, and even more, commands the judge to do something that is directly contradictory [to what] the law says, then the minister himself is acting unlawfully."

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/niqa...rter-1.2994954
    Last edited by kkozoriz; 17-03-2015 at 06:40 PM.

  80. #80
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    6,793

    Default

    All the weirdos have to end up in Canada. lol

  81. #81

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Here's an article that rebuts pretty much all of the Harper Governments objections.
    Very silly article you quote, this is about someone who is not a Canadian citizen, the charter does not apply to them. Interestingly the judge in the case which is being appealed made no reference to the charter.
    Actually, the charter does apply to non-citizens. One example:

    Section Seven of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

    Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a constitutional provision that protects an individual's autonomy and personal legal rights from actions of the government in Canada. There are three types of protection within the section, namely the right to life, liberty, and security of the person

    ---

    The wording of section 7 says that it applies to "everyone". This includes all people within Canada including non-citizens.[4] It does not, however, apply to corporations.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section...s_and_Freedoms
    And another:

    Section Two of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

    Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the section of the Constitution of Canada that lists what the Charter calls "fundamental freedoms" theoretically applying to everyone in Canada, regardless of whether they are a Canadian citizen, or an individual or corporation.

    2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
    (a) freedom of conscience and religion;
    (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
    (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
    (d) freedom of association.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section...s_and_Freedoms
    Very silly that you base your argument on something that isn't true.

    Also, the requirement to uncover your face is not established in law but through a directive by Jason Kenney in 2011, a directive that the judge struck down. He didn't even have to consider the charter, the evidence was sufficient without invoking the charter.

    Niqab controversy: Judge struck down ban without referring to charter

    "A court will look at whether a law violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as a kind of last resort," said Audrey Macklin, a professor and chair of human rights law at the University of Toronto. "Courts don’t tend to go to the charter first, they tend to go to the charter last."

    So Boswell focused on whether the government had violated its own law — the Citizenship Act — by imposing such a ban.

    Under the section "Ceremonial Procedures of Citizenship Judges," the act states that a citizenship judge shall “administer the oath of citizenship with dignity and solemnity, allowing the greatest possible freedom in the religious solemnization" of taking the oath.

    In his ruling, Boswell said that Kenney's policy manual that banned the wearing of the niqab while taking the oath contradicted the act. A judge couldn't comply with both the policy manual, which said one thing, and the act, which said another, Boswell suggested.

    ---

    As the Citizenship Act is a law passed by Parliament and the policy manual is a directive from a cabinet minister, the act naturally trumps the policy manual, Boswell reasoned.

    "The minister is not authorized to make law. He doesn’t have that power," said Macklin. "And if he purports to make law or make a rule or command a citizenship judge to do something that takes away from the citizenship judge's discretion, and even more, commands the judge to do something that is directly contradictory [to what] the law says, then the minister himself is acting unlawfully."

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/niqa...rter-1.2994954
    I really don't see why you bang away for the right of someone to wear a niqab when taken an oath in the country they choose to live. Show even a basic amount of respect for the people around you and remove your face covering. It's not even anywhere in the Quran that women are required to cover their faces, yet you hammer away at peoples right to do it when it is not even a tenant of their religion. By your reckoning I should be able to wear a pasta strainer on my head and say I am a pastafarian and I should be able to take the citizenship oath.
    I don't know why Canadian judges don't ask the question 'were is it in the Quran that women have to wear a face covering'. If they cannot find it, it's not a tenant of the religion.


    http://www.quran-islam.org/articles/...a_(P1357).html

    http://www.quran-islam.org/articles/...e_(P1150).html
    Last edited by Gemini; 17-03-2015 at 08:20 PM.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  82. #82
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    6,793

    Default

    Ya and ship her back to wherever it is she came from, and send that kkozoriz along with her. lol (jk)

  83. #83

    Default

    ^He'll be too busy rifling through the Quran looking for were it says women have to wear the face covering niqab. When he realizes he will not find it he'll look for more obscure articles. Stay tuned.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  84. #84
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Also from the charter:

    "Equality before and under law and equal protection and benefit of law

    15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability."

    As far as I'm concerned, to allow someone to cover their face Because of their religion is a clear violation of the charter.

  85. #85

    Default

    ^Especially when their religion does not even say they have to wear a face covering.
    If I wore a face covering and said it's because of my Protestant upbringing someone would call me out on it. Wear a niqab and say it's because of your religion nobody calls you out on it but all hell breaks loose.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  86. #86

    Default

    Were most people get discombobulated on the niqab is it's more of a tradition imposed on women by men. It's not a requirement of Islam or in the Quran. Like the Catholic religion (and probably all religions) there are religious tenants and traditional customs that are not from the Bible.
    Last edited by Gemini; 17-03-2015 at 09:35 PM.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  87. #87

    Default

    It's not the government's business to dictate what the correct interpretation of a religion is. As for calling people "weirdos," many might feel the same way about the most of us.

    At the end of the day, there is no legal stance for Harper's stance other than to play divisive politics for the impending election.

  88. #88

    Default

    While I agree it's divisive I think the government has every right to interpret any religion when it does have such a divisive connotation to it. It's these very religions and their interpretation of them that have caused just about every war since time began. And by 'these very religions' I mean all of them.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  89. #89
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    It's also not the federal government's role to exempt people from written or unwritten laws based on their personal desires, whether religiously motivated or not.

  90. #90

    Default

    All this scrutiny, all this national controversy, over an article of clothing. At first I wondered why. But then I realized...it provides a great public platform for xenophobic racists to get righteously riled up about something: "Well too bad we can't call them ragheads. But hey, here's something we can ***** about in polite conversation!!"

  91. #91

    Default

    ^Well that comment says more about you than it does about other posters.
    Last edited by Gemini; 17-03-2015 at 09:49 PM.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  92. #92

    Default

    [QUOTE=faraz;668232]
    Quote Originally Posted by River Valley Green View Post
    All this scrutiny, all this national controversy, over an article of clothing. At first I wondered why. But then I realized...it provides a great public platform for xenophobic racists to get righteously riled up about something: "Well too bad we can't call them ragheads. But hey, here's something we can ***** about in polite conversation!!"
    Agreed. I'm pretty sure also there is a precedence which doesn't allow for government's interpretation of religious laws against individual beliefs regardless of how many posters on here claim:

    "The essence of the concept of freedom of religion is the right to entertain such religious beliefs as a person chooses, the right to declare religious beliefs openly and without fear of hindrance or reprisal, and the right to manifest religious belief by worship and practice or by teaching and dissemination. But the concept means more than that."

    R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd

  93. #93

    Default

    Freedom means that sometimes you have to allow other people to do things that you don't agree with.

    I'm not in favour of women wearing the niqab but under the charter's freedom of religion clause, it's not for me (or the government) to say. There was the question of identification raised and Zunera Ishaq agreed to unveil in private for a female citizenship court officer. The rest is simply the government deciding that a policy manual overrides a law passed by Parliament. If they want to force women to unveil for the oath, they can change the citizenship act but they would probably lose due to the charter.

  94. #94

    Default

    In layman's terms: we are not a banana republic

  95. #95

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Freedom means that sometimes you have to allow other people to do things that you don't agree with.
    No it doesn't. Where did you get that idea?

  96. #96
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Again, from the charter:

    "Equality before and under law and equal protection and benefit of law

    15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability."

    If we allow an exception to a common law practice like showing your face in public and especially for official interactions for religious reasons but not for other reasons, we are guilty of discrimination based on religion. Basically, if a Niqab is allowed then legally ALL face coverings MUST be permitted in the same circumstances, whether a balaclava or and S&M mask or a KKK hood.

    In my opinion, none should be permitted in official settings including at schools and government offices, and owners/operators of malls and other semi-public places should be free to permit face covering, or not.

  97. #97
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    It seems like people in this thread are arguing based on a lot of different grounds. There are multiple arguments being thrown about that stem from very different things, and have varying merit.

    These seem to be the arguments I am reading as to why the Niqab should not be worn in the citizenship ceremony:

    - It is oppressive to women.

    - It is offensive to Canadian values.

    - One cannot swear an oath with their face concealed.

    The first argument is dangerous, as we are ascribing based on our cultural worldview what constitutes the oppression of a group of people with a very different conception of the topic. The key point is that we see it as oppressive. They do not see it as oppressive. We are forcing our values on them, which brings us to the second argument.

    The second argument is even more dangerous. If we prescribe law based on some set group of "Canadian values", we necessarily exclude a section of society, and the rule of law is tarnished. I also find this exceedingly comical, as we are setting our societies apparent solid group of values as something that immigrants 200 years ago introduced, which is somehow superior to something immigrants today are introducing. Why do immigrants 200 years ago have a monopoly on societal values? Also, does this not freeze our society in time? Should we really be establishing western culture in the judeo-christian tradition as the legal arbiter of our cultural practices?

    The third one is the only one with merit at first glance. However, I fail to see how this is a decision a politician could make. The swearing of an oath is a legal proceeding. Whether or not one can conceal their face for religious or cultural reasons when swearing an oath is something that should be determined by the courts. If the court determines that our secular law allows this, the topic is settled.

  98. #98

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Very silly that you base your argument on something that isn't true.
    I don't believe the charter writers intended it to apply to every person in the world (which theoretically applies not just to in Canada, but anywhere), which is the natural extension of your argument. Regardless, are you fine with someone wearing a KKK hat, or a spiderman mask when they take the oath? How is that different?

  99. #99

    Default

    The KKK is a hate group and not an organized religion although it believes itself to be based on Christianity. Perhaps we shall see what the SCC thinks if anyone attempts what you suggest.

    A Spiderman mask is not based on religion.

    The "everyone" in the charter is specific;y including people that are non-citizens. You belief is moot as the SCC has found that to be the case. There's specific call outs to everyone and individuals and even corporations.

    You're not allowed to put up a sign in your hotel saying "No non-Canadian Jews" or "No non-Canadian blacks". Some parts of the charter apply only to citizens but many parts specifically apply to non-citizens as well.

  100. #100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Freedom means that sometimes you have to allow other people to do things that you don't agree with.
    No it doesn't. Where did you get that idea?
    In freedom of speech, you can't stop someone for speaking simply because you don't agree with it. In freedom of religion, you can't stop people fro expressing there religious beliefs simply because you don't believe what they do.

    There is no "freedom to not be offended: in the charter.

Page 1 of 11 12345 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •