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 2 of 11 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 200 of 1064

Thread: Niqab citizenship ceremonies Trudeau versus Harper

  1. #101

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    A Spiderman mask is not based on religion.
    So you want to define what is, or isn't, a religion now, and determine what's allowable at a citizenship ceremony based on that?

    In general I don't care what people wear, but since someone is required to show their face in a court proceeding, and for a drivers licence, I think its totally inconsistent that wouldn't be required to on becoming a Canadian citizen. It's an important day (it was for me), I personally would have found it disrespectful if the people standing beside me were all hiding themselves from me. Is that the society that Canada is? There are some lines based on comon decency, and IMO the government is right to set one here.

  2. #102

    Default

    Not just me, the SCC would also find that. There's no examples of The Church of Spiderman that I know of. Correct me if I'm wrong. If there is, then a practitioner of said religion could do the same that as was done in this case and take it to court if they feel that their religious beliefs have been infringed upon.

    Again, it was not the government (i.e. Parliament) that said that your face must be uncovered for the oath. It was the immigration minister putting it in a policy handbook. The judge declared that the law trumped the policy handbook.

    If Harper is so concerned about it, he is perfectly free to write and pass a bill amending the citizenship act that requires that your face be uncovered for the oath. However, as is usually in Charter cases for this government, they would probably lose when it was taken to the SCC.

    Harper has got a majority. What's stopping him? Oh right, it's better to keep it as it is and use it to fan outrage in his base going into the upcoming election.

    If you want to start The Church of Spiderman", go right ahead. Be aware that not every religion passes muster.


    B.C. 'Pastafarian' loses driver's licence over holy colander hat


    The ICBC says Canuel was unable to prove the colander is a mandatory part of his religion.

    “We will always try to accommodate customers with head coverings where their faith prohibits them from removing it,” an ICBC spokesperson told CTV Vancouver. “Mr. Canuel was not able to provide us with any evidence that he cannot remove his head covering for his photo.”

    Canuel was allowed to wear the colander for his B.C. Services I.D. card photo, taken late last year.

    http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/b-c-pas...-hat-1.2041844
    Last edited by kkozoriz; 18-03-2015 at 11:02 AM.

  3. #103

    Default

    [QUOTE=faraz;668233]
    Quote Originally Posted by faraz View Post
    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
    It is not written anywhere in the Quran that women have to cover their faces. It is not a requirement of Islam. The Quran asks women to dress modestly by covering their bosom, ankles etc. Nowhere does it say cover your face. Like every other holy book passages get interpreted differently to suit the different factions within that religion. Wearing the niqab is a custom or tradition, not a religious tenant. When taken the oath of citizenship take the niqab off, let people welcome you officially to your new country, when the ceremony is finished put it back on. Simple as that.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  4. #104

    Default

    Nothing says that all of your religious traditions have to be supported by a holy book. Different branches of Christianity have different interpretations and different customs. It's based on what the leadership of your religion, either a single person (i.e.Pope or Grand Inman, etc) or council decides is a required part of your religion.

    "Welcome to Canada, you have freedom of religion here. Now take off your niqab and show your face to a bunch of men you're not related to."

  5. #105
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    asia
    Posts
    2,423

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Nothing says that all of your religious traditions have to be supported by a holy book. Different branches of Christianity have different interpretations and different customs. It's based on what the leadership of your religion, either a single person (i.e.Pope or Grand Inman, etc) or council decides is a required part of your religion.

    "Welcome to Canada, you have freedom of religion here. Now take off your niqab and show your face to a bunch of men you're not related to."
    Indeed. Many book based religions have additional rules and traditions separate from what can be found in their book.

    The Bible never advises teetotalling, for example, but lots of conservative protestans practice it. And the Catholic ban on married clergy is actually the opposite of what the New Testament recommends.

  6. #106

    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.

    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.
    Did it ever occur to you that when the charter and citizenship acts were written nobody even though that they would be challenged by someone wearing a niqab. If no one had of questioned the validity before of covering their faces while taking the oath the authors of the charter and citizenship act would of taken it as a given that the oath would be done with faces uncovered. They surely would not be thinking people would be taken the oath with their faces covered. If the question had of risen back in the day they would be saying it's preposterous that in Canada people would cover their faces for an important legal occasion like a citizenship ceremony. There thinking then would have been it's a mute point as we do not do things like that in Canada. Fact forward to the 21 century and we now have a problem.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  7. #107

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Nothing says that all of your religious traditions have to be supported by a holy book. Different branches of Christianity have different interpretations and different customs. It's based on what the leadership of your religion, either a single person (i.e.Pope or Grand Inman, etc) or council decides is a required part of your religion.

    "Welcome to Canada, you have freedom of religion here. Now take off your niqab and show your face to a bunch of men you're not related to."
    How brain washed is that. Do you think for one moment men would wear a niqab to hide their faces from people they are not related to. Don't you wish these customs and traditions should die a slow death.
    Get a grip.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  8. #108
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaerdo View Post
    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.
    -Everything that I have read from moderate Muslim Women and from ex-muslim women is that it is indeed oppressive to women, that it is used as a tool to keep women in their place in countries where it is common, and that seeing in on the streets of canada is an unwelcome reminder that men exist who regard women as property and that they are here too.

    -Multiculturalism is as much a "Canadian Value" as gender equality, and both sometimes have to be imposed on unwilling citizens. When they conflict, the right of a cultural minority to perpetuate a misogynistic custom has to give way before the right of that minority to do whatever they want. Just as we outlaw statutory rape no matter the victim's consent, forbid S&M practitioners from injuring each other no matter how willing the subject, and rescue kidnapped children no matter how strongly Stockholm syndrome has set in, it's reasonable to ban an item of clothing that clearly marks it's wearers as inferior, as possessions.

    -We know that one can swear an oath or sign a contract with a concealed face, and yes, I can even understand that in the case of this woman who wishes to wear a niqab that she does, in fact, intend to participate as a Canadian citizen. But it's also important to consider what actions say, whatever the intent. To cover one's face during a transaction is an action that will be interpreted as having something to hide. To cover one's face, especially with an all-black, formless sheet, at a public ceremony will be understood by most of us as reluctant participation, or non-participation. To insist that she can express herself by wearing a niqab and have it mean only what she says it means is to insist that the rest of us refrain from understanding her expression as our culture understands it.
    It is essentially like insisting that crossing you fingers when making a promise shouldn't be interpreted as a sign of duplicity because it doesn't mean that where you come from.

  9. #109

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    In freedom of religion, you can't stop people fro expressing there religious beliefs simply because you don't believe what they do.
    The niqab is not a religious garment. it is not worn for religious reasons, either.


    There is no "freedom to not be offended: in the charter.
    I know that. Why bring it up? Who is offended?
    Last edited by MrOilers; 18-03-2015 at 11:52 AM.

  10. #110
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Even if it were, the freedom from discrimination based on religion would seem to outlaw permitting behaviours justified on religious grounds unless that same behaviour is also permitted when based on other grounds, whether political or personal preference.

  11. #111

    Default

    1. There is a clear basis for the face covering in Islamic tradition. It is not something encouraged by most religious leaders but if an individual wants to follow it, there is enough evidence to prove it is not a cultural practice (though as others mentioned, both often intertwine).

    2. telling grown women who have made conscious decisions to dress a certain way that they are brainwashed and oppressed is pretty arrogant and self serving

  12. #112

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by faraz View Post
    2. telling grown women who have made conscious decisions to dress a certain way that they are brainwashed and oppressed is pretty arrogant and self serving
    It's also highly presumptuous to claim that it's a conscious decision on the woman's part.

  13. #113

    Default

    Ah, but in some eastern countries wearing the niqab/burka is not a free choice. Ask the Taliban or any of those extreme governments in the east what a woman should be wearing. It will not be Daisy Dukes and crop tops. The Islamic religion is predominately male oriented.
    I have no problem with a grown women wearing a niqab while doing her regular business. What I do have a problem with is the when she choses to be part of a country that has adopted her and while taking an oath of citizenship people cannot see who they are actually welcoming into this country. Is that too much to ask?. She might have her own traditions and obligations but the country she is now living in also have there own traditions of not covering faces, especially during ceremonies. If we bend the rules for a handful of people we might as well bend them for all. Let people take the oath wearing space helmets, duck masks, balaclavas, sacks. brown paper bags etc.They could do that and say it's because of their individual religious traditions. Is this really what we want.

    And Faraz, you made this point I have mentioned below.

    There is a clear basis for the face covering in Islamic tradition.

    Could you please explain what the clear basis is.
    Last edited by Gemini; 18-03-2015 at 02:59 PM.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  14. #114
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by faraz View Post
    *Snip*
    2. telling grown women who have made conscious decisions to dress a certain way that they are brainwashed and oppressed is pretty arrogant and self serving
    Much less arrogant and self-serving than the nations where Niqabs are common where the typical Niqab wearer has no choice in clothing, education, marriage, career, transportation or public life without the expressed written consent of a male relative, and often not even then.

  15. #115

    Default

    So you're going to stop them from being opressed by being told what they have to wear by telling them what they cannot wear?

    If they are to have real freedom of religion then the choices must be made by the, One way is by accepting that some women will wear the niqab but, history has shown, successive generations are less beholden to the old customs. The more people are exposed to various freedoms, the more they want them for themselves. Social media is one big reason that there's a pouch in Saudi Arabia for more women's rights. They may be prevented from meeting other people in person but they can communicate using their cell phones.

    Telling people that they have freedom and then denying them the freedom of choice isn't the answer.

    In Canada women do have the freedom of education. marriage, career, transpiration, public life and yes, clothing. If that choice happens to include a niqab, then it's her choice. Anyone that would attack her, verbally or physically. for her choice to wear to not to wear it is basically the same, imposing their beliefs upon her.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    Don't you wish these customs and traditions should die a slow death.
    Get a grip.
    yes I do. All of them. All religious customs and traditions should be abandoned. It's all based on superstition and lies and power over the weak. However, we have enshrined the right to believe in whatever giant, invisible friend you like in the charter. Going after a handful of women for covering their faces won't change that. 2/3 of the provinces with 50% of the population, the House and Senate can do that. Go to it. Let me know how that works out for you. Until then, Section 2(a) of the charter remains in effect.

  16. #116
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    6,544

    Default

    And if your daughters don't wear them when they turn 16 well just drown them in the ship canal. It all makes such good sense after all. This type of thing should be headed off at immigration, not citizenship court. That said I think now that our government has been stupid enough to let all these weirdos into the country we are obliged to let them do their thing, therefore I voted Yes, after all it is not her fault she is the way she is. This is the way she was taught. If we are stupid enough to let them in than we must suck up and accept them.
    Last edited by Drumbones; 18-03-2015 at 05:01 PM.

  17. #117
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    ^^Unfortunately, yes, if we have to.

    There are some cultural practices that cannot be understood as anything but backwards/oppressive/incompatible with the common law practices of Canadian society. I would also support a ban the public self flagellation that some Shia Muslims and some Catholics have practiced as part of religious festivities/penance, and the Filipino simulated crucifixions (with real nails) if there were a push to import those practices to Canada, not matter how willing the participants. The Niqab (but not the Hijab) is one of those things. It is inextricably linked to oppression but unlike the N word it has not been reclaimed by it's former victims, but remains for many statement, even a threat, that women should be hidden and subservient.

    -No, it's our current interpretation of the charter that needs to change. Freedom from Discrimination based on Religion (among other things) is in the charter, and that must mean freedom from being treated differently based on your religion. Allowing a garment based only on religious reasons is a clear violation of that freedom. Now, it may be that it is the intent that anyone be be allowed to cover their face for whatever reason, and that would be OK. Allowing Niqab but not Balaclava? Not OK.

    Of course, that not how our courts seem to work. Somehow the word of a Guru 200 years ago is taken as a good enough reason to be allowed to carry a knife in an otherwise no-knives place.

  18. #118

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    So you're going to stop them from being opressed by being told what they have to wear by telling them what they cannot wear?
    You really don't get it, do you?

    She CAN wear it. And she CAN keep her religion and her religious customs if she wants.


    It does not undermine any of that to have an expectation that everyone shows their faces in this country when taking an oath.

    No freedoms lost.

  19. #119

    Default

    Why not also put a sub-clause in the charter that we have a Right of Freedom FROM Religion. As in some government, justice transactions. Separate church from state (or religion from state).
    I seem to recall someone a few years back being given a bible when they got their citizenship. Not sure if that still happens?.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  20. #120

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    Why not also put a sub-clause in the charter that we have a Right of Freedom FROM Religion. As in some government, justice transactions. Separate church from state (or religion from state).
    I seem to recall someone a few years back being given a bible when they got their citizenship. Not sure if that still happens?.
    Are you advocating a Pauline Marois style charter?

  21. #121

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by faraz View Post
    *Snip*
    2. telling grown women who have made conscious decisions to dress a certain way that they are brainwashed and oppressed is pretty arrogant and self serving
    Much less arrogant and self-serving than the nations where Niqabs are common where the typical Niqab wearer has no choice in clothing, education, marriage, career, transportation or public life without the expressed written consent of a male relative, and often not even then.
    So because of what happens in one country across the world, lets oppress the ones at home. Ever spoken with someone in a niqab? I'm pretty sure no which is why the broad generalizations and resentment.
    Last edited by faraz; 18-03-2015 at 06:02 PM. Reason: spelling

  22. #122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    Ah, but in some eastern countries wearing the niqab/burka is not a free choice. Ask the Taliban or any of those extreme governments in the east what a woman should be wearing. It will not be Daisy Dukes and crop tops. The Islamic religion is predominately male oriented.
    I have no problem with a grown women wearing a niqab while doing her regular business. What I do have a problem with is the when she choses to be part of a country that has adopted her and while taking an oath of citizenship people cannot see who they are actually welcoming into this country. Is that too much to ask?. She might have her own traditions and obligations but the country she is now living in also have there own traditions of not covering faces, especially during ceremonies. If we bend the rules for a handful of people we might as well bend them for all. Let people take the oath wearing space helmets, duck masks, balaclavas, sacks. brown paper bags etc.They could do that and say it's because of their individual religious traditions. Is this really what we want.

    And Faraz, you made this point I have mentioned below.

    There is a clear basis for the face covering in Islamic tradition.

    Could you please explain what the clear basis is.
    There are 4 major schools of thought in Sunni Islam (90% of total Muslim population) and all four explicitly state if a woman wants to cover her face, she can. They did not consider it something every woman had to do but whomever wanted to. And throughout Islamic history, women from different parts of the Muslim world, which spread from Europe to Southeast Asia to, wore it meaning it wasn't a cultural practice which is generally specific to a location.

    Can it become part of a cultural practice? Sure. But that doesn't change the fact there is religious allowance for it.

  23. #123

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by faraz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    Why not also put a sub-clause in the charter that we have a Right of Freedom FROM Religion. As in some government, justice transactions. Separate church from state (or religion from state).
    I seem to recall someone a few years back being given a bible when they got their citizenship. Not sure if that still happens?.
    Are you advocating a Pauline Marois style charter?
    No, not that severe. I said freedom in some government/justice transactions. Don't let religion interfere in Canadian process where religion should have no relevance. The citizenship ceremony should be completely neutral. No obvious religious overtones or traditions. If a person is wearing a cross keep it under your clothes until the ceremony is over. Likewise voodoo dolls or whatever your bailiwick is.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  24. #124

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    So you're going to stop them from being opressed by being told what they have to wear by telling them what they cannot wear?
    You really don't get it, do you?

    She CAN wear it. And she CAN keep her religion and her religious customs if she wants.


    It does not undermine any of that to have an expectation that everyone shows their faces in this country when taking an oath.

    No freedoms lost.
    Yes it is if it's based on a religious belief. She has agreed to unveil in the presence of a female citizenship official for purposes of identification.

    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.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/niqa...rter-1.2994954
    Jason Kenny doesn't get to override and act of Parliament based on what he thinks is correct. It didn't even reach the level of a charter violation. If it did, they still would have lost.

    Zunera Ishaq believes that she should not show her face to men that she is not related to. That's based on her religion which is protected both by the Citizenship act and the Charter. So yes, she would lose a freedom if she was required to unveil to take the oath. Would she be idling to unveil if it was a ceremony for women only? Perhaps but that would still depend on her religion.

    Don't like it? Petition the Harper Government to change the Citizenship Act and, inevitably, the Charter because that's what's needed to do what you want.

    Since both the act and the charter specifically mention religion, there's no way to apply it only to some beliefs and not others.
    Last edited by kkozoriz; 18-03-2015 at 06:40 PM.

  25. #125

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by faraz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    Why not also put a sub-clause in the charter that we have a Right of Freedom FROM Religion. As in some government, justice transactions. Separate church from state (or religion from state).
    I seem to recall someone a few years back being given a bible when they got their citizenship. Not sure if that still happens?.
    Are you advocating a Pauline Marois style charter?
    No, not that severe. I said freedom in some government/justice transactions. Don't let religion interfere in Canadian process where religion should have no relevance. The citizenship ceremony should be completely neutral. No obvious religious overtones or traditions. If a person is wearing a cross keep it under your clothes until the ceremony is over. Likewise voodoo dolls or whatever your bailiwick is.
    So you would say no to hijabs, yarmulks, turbans, scarfs for nuns? What about law courts? Hospitals? Schools?

  26. #126

    Default

    "Or head on down to your friendly neighbourhood bridal store. Plenty of strong, powerful women who make their own decisions, have successful careers and pay for their own weddings, happily put on a white dress (symbolizing virginity) and have their fathers walk them down the aisle to “give them away” to their shiny new husbands.

    Many also choose to wear a veil (and some are still virgins), an accessory which dates back to the days of arranged marriages. The veil hid your face until the wedding was over, in case your new man/guardian didn’t like the shape of your eyebrows and wanted to back out of the deal. But no one gives brides the side-eye. Not even when they spend thousands of dollars on a white dress that will be worn exactly once.

    So why is it OK for brides to wear a white veil that symbolizes women as chattel for part of a legal ceremony, but it’s not OK for a woman to wear a niqab for part of a Canadian citizenship ceremony? (The veil is lifted in private to verify identity before she says the oath). Is it just the frequency thing — wedding day versus every day? Is it because the women in white are perceived to choose to incorporate symbols of male oppression, whereas we’re not sure about the women in black? Maybe we should ask one."

    http://calgaryherald.com/opinion/col...nism-as-niqabs

  27. #127

    Default

    ^Well, for one, after you are married western guys don't expect you to wear the veil for the rest of your life. If he did he would more than likely not know what hit him and when he did come round he would likely be wearing the veil himself, maybe the dress as well.
    Western women are not chattels. If they choose to wear a veil when they marry it's a choice. They don't go around wearing it after the ceremony for years at a time because it some how is supposed to protect modesty. It's not in the bible anywhere that a bride has to wear a veil, it's a tradition supposedly for virginity and purity. Now that white veil has been relocated to just an accessory for most western brides, some don't even wear one. I believe the veil is usually lifted when the father gives the bride to the groom. Usually the veil is lifted for the ceremony.
    Last edited by Gemini; 18-03-2015 at 06:51 PM.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  28. #128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    ^Well, for one, after your married western guys don't expect you to wear the veil for the rest of your life. If he did he would more than likely not know what hit him and when he did come round he would likely be wearing the veil himself, maybe the dress as well.
    Western women are not chattels. If they choose to wear a veil when they marry it's a choice. We don't go around wearing it after the ceremony for years at a time because it some how is supposed to protect modesty. It's not in the bible anywhere that a bride has to wear a veil, it's a tradition supposedly for virginity and purity. Now, it's just a accessory for most western brides.
    So essentially you're OK with a chauvinistic custom because you grew up with it.

  29. #129

    Default

    No, I did not grow up with chauvinistic customs because I live in Canada and most Canadian men are not chauvinistic. If they are the women put them in their place. Canada is not know for it's chauvinistic men. Most Canadian men would not care if you wore a veil at your wedding, they would just be pleased to see you at the altar/Las Vegas/wherever the marriage is being held.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  30. #130

    Default

    I wonder why the Europeans who first arrived in Canada didn't adopt the native style of dress. Oh right, it was about imposing a culture on people who were already here. Kept it right through the past century with the residential schools for example.

    Some people sure have strange ideas of what constitutes freedom.

  31. #131

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    I wonder why the Europeans who first arrived in Canada didn't adopt the native style of dress.
    No, the Europeans conquered them. That was hundreds of years ago. It also has nothing to do with this discussion.

  32. #132

    Default

    ^^Sometimes I have to wonder what is in your coffee?
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  33. #133

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    No, I did not grow up with chauvinistic customs because I live in Canada and most Canadian men are not chauvinistic. If they are the women put them in their place. Canada is not know for it's chauvinistic men. Most Canadian men would not care if you wore a veil at your wedding, they would just be pleased to see you at the altar/Las Vegas/wherever the marriage is being held.
    Probably true. But did you ever bother to speak with a woman wearing a niqab in Canada to see if she chose it herself (just like the women at their weddings)? It's easier to make assumptions about others but more meaningful to make friends.

  34. #134

    Default

    This article from a couple of years back.
    Well I see Saudi Arabia is trying to get with the program:

    http://www.macleans.ca/news/world/sa...out-her-niqab/
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  35. #135

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    I wonder why the Europeans who first arrived in Canada didn't adopt the native style of dress.
    No, the Europeans conquered them. That was hundreds of years ago. It also has nothing to do with this discussion.
    Oh, that makes it all OK then.

    Actually, the Europeans signed treaties that we continue to ignore to this day. But we're all in favour of everyone having the freedom to be exactly like we are. Do as we say, not as we do.

  36. #136

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by faraz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    No, I did not grow up with chauvinistic customs because I live in Canada and most Canadian men are not chauvinistic. If they are the women put them in their place. Canada is not know for it's chauvinistic men. Most Canadian men would not care if you wore a veil at your wedding, they would just be pleased to see you at the altar/Las Vegas/wherever the marriage is being held.
    Probably true. But did you ever bother to speak with a woman wearing a niqab in Canada to see if she chose it herself (just like the women at their weddings)? It's easier to make assumptions about others but more meaningful to make friends.
    Faraz, I don't need to talk to her. If she chooses to wear it on a day to day basis it's her business not mine. All I am saying, like most of us on this topic, is that she remove it when taking oaths or preforming other government business that traditions and customs have no baring on. I cannot for the life of me figure why someone who wants to be accepted into another country would not show their face. Especially when it is definitely not the custom of the country she is being accepted in. If she choose to wear it why does she not choose to remove it for the ceremony?. What would be her compelling reason to keep it on?.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  37. #137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    I wonder why the Europeans who first arrived in Canada didn't adopt the native style of dress.
    No, the Europeans conquered them. That was hundreds of years ago. It also has nothing to do with this discussion.
    Oh, that makes it all OK then.

    Actually, the Europeans signed treaties that we continue to ignore to this day. But we're all in favour of everyone having the freedom to be exactly like we are. Do as we say, not as we do.
    I should imagine the villagers are out looking for you now. Can you not stick with the program. Your acting like a drunken orator, lost your notes and are all over the place.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  38. #138

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    Faraz, I don't need to talk to her. If she chooses to wear it on a day to day basis it's her business not mine. All I am saying, like most of us on this topic, is that she remove it when taking oaths or preforming other government business that traditions and customs have no baring on. I cannot for the life of me figure why someone who wants to be accepted into another country would not show their face. Especially when it is definitely not the custom of the country she is being accepted in. If she choose to wear it why does she not choose to remove it for the ceremony?. What would be her compelling reason to keep it on?.

    But it's not up to you. That's why we have the Charter. It lays out the rules and prevents the majority from taking tights from a minority. You don't have to understand her reasons. The fact that she holds a belief based on her religion is good enough under both the Citizenship act and the Charter.

    Why does she choose to wear it? Her religious beliefs. That's all that's necessary. She doesn't have to justify her reasons to anyone beyond that.

  39. #139

    Default

    ^We have been telling you time and time again. The niqab is not a requirement of Islam, Islam being the religion. The niqab being a tradition/customs. The charter says 'freedom of conscience and religion' not freedom of 'tradition and customs'.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  40. #140
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Can anyone justify why "I choose to wear it because of my religious beliefs" is treated differently before the law than "Because I want to"? It's certainly not in the charter, and it flies in the face of the idea of equality before the law, and in the idea of a secular state. The charter even explicitly states that the government nor the courts shall not discriminate on the basis of religion.

    Why is this repeatedly ignored??

  41. #141

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    ^We have been telling you time and time again. The niqab is not a requirement of Islam, Islam being the religion. The niqab being a tradition/customs. The charter says 'freedom of conscience and religion' not freedom of 'tradition and customs'.
    And I've mentioned this again and again, something does not have to be mandatory for a person to follow as part of their faith. I clearly showed you niqab not just culture but you choose to ignore it when you are clearly wrong.

  42. #142

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by faraz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    No, I did not grow up with chauvinistic customs because I live in Canada and most Canadian men are not chauvinistic. If they are the women put them in their place. Canada is not know for it's chauvinistic men. Most Canadian men would not care if you wore a veil at your wedding, they would just be pleased to see you at the altar/Las Vegas/wherever the marriage is being held.
    Probably true. But did you ever bother to speak with a woman wearing a niqab in Canada to see if she chose it herself (just like the women at their weddings)? It's easier to make assumptions about others but more meaningful to make friends.
    Faraz, I don't need to talk to her. If she chooses to wear it on a day to day basis it's her business not mine. All I am saying, like most of us on this topic, is that she remove it when taking oaths or preforming other government business that traditions and customs have no baring on. I cannot for the life of me figure why someone who wants to be accepted into another country would not show their face. Especially when it is definitely not the custom of the country she is being accepted in. If she choose to wear it why does she not choose to remove it for the ceremony?. What would be her compelling reason to keep it on?.
    Gemini, you clearly stated you believe the practice is oppressive and forced upon women and that is what's driving your belief in this situation. On top of that, you've clearly stated you would prefer to go many steps further and implement this across governmental institutions. So you can see why many of us don't see this as a single issue but a crack in the wall for the floodgates of "Canadian values," whatever that means, used as a guise for xenophobia and racism.

  43. #143

    Default

    If it's not mandatory or compulsory under Islam then why not just remove it for the ceremony. Why not do in Rome what the Romans do. Why say it's part of your religion when it's a half truth. It's not part of the Quran to cover your face, Allah did not ask of that. Scholars translated the Quran and dictated it to suit their own faction. If it's a personal choice and not the choice of Allah, why not make the choice to remove it for the ceremony. Even moderate Muslim women are trying to break free of these dress restrictions. The world is moving away from all these voodoo hoodoo religions that frankly don't even belong in the stone age. Religious leaders spewing edicts to control their flocks. It's all a bunch of Who shot John antiquated mumbo jumbo.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  44. #144

    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
    No, I did not grow up with chauvinistic customs because I live in Canada and most Canadian men are not chauvinistic. If they are the women put them in their place. Canada is not know for it's chauvinistic men. Most Canadian men would not care if you wore a veil at your wedding, they would just be pleased to see you at the altar/Las Vegas/wherever the marriage is being held.
    Probably true. But did you ever bother to speak with a woman wearing a niqab in Canada to see if she chose it herself (just like the women at their weddings)? It's easier to make assumptions about others but more meaningful to make friends.
    Faraz, I don't need to talk to her. If she chooses to wear it on a day to day basis it's her business not mine. All I am saying, like most of us on this topic, is that she remove it when taking oaths or preforming other government business that traditions and customs have no baring on. I cannot for the life of me figure why someone who wants to be accepted into another country would not show their face. Especially when it is definitely not the custom of the country she is being accepted in. If she choose to wear it why does she not choose to remove it for the ceremony?. What would be her compelling reason to keep it on?.
    Gemini, you clearly stated you believe the practice is oppressive and forced upon women and that is what's driving your belief in this situation. On top of that, you've clearly stated you would prefer to go many steps further and implement this across governmental institutions. So you can see why many of us don't see this as a single issue but a crack in the wall for the floodgates of "Canadian values," whatever that means, used as a guise for xenophobia and racism.
    Sure Faraz, I'm also a model for Vogue and I ate my first born. Please see my above post.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  45. #145

    Default

    ^Oh, by the way, your "Canadian Values" remark is pretty darn insulting.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  46. #146

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    ^Oh, by the way, your "Canadian Values" remark is pretty darn insulting.
    Not really. People often use this term to impose their social values on others so I'm calling them out for it.

  47. #147

    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
    No, I did not grow up with chauvinistic customs because I live in Canada and most Canadian men are not chauvinistic. If they are the women put them in their place. Canada is not know for it's chauvinistic men. Most Canadian men would not care if you wore a veil at your wedding, they would just be pleased to see you at the altar/Las Vegas/wherever the marriage is being held.
    Probably true. But did you ever bother to speak with a woman wearing a niqab in Canada to see if she chose it herself (just like the women at their weddings)? It's easier to make assumptions about others but more meaningful to make friends.
    Faraz, I don't need to talk to her. If she chooses to wear it on a day to day basis it's her business not mine. All I am saying, like most of us on this topic, is that she remove it when taking oaths or preforming other government business that traditions and customs have no baring on. I cannot for the life of me figure why someone who wants to be accepted into another country would not show their face. Especially when it is definitely not the custom of the country she is being accepted in. If she choose to wear it why does she not choose to remove it for the ceremony?. What would be her compelling reason to keep it on?.
    Gemini, you clearly stated you believe the practice is oppressive and forced upon women and that is what's driving your belief in this situation. On top of that, you've clearly stated you would prefer to go many steps further and implement this across governmental institutions. So you can see why many of us don't see this as a single issue but a crack in the wall for the floodgates of "Canadian values," whatever that means, used as a guise for xenophobia and racism.
    I did not say the practice was forced on women, I said Islam was predominately male orientated (words on that line). I did state that I would like to see the niqab removed during government ceremony's but then put back on after the ceremony. I really don't see why you think I'm trying to put a crack in the wall for the floodgates of 'Canadian Values'. I really don't care if someone is walking down the street naked and only wearing a niqab if that's what they want to do. Just remove the niqab during the ceremony so we can see your face then put it back on when your done.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  48. #148

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by faraz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    ^Oh, by the way, your "Canadian Values" remark is pretty darn insulting.
    Not really. People often use this term to impose their social values on others so I'm calling them out for it.
    I take it your not a Canadian?.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  49. #149

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    I wonder why the Europeans who first arrived in Canada didn't adopt the native style of dress.
    No, the Europeans conquered them. That was hundreds of years ago. It also has nothing to do with this discussion.
    Oh, that makes it all OK then.
    No, it just has nothing to do with this discussion.

  50. #150

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    Can anyone justify why "I choose to wear it because of my religious beliefs" is treated differently before the law than "Because I want to"?
    Indeed. I have not seen a single attempt to answer this very important question.

  51. #151

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by faraz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    ^Oh, by the way, your "Canadian Values" remark is pretty darn insulting.
    Not really. People often use this term to impose their social values on others so I'm calling them out for it.
    Nobody has said that in this thread.

    Please stick to the topic of discussion instead of try to start a fight by labeling people who disagree with you.

  52. #152

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by faraz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    ^Oh, by the way, your "Canadian Values" remark is pretty darn insulting.
    Not really. People often use this term to impose their social values on others so I'm calling them out for it.
    I take it your not a Canadian?.
    If you define Canadian by Christian European heritage, then no I'm not.
    How do you define someone to be Canadian?

  53. #153
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    6,544

    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
    ^Oh, by the way, your "Canadian Values" remark is pretty darn insulting.
    Not really. People often use this term to impose their social values on others so I'm calling them out for it.
    I take it your not a Canadian?.
    If you define Canadian by Christian European heritage, then no I'm not.
    How do you define someone to be Canadian?
    It's something no one has figured out yet, hence the problems.

  54. #154

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drumbones View Post
    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
    ^Oh, by the way, your "Canadian Values" remark is pretty darn insulting.
    Not really. People often use this term to impose their social values on others so I'm calling them out for it.
    I take it your not a Canadian?.
    If you define Canadian by Christian European heritage, then no I'm not.
    How do you define someone to be Canadian?
    It's something no one has figured out yet, hence the problems.
    I became a citizen after the ceremony. Its as simple as that, if you are a citizen, you are Canadian, be it by birth or the ceremony, I wasn't before then. Nobody else is, not even someone who is ashamed to show their face during a ceremony.
    Last edited by moahunter; 19-03-2015 at 11:21 AM.

  55. #155
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    6,544

    Default

    Do you know about beavers and pelts? Do you know about NWMP and the red surge and Johnny Canuck? Can you skate? Do you like maple syrup? or know how to tap a tree? Can you dance the 2 step at Stampede or CFR time? Do you know about D-day and do you wear a poppy? Do you salute the flag and sing Oh Canada?or remove your hat? Have you been moose hunting or goose hunting? Do you know how to drive a snowmobile? Can you name the queen and the royal family? Do you know what an inukshuk is? Can you name the provinces and territories and their capitals offhand. Do you own a toque and mitts? Do you know how to rock a car out of a snowbank and to push accordingly? Have you been to Niagara Falls? How's your slapshot?

  56. #156

    Default

    ^many of those were in the exam, and most of those I've experienced. That doesn't make me Canadian though. Someone who doesn't play hockey isn't less Canadian than who does. I have met plenty of Canadians who were born here don't know the first thing about hockey and couldn't answer half your questions. You might think of yourself as more Canadian than them, I don't.

  57. #157
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    6,544

    Default

    Do you like poutine ? lol

  58. #158

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drumbones View Post
    Do you like poutine ? lol
    Yeah, lol, I like it, but my belly doesn't.

    PS do you know the Canadian motto? That is in the exam.

  59. #159

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Drumbones View Post
    Do you like poutine ? lol
    Yeah, lol, I like it, but my belly doesn't.

    PS do you know the Canadian motto? That is in the exam.
    ^Canadian Motto - From Sea to Sea.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  60. #160

    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
    ^Oh, by the way, your "Canadian Values" remark is pretty darn insulting.
    Not really. People often use this term to impose their social values on others so I'm calling them out for it.
    I take it your not a Canadian?.
    If you define Canadian by Christian European heritage, then no I'm not.
    How do you define someone to be Canadian?
    No, I don't define Canadians as Christian European's. Canadians are anyone born in the country or anyone who has become one by taking the oath of citizenship.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  61. #161
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    6,544

    Default

    There are exceptions. After a month of paperwork with the Canadian Consulate and various government agencies my son was born in Can Tho, Vietnam as a Canadian citizen with Canadian passport, citizenship card, SIN number, and other papers.

  62. #162

    Default

    ^Ah yes, and we should not forget those exceptions.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  63. #163

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by faraz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    ^Oh, by the way, your "Canadian Values" remark is pretty darn insulting.
    Not really. People often use this term to impose their social values on others so I'm calling them out for it.
    Nobody has said that in this thread.

    Please stick to the topic of discussion instead of try to start a fight by labeling people who disagree with you.
    I'm sticking to the topic very well. Keep your reminders to yourself.

  64. #164

    Default

    Anna Maria Tremonti speaks with two women who wear niqab and one who use to but not anymore. All of them had opposition from their male relatives who didn't want them to wear the niqab (contrary to what some people assume):

    http://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/t...2015-1.3001074

  65. #165

    Default

    I don't care if it's part of their religion freely accepted by the one wearing it and not mandated by their religion against their free will.

    However, if someone came to the country by revealing their face for a passport photo it seems somewhat contradictory to find offence with the same condition at this ceremony. However allowing it would reflect Canada's seriousness regarding rights to truly practice one's faith in our country as long as it doesn't harm or threaten others.

    Now, regarding being able to see someone's true face regardless of their discomfort, if someone has had plastic surgery or wears something due to some disfigurement what are the expectations?

  66. #166

    Default

    ^We don't all assume that it's all Islamic males who want women to wear the niqab. Like you say, some women wear it because they want to. Having said that, the niqab was not required by Allah, although male scholars misinterpreted it that way. Islam is not much different from most world religions, predominately dominated by males. I should imagine it was one of these male scholars who said women to protect their modesty should cover their faces. The extreme factions of the Muslim faith demand their women wear the niqab, no denying that. If you wear it because you want to then more power to you, but realize it was a male scholar who told you to do it, not your God.
    I realize that the women who wore the niqab took the oath with her veil off in a separate office. That all could have been avoided if they had placed her in the front row of the ceremony. She could have took her niqab off and been placed in such a way that only those who needed to see her say the oath could have, then she could have put it back on. That way she would have been included in the ceremony with the rest of the new Canadians.
    Last edited by Gemini; 19-03-2015 at 06:49 PM.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  67. #167

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    I don't care if it's part of their religion freely accepted by the one wearing it and not mandated by their religion against their free will.

    However, if someone came to the country by revealing their face for a passport photo it seems somewhat contradictory to find offence with the same condition at this ceremony. However allowing it would reflect Canada's seriousness regarding rights to truly practice one's faith in our country as long as it doesn't harm or threaten others.

    Now, regarding being able to see someone's true face regardless of their discomfort, if someone has had plastic surgery or wears something due to some disfigurement what are the expectations?
    Good point about the passport. Getting a passport has nothing to do with religion either. Neither does becoming a citizen so why say it's about religions freedoms. If you have to remove your niqab for a Canadian Passport your should be required to remove it while becoming a citizen.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  68. #168

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    I don't care if it's part of their religion freely accepted by the one wearing it and not mandated by their religion against their free will.

    However, if someone came to the country by revealing their face for a passport photo it seems somewhat contradictory to find offence with the same condition at this ceremony. However allowing it would reflect Canada's seriousness regarding rights to truly practice one's faith in our country as long as it doesn't harm or threaten others.

    Now, regarding being able to see someone's true face regardless of their discomfort, if someone has had plastic surgery or wears something due to some disfigurement what are the expectations?
    Good point about the passport. Getting a passport has nothing to do with religion either. Neither does becoming a citizen so why say it's about religions freedoms. If you have to remove your niqab for a Canadian Passport your should be required to remove it while becoming a citizen.
    The Citizenship Act disagrees with you:

    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.
    Last edited by kkozoriz; 19-03-2015 at 07:00 PM.

  69. #169

    Default

    Everyone, you know, the next big controversy will be about the oath itself. In my view, in coming to Canada and swearing to it, one is to some degree essentially swearing to it on behalf of all the generations that the immigrant seeds in our country. There is an expectation of loyalty to one's new country and it's peoples and to a much lesser respect to one's old country and it's peoples.

  70. #170

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    I don't care if it's part of their religion freely accepted by the one wearing it and not mandated by their religion against their free will.

    However, if someone came to the country by revealing their face for a passport photo it seems somewhat contradictory to find offence with the same condition at this ceremony. However allowing it would reflect Canada's seriousness regarding rights to truly practice one's faith in our country as long as it doesn't harm or threaten others.

    Now, regarding being able to see someone's true face regardless of their discomfort, if someone has had plastic surgery or wears something due to some disfigurement what are the expectations?
    Good point about the passport. Getting a passport has nothing to do with religion either. Neither does becoming a citizen so why say it's about religions freedoms. If you have to remove your niqab for a Canadian Passport your should be required to remove it while becoming a citizen.
    The Citizenship Act disagrees with you:

    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.
    And allowing it would be a symbolic gesture as to our belief in our constitutional freedoms and possibly the rule of law.

    BTW my family's roots here in Canada predate Canada (1,000s of years, 200 years, 150 years and 100 years depending on the lineage) and I am ok with it, and bathing suits, and suits and ties, and wigs, and exposed religious symbols like crosses, etc. so these are the real Canadian values.

    Oh, and add about 300 years residency in Canada if you add my French Canadian sister-in-law's bloodlines who also has very liberal, non-Harper values.
    Last edited by KC; 19-03-2015 at 07:28 PM.

  71. #171

    Default

    ^Just because it says that it does not mean there is no cut off point. The greatest possible freedom, I'm sure if someone says before the ceremony 'can I keep my face covered' someone is going to say 'that's not possible', or can I stand buck naked, not possible.
    Becoming a Canadian Citizen is not a right it's a privilege. Muslim women remove their veils to require a drivers licence and as mentioned by another poster Canadian Passports.

    By the way KK, if you are going to quote paragraphs from sources other than your own can you provide a link to those sources.
    Last edited by Gemini; 19-03-2015 at 07:19 PM.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  72. #172

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    I don't care if it's part of their religion freely accepted by the one wearing it and not mandated by their religion against their free will.

    However, if someone came to the country by revealing their face for a passport photo it seems somewhat contradictory to find offence with the same condition at this ceremony. However allowing it would reflect Canada's seriousness regarding rights to truly practice one's faith in our country as long as it doesn't harm or threaten others.

    Now, regarding being able to see someone's true face regardless of their discomfort, if someone has had plastic surgery or wears something due to some disfigurement what are the expectations?
    Good point about the passport. Getting a passport has nothing to do with religion either. Neither does becoming a citizen so why say it's about religions freedoms. If you have to remove your niqab for a Canadian Passport your should be required to remove it while becoming a citizen.
    The Citizenship Act disagrees with you:

    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.
    So does a 'not compelled by Islam/Allah' edict trump concealing ones identity during a public ceremony.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  73. #173

    Default

    I was simply repeating what I had posted previously and that you apparently didn't read.

    How about this? And she's not concealing her identity.

    “In an open and democratic society like Canada, individuals are free to make their own decisions regarding their personal apparel and to adhere to their own customs or traditions of their faith or beliefs.” - The Prime Minister's Office, 2009

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe...rticle4180899/
    And yes, the judge did take that quote from the Citizenship Act into account. Here's the whole relavent portion.

    While applying for citizenship in 2013, Ishaq had agreed to unveil herself to an official before taking the citizenship test. But she objected to removing her niqab at the public swearing-in ceremony.

    Ishaq, a permanent resident, later sued the government, arguing, in part, that the ban against her wearing the niqab during the ceremony was an infringement of her charter rights.

    Boswell, however, in rendering his decision, thought it "imprudent to decide the charter issues that arose” in this case, instead saying the "evidentiary record was adequate to decide the matter."

    "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.

    Once again, the Harper Government believes itself to be above Parliament and, eventually, the Supreme Court and the Charter. If they appeal, and they've said that they will. they will most likely lose. They could then try amending the Citizenship Act and that would bring about a Charter complaint. Simply saying "I don't agree with what she's doing" won't cut it.

  74. #174

    Default

    I wonder what the Queen, the head of the country and a religion might have to say about this? She's part of our Canadian values too, yet many people want to dump the the very royalty that they or their predecessors swore to be loyal to.

    I swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.

  75. #175
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    6,544

    Default

    Living in London, UK, she is likely laughing at out little problem.

  76. #176

    Default

    ^^The Queen is Defender of the Faith for the Church of England. She may have an opinion about all this but she would never voice it publicly. When it comes to politics and religion she publicly stays neutral.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  77. #177

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drumbones View Post
    Living in London, UK, she is likely laughing at out little problem.
    Probably hates wearing that stinking 30lb crown or whatever weight it is. But it's a mandate and she has no choice. Likely some male centuries ago thought it would be a good thing for kings and queens to do.

  78. #178

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    I was simply repeating what I had posted previously and that you apparently didn't read.

    How about this? And she's not concealing her identity.

    “In an open and democratic society like Canada, individuals are free to make their own decisions regarding their personal apparel and to adhere to their own customs or traditions of their faith or beliefs.” - The Prime Minister's Office, 2009

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe...rticle4180899/
    And yes, the judge did take that quote from the Citizenship Act into account. Here's the whole relavent portion.

    While applying for citizenship in 2013, Ishaq had agreed to unveil herself to an official before taking the citizenship test. But she objected to removing her niqab at the public swearing-in ceremony.

    Ishaq, a permanent resident, later sued the government, arguing, in part, that the ban against her wearing the niqab during the ceremony was an infringement of her charter rights.

    Boswell, however, in rendering his decision, thought it "imprudent to decide the charter issues that arose” in this case, instead saying the "evidentiary record was adequate to decide the matter."

    "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.

    Once again, the Harper Government believes itself to be above Parliament and, eventually, the Supreme Court and the Charter. If they appeal, and they've said that they will. they will most likely lose. They could then try amending the Citizenship Act and that would bring about a Charter complaint. Simply saying "I don't agree with what she's doing" won't cut it.
    Did not read my post where I said all this could have been avoided if they had of placed her in the front row of the ceremony, placed her in a way that the judge or official could see her when she said the oath, then put her veil back on.
    Did you not read the post where wearing a niqab is not a requirement of Islam. If it's not a requirement of their own religion how can we be trampling on their religious freedom.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  79. #179

    Default

    This sums it up pretty well.

    Harper should follow our secular law on niqab
    Haroon Siddiqui Columnist, Published on Sat Mar 14 2015

    It does not matter that Harper believes that the niqab is “rooted in a culture that is anti-women.” Several Christian, Jewish, Hindu and other practices, right here in Canada, are anti-women.

    Even more irrelevant is whether or not the niqab is a religious requirement (Muslims have been arguing that for 1,400 years). It is of as little value as the proposition floated by some in the 1990s that a turban for Sikh males was not a requirement of the Sikh faith.

    What matters in democratic, secular Canada is the rule of law — our law, not the law of some sacred text.

    For the purposes of public policy, a religious belief is not what a mullah or a rabbi or a priest or a Harper or a Kenney dictates. It is what a believer sincerely believes it to be, according to the Supreme Court of Canada.

    In Canada, it matters not whether the niqab is Qur’an-compliant but whether banning it would be Charter-compliant.

    It is strange to be invoking theocracy to uphold secular values.

    It is stranger still to be promoting gender equity when ordering what a woman should or should not wear.

    It is ironic in the extreme that a law-and-order government is refusing to accept a Federal Court ruling that Ottawa’s ban on the niqab is “unlawful.”

    ---

    “You can dislike the niqab. You can hold it up it is a symbol of oppression. You can try to convince your fellow citizens that it is a choice they ought not to make.
    “This is a free country. Those are your rights.
    “But those who would use the state’s power to restrict women’s religious freedom and freedom of expression indulge the very same repressive impulse that they profess to condemn.
    “It is a cruel joke to claim you are liberating people from oppression by dictating in law what they can and cannot wear.
    “We all know what is going on here. It is nothing less than an attempt to play on people’s fears and foster prejudice, directly toward the Muslim faith . . .
    “What we cannot ever do is blur the line between a real security threat and simple prejudice, as this government has done. I believe they have done it deliberately, and I believe what they have done is deeply wrong.”

    http://www.thestar.com/opinion/comme...-siddiqui.html

  80. #180
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    6,544

    Default

    ^ agree with you 100% kkozoriz, I voted yes right from the start and no matter any of my crazy comments this hits the nail on the head, bang on

  81. #181

    Default

    Oh, Is that the same Haroon Siddiqui who wrote this book.

    http://www.amazon.ca/Being-Muslim-Ha.../dp/0888998872

    Yeah, he's a Liberal. Has also received an award from the Canadian Islamic Congress.

    Mind, not biased in any way.

    He also asks penetrating questions: for example, Why does the U.S. turn a blind eye to suffocating restrictions on women in Saudi Arabia?

    ^This is from his own book.
    Last edited by Gemini; 19-03-2015 at 08:34 PM.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  82. #182

    Default

    Yeah, that book is really radical.

    Adult/High School—This balanced, concise book is an excellent resource for social studies or debate class. Siddiqui explores the current political, religious, and secular aspects of being a member of the world's fastest-growing religion. He challenges Western assumptions about Islam and assigns blame to both the West and Islamic fundamentalists for fanning the flames of Islamophobia. Although he tackles stereotypes, the author is not a Muslim apologist-he describes the tenets of the religion in objective, non-proselytizing prose, acknowledging the need for reforms while explaining that most oppression of women results from traditional cultural practices rather than Islamic teachings. Siddiqui acknowledges the desperate living conditions many Muslims endure in the developing world, emphasizing the need to address these circumstances instead of offering them as a valid excuse for violence. He describes what post-9/11 life has been like for Muslims in the United States, in Europe, and in Muslim countries. Sidebars illustrate Islamic contributions to popular culture (e.g., Muslim stand-up comics and hip-hop artists), and the index, notes, bibliography, and illustrative charts are all useful. The author's tone is conversational and engaging, and frequent breaks in the text make this small book very readable.—Sondra VanderPloeg, Tracy Memorial Library, New London, NH

    http://www.amazon.ca/Being-Muslim-Ha.../dp/0888998872
    So, only Conservatives have a right to say anything about this Gemini? Sounds about right in line with what you've been saying. Do you get the CPC & PMO talking points in your inbox every day?

    Freedom of religion means that even people you disagree with can practice their religion without your approval. She certainly seems to hold her beliefs quite sincerely.

  83. #183

    Default

    Do you see things, who said the book was radical. No any one of any political or religious bent can jump right into this forum and give us their opinion as that is what forums are all about. Anyone can find an article that is going to reflect their view of the topic in question. It's not rocket science. You happened to find a one that suited your needs and thought it was going to change every ones mind on how they felt about the issue. I guess it's real easy to sit and hide behind your keyboard and call people racist when all people are asking is for her to remove her veil for two minutes while taken the oath. Where not asking to see her Regina, just her face, the one that she was blessed with. Keep pounding your drum buddy and don't be implying people are racist when there is no basis in any of my posts that indicate that.
    By the way who is the 'she' you are talking about in your last ^ post
    Last edited by Gemini; 20-03-2015 at 12:20 AM.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  84. #184

    Default

    She - The woman who we've been talking about.

    You're objecting to the opinions of Haroon Siddiqui because he's a) a liberal and b) received an award from the Canadian Islamic Congress? He's also a member of the Order of Canada. Is that a plus or a minus in your eyes?

    Awarded on May 30, 2001; Invested on February 22, 2002

    A highly respected journalist, he has been an advocate for fairness and equality of opportunity. He has challenged stereotypical thinking about minorities through his newspaper articles and public appearances. Calling for active involvement of new Canadians in mainstream society, he has encouraged dialogue and understanding. Editor Emeritus at The Toronto Star, he continues to promote acceptance in our pluralist society and a broader role for Canada in the global village.

    http://www.gg.ca/honour.aspx?id=6492&t=12&ln=Siddiqui
    And, luckily, we live in a country where people have rights and don't have to submit to your petty attempts to demonize someone simply because they're different and have customs that we may not understand. We don't have to understand or even support their customs, but we do have to allow them the right to hold those customs that they sincerely believe.

    If we're going to be holding up "Canadian values" all the time then we should at the very least make an attempt to live up to them ourselves.
    Last edited by kkozoriz; 20-03-2015 at 09:26 AM.

  85. #185
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    You mean values like "Freedom from Discrimination based on religion" that should insist that we treat this no different than an anarchist who would like to wear a balaclava?

    Or maybe social conventions that are so widespread and were so universal that in all the years of english and commonwealth common law there was never a need for a written law, or even for a common law case. Things like the necessity of exposing your face before officials, in court, and in other official settings has been so obvious and so unarguable for so long that we never had to codify before now.

  86. #186

    Default

    She was willing to show her face to the court officials. What she's objecting to is showing her face in public.

    Times change. Customs change. Countries change. It wasn't that long ago that slavery was acceptable, that women were not allowed to vote, that people of different races were not allowed to marry.

    We never had to codify the right of same sex couples to marry either because, up until just a few years ago, they wee not permitted to. Should we roll that back because that's not how it was done in English common law? Same sex couples can now sponsor their spouses to immigrate to Canada. A decade ago, that wouldn't have been possible.

  87. #187
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Showing her face for a short moment in a closed room hardly meets the universal standards of western culture. Anyone attempting to wear any other type of face covering or mask in an official setting, anything from school to applying for a passport would be told unconditionally that the mask must be removed and they can leave the premises until they do so. The same would occur if you were to try to visit a bank teller or to buy a car. So what's different about a Niqab?

    Nothing, that's what.

    Yes, times change. We do dress differently than 100 or even 50 years ago, but the constant through all those years is that it has never been the custom of trustworthy people to cover their faces. Throughout all that time it was understood that there was no good reason to refuse to uncover you face for the duration of a court case, of for the duration of a ceremony, or for the duration of a school day, no matter how much you would rather hide or play dress-up. That there is no good reason remains.

    None of your other cases are even close to analogous to a Niqab. Abolition of Race-based slavery, recognition of female personhood and normalization of interracial marriage all represent a movement towards equal treatment before the law, not towards religious exceptionalism.

  88. #188
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    6,544

    Default

    Ya I guess if two men can be married in the eyes of the law, pretty well anything goes after that I'd say

  89. #189

    Default

    ^Did either of them wear veils?.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  90. #190
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    6,544

    Default

    I don't know, you may know more than I do. Lol

  91. #191
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    6,544

    Default

    Just kidding. I think I'm tired of this thread now. I don't give a hoot. Let her do what she wants. My last comment on this one.

  92. #192

    Default

    Don't know much about men marrying. I'm on the pink team and married someone from the blue team. I didn't wear a veil either.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  93. #193
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    6,544

    Default

    Oh, didn't know that. Good to know I guess. I'm a single dad these days since my unveiled wife ran off with a bf. Lol

  94. #194

    Default

    ^I bet you miss your friend. L O L
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  95. #195

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by faraz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by faraz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    ^Oh, by the way, your "Canadian Values" remark is pretty darn insulting.
    Not really. People often use this term to impose their social values on others so I'm calling them out for it.
    Nobody has said that in this thread.

    Please stick to the topic of discussion instead of try to start a fight by labeling people who disagree with you.
    I'm sticking to the topic very well. Keep your reminders to yourself.
    Labeling posters is akin to name-calling.

    I'll call you and anyone else out on it when I see it, because it's a dishonest and condescending way to argue a point.

  96. #196

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by faraz View Post
    Anna Maria Tremonti speaks with two women who wear niqab and one who use to but not anymore. All of them had opposition from their male relatives who didn't want them to wear the niqab (contrary to what some people assume):

    http://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/t...2015-1.3001074
    Good.

    It is nice to see that some women have family members who love them enough and are supportive enough to try to convince them not to be ashamed of who they are and explain that they do not have to hide their faces, contrary to what the culture in their misogynistic society pressures women to do.

  97. #197

    Default

    And yet the choice still remains with the women instead of those male realatives or politicians telling them what to do.

    I'm sure that the women know that they are not required to wear the niqab and that their reasons for doing so do not include being ashamed. There's probably any number of reasons why they choose to wear it. Funny how giving women the right to decide what they want to wear is considered misogynistic. You'll notice that the family members noted in the story also constitute part of society and they don't seem terribly misogynistic. Much easier to just paint everyone with the same brush and claim you're liberating women by taking away their ability to make their own decisions.

    No woman should be forced to wear a niqab. She also shouldn't be forced to give it up if she's wearing it of her own free will, for whatever reason that is.

  98. #198

    Default

    ^Then I suggest every women going to a citizenship ceremony only wear open crotch panties, nipple pasties and high heel shoes if they choose to do so. If the men want to do the same, so be it. Why not completely relax the dress code. Go as you please. A family could go as the Village People. Maybe a couple of guys could go as Laurel & Hardy. Let's make ceremonies fun no matter how serious or official the occasion is. Have clowns, face painting, balloons. Play 'guess who's under this face covering' type games. If you win you get a free surprise grab bag. If it's an anything goes attitude we might as well have 'an anything goes' attitude. Just say it's all being done in the name of religious freedom.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  99. #199

    Default

    Yes, because that's exactly the same thing as a woman choosing to dress a certain way because of he religious beliefs.

    Let's prevent anyone with a niqab from taking the oath. That'll take care of a portion of the Muslims. Then, let's say you have to remove any head coverings, that'll take care of a lot of the other Muslim women as well as the Sikhs and orthodox Jews. Pretty soon we can cut it down to just white anglo-saxons. That should make you happy.

    Now, if you can just figure out how to fee rid of the ones that were born here….



    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...56372905_n.jpg

  100. #200

    Default

    ^We are not talking about removing head coverings, we are talking about face coverings. Big difference. Please don't tell me what makes me happy as you have know idea. Don't imply I'm racist because I want someone to remove their veil for 2 minutes at an official ceremony so every one will be on the same footing. Spoiler alert: don't read this if your a bleeding heart Liberal or an Angry Tom follower.

    From today's Sun editorial:

    Anthony Furey reasoned that “it would be lovely if religious and civic responsibility never came into conflict. But evidently they sometimes do. And in the civic sphere, civic duties come first. It’s deeply troubling that an aspiring citizen would attempt to assert the superiority of her religion over the state while fulfilling her first civic responsibility.”

    Former Muslim Canadian Congress president Farzana Hassan explained that opposing the niqab “is neither racist nor sexist. On the contrary, it opposes the segregation and marginalization of Muslim women and the associated misogyny. The niqab contradicts all that Canada stands for: equal opportunity for women of any cultural or ethnic origin.”
    She adds: “What is really happening here is an attempt to influence government institutions by imposing an extreme version of Islam on one aspect of it — dress codes.”

    http://www.edmontonsun.com/2015/03/2...on-citizenship
    Last edited by Gemini; 21-03-2015 at 11:30 PM.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 123456 ... 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
  •