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 3 of 11 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 300 of 1064

Thread: Niqab citizenship ceremonies Trudeau versus Harper

  1. #201

    Default

    Except that the law doesn't require the attendees to show their face. This was shoved down the throat by the Harper government and rightly struck down by the courts. Now the pitch forks are out in the name of some antiquated notions of societal values and responsibilities.

    It doesn't take much to go from face covering to head covering and that's where this government intends to go eventually, as foreshadowed by the slip of the tongue from the Conservative minsters.

  2. #202

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    ^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
    However we have freedom of religion in this country and so such beliefs conflict with laws on a number of fronts. (Abortion, alcohol, expression, women's rights, sexual preference rights, etc.). Whether it's a good belief, a bad belief, a wonderful belief or a horrifying belief, we have to tolerate it, if it doesn't break the laws and constitutional obligations.
    Last edited by KC; 22-03-2015 at 06:27 AM.

  3. #203

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by faraz View Post
    Except that the law doesn't require the attendees to show their face. This was shoved down the throat by the Harper government and rightly struck down by the courts. Now the pitch forks are out in the name of some antiquated notions of societal values and responsibilities.

    It doesn't take much to go from face covering to head covering and that's where this government intends to go eventually, as foreshadowed by the slip of the tongue from the Conservative minsters.
    Headgear... A weird religious and state convention isn't it...

    http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2105/4...2d90eaa2_b.jpg



    ~
    Last edited by KC; 22-03-2015 at 06:40 AM.

  4. #204

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by faraz View Post
    It doesn't take much to go from face covering to head covering and that's where this government intends to go eventually, as foreshadowed by the slip of the tongue from the Conservative minsters.
    This is a slippery slope argument and is very weak.

  5. #205

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by faraz View Post
    It doesn't take much to go from face covering to head covering and that's where this government intends to go eventually, as foreshadowed by the slip of the tongue from the Conservative minsters.
    This is a slippery slope argument and is very weak.
    Would appreciate a link in regards to what some minister said.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  6. #206

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by faraz View Post
    Except that the law doesn't require the attendees to show their face. This was shoved down the throat by the Harper government and rightly struck down by the courts. Now the pitch forks are out in the name of some antiquated notions of societal values and responsibilities.

    It doesn't take much to go from face covering to head covering and that's where this government intends to go eventually, as foreshadowed by the slip of the tongue from the Conservative minsters.
    Headgear... A weird religious and state convention isn't it...

    http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2105/4...2d90eaa2_b.jpg



    ~
    Again you are still having difficulty distinguishing head coverings with face coverings.
    Last edited by Gemini; 22-03-2015 at 11:22 AM.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  7. #207

    Default

    I think the only reason the question of head coverings came up a couple of times is because a lot of people mistake the words "niqab" and 'hijab'. Those are not words from the English language, and are easily confused for people who do not speak any Arabic.

    I sometimes mistake the word hijab for niqab (and vise-versa), but I clearly know the difference between head covering and a face covering.

  8. #208

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    I think the only reason the question of head coverings came up a couple of times is because a lot of people mistake the words "niqab" and 'hijab'. Those are not words from the English language, and are easily confused for people who do not speak any Arabic.

    I sometimes mistake the word hijab for niqab (and vise-versa), but I clearly know the difference between head covering and a face covering.
    It was Chris Alexander, who is the citizenship minster and also served as an ambassador to several Muslim majority countries including Afghanistan. when asked to clarify, he didn't back track on it.

    http://www.macleans.ca/politics/otta...jab-reference/

  9. #209

    Default

    The niqab is not a requirement under Islam, it's not asked of from Allah. Moderate male and female Muslims do not follow the wearing of it. The more extreme the Muslim country the more women tend to wear them. Asking someone to remove their niqab for 2 minutes while taking their oath of citizenship with others in the ceremony is not an unreasonable request. Saying it's a religious requirement is stretching it, it's more cultural than religious.
    Last edited by Gemini; 22-03-2015 at 06:40 PM.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  10. #210

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    The niqab is not a requirement under Islam, it's not asked of from Allah. Moderate male and female Muslims do not follow the wearing of it. The more extreme the Muslim country the more women tend to wear them. Asking someone to remove their niqab for 2 minutes while taking their oath of citizenship with others in the ceremony is not an unreasonable request. Saying it's a religious requirement is stretching it, it's more cultural than religious.
    You've repeated this claim 5 times now even though I provided proof contrary to it. Yet you have nothing to show for this claim other than your personal opinion.

  11. #211

    Default

    ^ and I'll say it another 5 times. Like you said in your own post #111, it's a tradition. The charter does not say freedom of religion and religious traditions. If you read over my posts I have never said she was forced into wearing her veil by her relatives. I don't really care why she wears it, her business not mine. It would have been polite of her to take her oath with other New Canadians & removed her face covering for the 2 minute duration. To me all these religions have these stupid half baked ideas that are bizarre to say the least, most of them came about by being translated hundreds of years ago by male scholars. Never heard of one religion yet that states when a women dies there will be 12 buff guys waiting for her. I guess that must have been lost in translation.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  12. #212

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by faraz View Post
    It was Chris Alexander, who is the citizenship minster and also served as an ambassador to several Muslim majority countries including Afghanistan. when asked to clarify, he didn't back track on it.

    http://www.macleans.ca/politics/otta...jab-reference/
    He was referring purely to the judge's ruling, and it's clear that HE doesn't care about whether his terminology is correct or not.

  13. #213

    Default

    An interesting part of the Charter of Rights for those who flap about people's right to wear the niqab:

    http://www.pch.gc.ca/eng/1391112250275

    The rights and freedoms in the Charter are not absolute. They can be limited in order to protect other rights or important national values. For example, freedom of expression may be limited by laws against hate propaganda or pornography.
    Section 1 of the Charter says that Charter rights can be limited by other laws so long as those limits can be shown to be reasonable in a free and democratic society.
    The Supreme Court of Canada has stated that a limit on Charter rights is acceptable if:

    • the limit deals with a pressing and substantial social problem, and
    • the government's response to the problem is reasonable and demonstrably justified.

    (highlighted by me)

    I guess freedom to wear the niqab does have it's limits.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  14. #214

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    An interesting part of the Charter of Rights for those who flap about people's right to wear the niqab:

    http://www.pch.gc.ca/eng/1391112250275

    The rights and freedoms in the Charter are not absolute. They can be limited in order to protect other rights or important national values. For example, freedom of expression may be limited by laws against hate propaganda or pornography.
    Section 1 of the Charter says that Charter rights can be limited by other laws so long as those limits can be shown to be reasonable in a free and democratic society.
    The Supreme Court of Canada has stated that a limit on Charter rights is acceptable if:

    • the limit deals with a pressing and substantial social problem, and
    • the government's response to the problem is reasonable and demonstrably justified.

    (highlighted by me)

    I guess freedom to wear the niqab does have it's limits.
    Everything has limits but in this case the niqab is not violating anyone else's right and the courts have ruled accordingly. Fortunately for us, we are nation of laws not personal opinions based on subjective social values.

  15. #215

    Default

    If you believe that the lawyers and judges who argue and make rulings over the Charter don't let their personal opinions or subjective social values affect their interpretations, then you are foolish.

  16. #216

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    If you believe that the lawyers and judges who argue and make rulings over the Charter don't let their personal opinions or subjective social values affect their interpretations, then you are foolish.
    Rich you're name calling people when you go around policing others and asking them to apologize.

    Either way, your opinion is not backed by the courts right now and that's all what matters in the grand scheme of things.

  17. #217

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by faraz View Post
    Rich you're name calling people
    Nope.

    Read it again (but more carefully this time).

    EDIT - My name isn't "Rich", either.

  18. #218

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by faraz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    An interesting part of the Charter of Rights for those who flap about people's right to wear the niqab:

    http://www.pch.gc.ca/eng/1391112250275

    The rights and freedoms in the Charter are not absolute. They can be limited in order to protect other rights or important national values. For example, freedom of expression may be limited by laws against hate propaganda or pornography.
    Section 1 of the Charter says that Charter rights can be limited by other laws so long as those limits can be shown to be reasonable in a free and democratic society.
    The Supreme Court of Canada has stated that a limit on Charter rights is acceptable if:

    • the limit deals with a pressing and substantial social problem, and
    • the government's response to the problem is reasonable and demonstrably justified.

    (highlighted by me)

    I guess freedom to wear the niqab does have it's limits.
    Everything has limits but in this case the niqab is not violating anyone else's right and the courts have ruled accordingly. Fortunately for us, we are nation of laws not personal opinions based on subjective social values.
    How about the common law of being able to see someone's face. Some things in life are just every day things that are common sense that there is no need to right them into a law. What you are saying by your previous 'whatever Canadian Values' are is that this one niqab wearing women wants to override a national value. 70% of Canadians don't agree with her.
    This ruling has been appealed and I hope it is overturned. I also hope it is written into the literature (along with the honour killings, female mutilation etc.) that is given to new immigrants that it is not allowed to wear a veil during official ceremonies. I can't believe in 21st. century that anyone can believe that a women covering her face is supposedly protecting her modesty. If I met that sista I'd be telling her to pick her battles more wisely.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  19. #219

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by faraz View Post
    Except that the law doesn't require the attendees to show their face. This was shoved down the throat by the Harper government and rightly struck down by the courts. Now the pitch forks are out in the name of some antiquated notions of societal values and responsibilities.

    It doesn't take much to go from face covering to head covering and that's where this government intends to go eventually, as foreshadowed by the slip of the tongue from the Conservative minsters.
    Headgear... A weird religious and state convention isn't it...

    http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2105/4...2d90eaa2_b.jpg



    ~
    Again you are still having difficulty distinguishing head coverings with face coverings.
    Well you always make me work. So how about makeup? "Covergirl" to the extent it applies. And coloured contact lenses, hair dye,... Seems we want to see a face but it doesn't matter how true that face is.

    Of course, we all know that cowboys always took off their hats and bandanas when entering a home. It's our tradition.

  20. #220

    Default

    I don't think the citizenship ceremony cares if you wear makeup or not, male or female. It's not a shoot for Canada's Next Top Model. If you can wear makeup for your passport photo why would they object to it at the citizenship swearing in. If pictures are taken at the citizenship court for official reasons with todays technology and face recognition equipment they can even recognize Shrek in lipstick.
    Not sure about your cowboy remark but I'll put it down to the fact you may have just been watching Blazing Saddles or Brokeback Mountain.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  21. #221
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Cowboys may have left their hats on in the saloon, but if they kept their bandanas up I'm sure they were asked to leave, or participate in a gun fight. Remember, they guys with bandanas over their faces when not riding into a wind storm were assumed to be outlaws.

  22. #222

    Default

    ^You telling that story about cowboys reminds me of when I was very young, about 9 or 10, I was watching a T V program about the middle east. I remember the narrator saying that the women wore the burka to protect themselves from sand storms and the glaring sun. That sand was abrasive and could sting and the burka was the perfect garment for the dessert. Now, I don't know where he got his information from but that stuck with me for a long time.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  23. #223
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    A recent national geographic had a feature on the Tuareg people of Mali, and Timbuktu. They're Muslim but there women have their faces uncovered but men partially cover their faces when outdoors. It's not like a Niqab, more like a scarf they keep across the mouth and nose, and it makes sense for desert caravan people.

  24. #224

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    Cowboys may have left their hats on in the saloon, but if they kept their bandanas up I'm sure they were asked to leave, or participate in a gun fight. Remember, they guys with bandanas over their faces when not riding into a wind storm were assumed to be outlaws.
    Well, of course if they had a white hat and white horse they were ok. Maybe a Niqab plus a white hat would have reflected Canadian values.

    Though the Lone Ranger when officially working for the forces of goodness, wore a mask. Hmmm, American values are so confusing.





    http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Disne...ger-38415.html


    And then there's this...


    http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/12...ations-issues/
    Last edited by KC; 24-03-2015 at 02:15 PM.

  25. #225
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    4,469

    Default

    Who's a pretty boy, then!
    Nisi Dominus Frustra

  26. #226

    Default

    I like some veils. Don't know why though.


    Canadian gender equality under threat from ‘society of immigration’: Former PM Kim Campbell | National Post

    "EDMONTON — Former prime minister Kim Campbell told a University of Alberta audience Wednesday the equality of women is a Canadian value that has found little purchase in a “society of immigration.”

    Some individuals in Canadian society, she said, come from cultures that don’t believe in gender equality. ..."


    http://news.nationalpost.com/news/ca...m-kim-campbell
    It is such a weird custom...


    http://bridalcouturecloset.com/_blog...lushing_Bride/
    Last edited by KC; 17-04-2015 at 12:54 AM.

  27. #227

    Default

    Separation of Church and State.

    Except when it means a trade deal or ethnic votes.

    Yesterday
    http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/naren...ncouver-755661




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

  28. #228

    Default

    Are their faces covered?

    No.

    Hats were never the discussion.

  29. #229

    Default

    Banning the burka in Australia

    Listen at 3:25

    http://thumbnails.cbc.ca/maven_legac...6_uploaded.mp3



    Comedy won't stop racism — but it helps people survive, says Aamer Rahman - Home | Q | CBC Radio
    http://www.cbc.ca/radio/q/schedule-f...hman-1.3041848


    ~
    Last edited by KC; 21-04-2015 at 10:46 AM.

  30. #230

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Are their faces covered?

    No.

    Hats were never the discussion.

    Maybe if the veil was below the nose. Is it the nose we must see? ...but covering the cheeks or part of them and the lips and chin etc is ok? Did Taschereau below reflect Canadian values?



    Sir Henri Elzear Taschereau
    Excerpt:
    "Sir Henri-Elzéar Taschereau, PC (October 7, 1836 – April 14, 1911) was a Canadian jurist and the fourth Chief Justice of Canada.

    He was born in his family's seigneurial manor house at Sainte-Marie-de-la-Beauce, Lower Canada to Pierre-Elzéar Taschereau and Catherine Hénédine Dionne. Tashereau attended the Université Laval and was called to the Bar of Quebec in 1857. That same year he married Marie-Antoinette de Lotbiniere Harwood...

    "He was the great, great grandson of Thomas-Jacques Taschereau, the patriarch of the family in Canada. He was first-cousin once-removed to the brothers Elzéar Alexandre Cardinal Taschereau and Supreme Court Justice Jean-Thomas Taschereau. Jean-Thomas's son Louis-Alexandre would serve as Premier of Quebec. His grandson Robert Taschereau would also serve as Chief Justice..."


    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri...Taschereau.jpg



    Below: Cheeks and nose shown but a good part of the face is covered.

    6 Canadian PMs ranked for beard, moustache or sideburn quality
    Rt. Hon. Sir Mackenzie Bowell: Without question Canada’s greatest bearded prime minister
    macleans.ca
    August 16, 2014


    http://www.macleans.ca/society/6-can...eburn-quality/
    Last edited by KC; 21-04-2015 at 11:26 AM.

  31. #231

    Default

    You are silly. That man is not wearing a mask in any of those photos.

  32. #232

    Default

    ^He's grasping at straws to get his point across but it's not working. What a stupid comparison to make.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  33. #233

    Default

    Well, fake beards can be used to conceal identities, too.

  34. #234

    Default

    I seem to vaguely recall seeing someone that had become a Canadian Citizen and they had a Certificate card (about the size of a credit card) stating this. It was laminated, had the persons name, a reference number and a picture of the person. This person became a Canadian Citizen in the 1980's. I wonder if they still give these out?.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  35. #235
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    It's absurd, really. It's so obvious that it didn't make it into common law, for centuries anyone even trying to go masked in an official setting would have been laughed at and told to take it off. And they would have listened, because wearing a mask is a bizarre request and so clearly at odds with the principles of honest citizenship and open government. Now, suddenly, that's a liability. Thanks to some judges misinterpreting the "shall not discriminate on the basis of religion" not as the correct and rational "treat us all the same no matter what religion", but as "religious justifications for eccentric and otherwise illegal behavior shall trump the law and social convention".

  36. #236

    Default

    What would happen if a full fledged Hells Angel wanted to wear his full patch outfit at the ceremony. Wonder how his rights would be interpreted.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  37. #237

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    What would happen if a full fledged Hells Angel wanted to wear his full patch outfit at the ceremony. Wonder how his rights would be interpreted.
    There surely would be conflicts between pledges of allegiance.

  38. #238

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    It's absurd, really. It's so obvious that it didn't make it into common law, for centuries anyone even trying to go masked in an official setting would have been laughed at and told to take it off. And they would have listened, because wearing a mask is a bizarre request and so clearly at odds with the principles of honest citizenship and open government. Now, suddenly, that's a liability. Thanks to some judges misinterpreting the "shall not discriminate on the basis of religion" not as the correct and rational "treat us all the same no matter what religion", but as "religious justifications for eccentric and otherwise illegal behavior shall trump the law and social convention".
    And women were property and if they wanted to take part in government, they would have been laughed at and told to leave.

    What's your point?

    Times change and society changes with it. It's absurd that people believe that the way to promote freedom is to prevent women from willing wearing what they want to, religious or otherwise.

    How about this, perfectly acceptable? Her face is uncovered after all and she's from a good, Christian family.

    How a teenager’s viral campaign to prove her citizenship is inspiring a new Texas bill

    Alecia Faith Pennington describes herself as a Texan, born and raised. But in a video that went viral after she posted it on YouTube last month, Pennington said her parents never obtained a birth certificate or other basic documentation of her life, leaving her with “nothing to prove my identity” — or her U.S. citizenship. Because she was home-schooled, she also has no school records. That means, the 19-year-old said, that she’s unable to get a job, go to college or obtain a driver’s licence.

    ---

    It can be difficult to understand how someone like Pennington could end up in the situation she describes. Alecia, who also goes by Faith (her middle name), is one of nine children, all home-schooled by her parents, Lisa and James. Both are prominent members of the state’s home-schooling community; in 2010, the Penningtons were the Texas Homeschool Coalition Association’s family of the year. And Lisa Pennington is a well-known Christian home-schooling mommy blogger, writing at the Pennington Point and video-blogging on YouTube. She also uses her blogging and social media platforms to sell essential oils.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/p...ew-texas-bill/
    And facial hair, false or otherwise can radically change someone's appearance.

    Boy, 15, who wore 'fake mustache to try and abduct child,' was linked to another kidnap case nine months ago but not charged
    No vehicle was seen with the kidnapper, who was initially described by the sheriff's office as about 30 years old, 6-foot to 6-foot-2, with a thin build, brown hair and a mustache.

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz3YGQrK3pp
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
    BTW, same guy. Wonder what he's trying to hide?

    Calum Best ditches beard he nicknamed Gandalf as he prepares for THIRD hair transplant in two years







    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/ar...#ixzz3YGSLVUou
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
    Last edited by kkozoriz; 24-04-2015 at 03:27 PM.

  39. #239

    Default

    ^Some of your examples to correlate your stance on the niqab are bizzare. I fail to see what someone without a birth certificate has to do with someone wearing a face covering. A kid with a fake beard who kidnapped someone then some guy getting his third hair transplant. I have to ask you, 'do you have A.D.D.' because it seems the only reasonable explanation for your stupidity of going of track.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  40. #240

    Default

    The last two show how you can conceal or change your appearance with simple facial hair (real or fake).

    The first one is how a woman is being treated like a second class citizen by her religious parents.

    And yet, a woman who is a religion other than Christianity, who has shown she is willing to show her identity before a citizenship ceremony is basically being relegated to non-person status.

    Conceal your identity with a beard? Perfectly OK. Use Christianity to make your daughter a non=person. Okey-doke. Choose, of your own free will, to wear a garment that some will disagree with? Time for the pitchforks and forces and drive her into the sea.

  41. #241

    Default

    ^Were any of their faces completely covered, that's the topic.
    Niqab - full face cover, might as well be a melon ball under there because others in the room do not know who they are standing next to.
    As the cartoon birds keep circling your head.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  42. #242
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Yes women were second class citizens, that was wrong and has thoroughly been corrected legally, if not %100 socially. Do you really want to go back to a system where one person can claim a privilege that is inaccessible to another based solely on which social category the fit into? Whether its voting or inheiritance rights based on gender or identification protocols based on religion, it has no place in a liberal society. Also, why do only religious people get to wear their favourite hats and hair-doos all the time? Lots of nonreligious sub-cultures have hair styles or fashions that are just as fundamental to their identities. It's not just turbans and colanders. I'd like to see a new RCMP recruit insisting on pinning his badge to a trucker hat worn over a mullet. Hoser identity, you know.



    Yeah, so the religious parents refusal to cooperate with the state is being recognized as a problem, and the law is being clarified. This supports your case how?
    Last edited by highlander; 24-04-2015 at 10:18 PM.

  43. #243
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    As for facial hair, it's very different from something like a niqab. It is much less of a hindrance to identification and to communication, and does not exist as a portable segregation device. It might be helpful to think of the niqab as something other than just another article of clothing.

    Imagine if some other segregationist carried a curtain on a frame with him whereever he went, and used it to maintain separation between himself and, say, any red-haired people he met in the course of the day. He would rightly be ridiculed and his choice would not be respected, and would be recognised as an insult to red-heads. Now imagine he was attempting to keep himself separate from blond people as well. He might recognize that there were way too many blond people to maintain proper segregation with just a single panel, so he gets a full-surround curtain on a support ring he carries like an umbrella whenever he's in public, so he doesn't wear himself out aiming the thing. Then he gets smart and thinks "why am I carrying this jerry-rigged camp-shower with me everywhere when I can just hang my segregation curtain off my head"....He has now invented a Niqab. Now, he might have been happier if he were able to just make all the blonds and red-heads wear one, but what can he do?
    Last edited by highlander; 24-04-2015 at 10:19 PM.

  44. #244

    Default

    ^'jerry-rigged camp-shower'. What you smoking dude. I get your point but that's hilarious.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  45. #245

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    ^'jerry-rigged camp-shower'. What you smoking dude. I get your point but that's hilarious.
    Made me think of an office cubical.


    Canadian eh?

    https://timsdailybeard.wordpress.com...adian-beardos/
    Last edited by KC; 24-04-2015 at 11:11 PM.

  46. #246

    Default

    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  47. #247
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    ^Ha, that's almost exactly what I had in mind when I wrote that.

  48. #248

    Default

    With rubber duckies.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  49. #249

    Default

    Of course, this was worn only during special ceremonies...




    On July 7, 1883, Governor General Lorne (1845-1914) approved an order-in-council recommending the suppression of the potlatch custom practiced by the Native peoples of the northwest coast of British Columbia. Two years later, the potlatch was declared illegal, and the prohibition remained in force until 1951. The custom at issue involved an elaborate demonstration of social status through dance, oratory and the distribution of gifts. As the 1883 order-in-council by Sir John A. Macdonald (1815-1891) records, Indian agents and Christian missionaries equated the custom with a range of vices. However, the objection was ultimately rooted in the Euro-Canadian notion of cultural progress, which opposed the uninhibited distribution of material wealth. Macdonald accepted the view that, "It is not possible that Indians can acquire property or can become industrious with any good result while under the influence of this mania". During the decades of official suppression, the potlatch continued to be practiced, either in secret or in a form that adapted traditional customs to the letter -- if not the spirit -- of the law."

    https://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/...04-3062-e.html

  50. #250

    Default

    ^The Muppets circa 1883.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  51. #251

    Default

    The world's clothing police strike again... Only civvies allowed.


    France outcry over Muslim schoolgirl's skirt ban - BBC News

    France is facing a fresh backlash against its strict secular policy after it emerged a 15-year-old Muslim girl was sent home from school because she was wearing a long black skirt.

    The student, named as Sarah, was twice blocked from classes because the principal said her skirt broke a ban on religious signs in schools.

    The girl removed her headscarf but said the skirt was not a religious symbol. ..."



    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32510606
    Last edited by KC; 02-05-2015 at 06:03 AM.

  52. #252

    Default

    Porter Airlines seat change may have been sparked by religious accommodation, says passenger

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-s...nger-1.3171114

    Ultra Orthodox Jewish guy refuses to sit next to female passenger.
    Is this another thing the western world is going to start pandering to.
    Someone should have told him to sit down, shut up and hold on.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  53. #253

    Default

    ^In many if not most circumstances, someone can seem very decent and seemingly social, sensible, rational and logical - and then you find out that they are religious and it tends to negate it all. As with someone with a criminal record, one can't shake the feeling that religious people will discard all sociability, rationality and reasonableness to stick to their adopted belief system.

    Anyway, there's a great ad on TV now showing some lady kicking up a fuss about sitting next to someone else for prejudicial reasons and the attendant saying they will fix the situation... says they have a opening in first class... and then takes the victim up to first class with their apologies for having to sit next to such a complainant. (Also a wonderful bit of irony in that "first class" even exists and is spun this way).

    Maybe someone can find this ad and post a link here.

  54. #254
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  55. #255

    Default

    The Harper government loses yet another court case.

    BREAKING
    Niqab ban at citizenship ceremonies illegal, as feds lose appeal


    The federal government has lost its appeal of a lower court ruling that struck down a ban on wearing niqabs at citizenship ceremonies.

    The Federal Court of Appeal judge decided to rule now so the woman at the centre of the case could take her oath and vote in the federal election on Oct. 19.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/niqa...nies-1.3229206

  56. #256
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,423

    Default

    Fairly straightforward as there appear to be no strict rules on what to wear to the ceremony and identity has already been established earlier in the process. In fact the niqab easily fits under the definition of "traditional dress" which is suggested in the dress guidelines. I doubt even if the CPC got a law through on it that it would survive a charter challenge as it's so blatantly discriminatory.

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

  57. #257

    Default

    Bring on the clowns, where are the clowns.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  58. #258
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    The Harper government loses yet another court case.

    BREAKING
    Niqab ban at citizenship ceremonies illegal, as feds lose appeal


    The federal government has lost its appeal of a lower court ruling that struck down a ban on wearing niqabs at citizenship ceremonies.

    The Federal Court of Appeal judge decided to rule now so the woman at the centre of the case could take her oath and vote in the federal election on Oct. 19.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/niqa...nies-1.3229206

    Another illegal big government law struck down. What is this, number 15 or so? Great track record for that Harper.

  59. #259

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    Bring on the clowns, where are the clowns.
    At citizenship ceromonies it seems, scarey clown costumes would be fine... just have to say its my "religion"... Maybe you take the oath nude as well if you are naturalist? It seems you have more rights / are more equal than others, in Canada, as long as you put on a cross or a hijab, or some other superstitious crap.
    Last edited by moahunter; 16-09-2015 at 07:29 AM.

  60. #260
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,423

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    Bring on the clowns, where are the clowns.
    At citizenship ceromonies it seems, scarey clown costumes would be fine... just have to say its my "religion"... Maybe you take the oath nude as well if you are naturalist? It seems you have more rights / are more equal than others, in Canada, as long as you put on a cross or a hijab, or some other superstitious crap.
    Given that there are no hard rules on what you can wear at the ceremony you probably could wear a clown costume. Nude might be problematic as it's not legal in public although topless might have to be allowed. Of course none of these are likely as they do not represent the everyday dress of anyone and most likely be worn by someone being deliberately obstinate. People can and do take the oath in shorts and t-shirts or other casual dress.

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

  61. #261
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,331

    Default

    I disagree with the practice of wearing a niqab or burka, but if people want to wear them fine (or dress up in cosplay, go nude...). But don't the individuals have to prove their identity prior to the ceremony or if they wish to vote or board a plane.

  62. #262
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,423

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sundance View Post
    I disagree with the practice of wearing a niqab or burka, but if people want to wear them fine (or dress up in cosplay, go nude...). But don't the individuals have to prove their identity prior to the ceremony or if they wish to vote or board a plane.
    The person has already had to prove their identity earlier in the process. Remember, the ceremony is only a final formality of a longer process.

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

  63. #263

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sundance View Post
    I disagree with the practice of wearing a niqab or burka, but if people want to wear them fine (or dress up in cosplay, go nude...). But don't the individuals have to prove their identity prior to the ceremony or if they wish to vote or board a plane.
    Agree. Say I disagree with the practice of wearing tattoos. Should anyone care? No.

    Say someone appears nude before the judge? Again, who cares. We're all human, we're all here because of sex, we're all born nude, we're all prudes full of biases and weird predudices for some unknown reason. In other words some of our most basic universal activities and conditions are subjected to societies' strongest behaviorial prescriptions. Social and religious conventions that don't necessarily make society any better in any discernible way should be questioned but not banned. Same applies to swearing, snorting, 'passing wind', spitting, praying, peeing in the forest, etc.

    Taber getting more like North Korea..... - Connect2Edmonton
    http://www.connect2edmonton.ca/forum...ad.php?t=36942

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    Taber has passed a by-law that if you swear (even on your own property) you will be fined $150. I you spray graffiti on your own property or spit on your own property it's a $75 fine. Who votes for these people?. Not sure if the population of Taber is predominately holy rollers who frown on profanity but this is taking things too far.

    http://www.edmontonjournal.com/Forge...004/story.html
    Last edited by KC; 16-09-2015 at 11:13 AM.

  64. #264

    Default

    Yes, people still prove their identity. However, they can request that it be done in private by a woman. Zunera Ishaq has removed her face covering for her driver's licence. However, the court has ruled that under the Citizenship Act, accommodations must be made for religious beliefs. Religious rights are also guaranteed under the Constitution. Not that the constitutionality of something has ever stopped Harper.

    Niqab ruling to be appealed to Supreme Court, Tories say
    Conservatives vow to reintroduce niqab ruling within 100 days of re-election


    The Conservative campaign moved swiftly on Wednesday, lining up key Tory heavyweights to reassert their position on the niqab, less than 24 hours after suffering the latest in a series of losses before the courts.

    Chris Alexander issued a one-line statement saying the government will seek leave to appeal the case to the Supreme Court of Canada.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/niqa...peal-1.3230288
    Last edited by kkozoriz; 16-09-2015 at 02:56 PM.

  65. #265

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    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.
    The niqab has nothing to do with religion.The niqab is not a compulsion under Islam, saying it is is bogus. If you want to call it traditional I guess at stretch that would be O.K.
    The KKK wear face coverings as it's there tradition. I doubt very much they will be able to sell that to the Citizenship Board if any of their members want to become Canadian Citizens.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  66. #266
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    4,469

    Default

    Showing up nude for the citizenship ceremony would at least show a greater array of distinguishing marks than just the face.
    Nisi Dominus Frustra

  67. #267

    Default

    ^Did you every see that episode of The Big Bang Theory when Howard sat naked on Sheldon's leather couch then Sheldon took the cushion to the dry cleaners and asked him to swab it for anal excretions. I think you might change your mind on naked citizenship ceremonies.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  68. #268
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    6,549

    Default

    I think Stephen Harper is being a bully in this case.

  69. #269
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    4,469

    Default

    ^^ That's not on my list of TV shows to watch, Gem. I'm a news and sports guy.
    Nisi Dominus Frustra

  70. #270

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    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.
    The niqab has nothing to do with religion.The niqab is not a compulsion under Islam, saying it is is bogus. If you want to call it traditional I guess at stretch that would be O.K.
    The KKK wear face coverings as it's there tradition. I doubt very much they will be able to sell that to the Citizenship Board if any of their members want to become Canadian Citizens.
    Doesn't say it has to be a compulsion. Nuns are not required by the church to wear a full formal habit but it is part of some orders. When the government is intruding upon the free expression of religion, it has to prove a strong case for doing so. The court has found that barring the niquab in these cases doesn't cross the bar. It's not the job of the government to tell people how they must practice their religion.

    I personally have no use for religion, at least the organized type. However, I don't want the government telling people how they must do it and what they can an cannot wear without a very good reason. Accommodations have been made in the citizenship process to confirm identities and that's good enough for me.

  71. #271
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton (belevedre)
    Posts
    6,485

    Default

    I would have to say no because you don't simply trust a person who does wear a niqab.

    I hear one person who is member of ISIS were caught dressed as a woman to gain entry to one of the countries in Europe, I don't want that to happen in Canada, if a guy were caught dressed as a woman wearing a niqab here in Canada could prove a huge embarrassment for SCC.
    Edmonton Rocks Rocks Rocks

  72. #272
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,423

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    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.
    The niqab has nothing to do with religion.The niqab is not a compulsion under Islam, saying it is is bogus. If you want to call it traditional I guess at stretch that would be O.K.
    The KKK wear face coverings as it's there tradition. I doubt very much they will be able to sell that to the Citizenship Board if any of their members want to become Canadian Citizens.
    KKK members wear face coverings as part of the everyday dress?

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

  73. #273
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,423

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jagators63 View Post
    I would have to say no because you don't simply trust a person who does wear a niqab.

    I hear one person who is member of ISIS were caught dressed as a woman to gain entry to one of the countries in Europe, I don't want that to happen in Canada, if a guy were caught dressed as a woman wearing a niqab here in Canada could prove a huge embarrassment for SCC.
    This is not an issue as identity is confirmed in earlier parts of the citizenship process. It also has nothing to do with border security as different rules apply there.

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

  74. #274

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    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.
    The niqab has nothing to do with religion.The niqab is not a compulsion under Islam, saying it is is bogus. If you want to call it traditional I guess at stretch that would be O.K.
    The KKK wear face coverings as it's there tradition. I doubt very much they will be able to sell that to the Citizenship Board if any of their members want to become Canadian Citizens.
    Doesn't say it has to be a compulsion. Nuns are not required by the church to wear a full formal habit but it is part of some orders. When the government is intruding upon the free expression of religion, it has to prove a strong case for doing so. The court has found that barring the niquab in these cases doesn't cross the bar. It's not the job of the government to tell people how they must practice their religion.

    I personally have no use for religion, at least the organized type. However, I don't want the government telling people how they must do it and what they can an cannot wear without a very good reason. Accommodations have been made in the citizenship process to confirm identities and that's good enough for me.
    No good reason for Muslim women to wear the niqab/hijab as (for the millionth time) it is not a compulsion under Islam. It is not part of the religion (for the millionth time). Yet you keep bleating on that Muslim women are having their religious rights infringed upon.

    --------------


    The word 'hijab' in the Quran

    Hijab is the term used by many Muslim women to describe their head cover. This may or may not include covering their face. The Arabic word 'hijab' can be translated into veil or yashmak. Other meanings for the word 'hijab' include, screen, cover(ing), mantle, curtain, drapes, partition, division, divider.



    While many Muslims call 'hijab' an Islamic dress code, they in fact oblivious of the fact that the concept of 'hijab' has nothing to do with Islam nor with the Quran.
    In brief, 'hijab' is a traditional dress and has nothing to do with Islam or religion. In certain areas of the world, men are the ones who wear the 'hijab' while in others the women do.

    Mixing religion with tradition is a form of idol-worship since it implies setting up other sources of religious laws besides the law of God.

    http://www.quran-islam.org/articles/...e_(P1150).html
    Last edited by Gemini; 17-09-2015 at 10:40 AM.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  75. #275

    Default

    ^ great reference material.

    However this is about the expression of religion. If they believe that their attire is part of that expression, then, it's a part of that expression. Like Christians wearing a cross. Such an action may have even offended Jesus Christ but nonetheless, it's now part of the 'tradition'.

    Sorry, I should have said: crucifix - as in a tool of torture and death - like wearing a symbolic knife or guillotine.



    Not required but promoted:


    In two highly publicised British cases, nurse Shirley Chaplin and British Airways flight attendant Nadia Eweida were both forbidden to wear a cross necklace at work and, as a result, took their cases to the European Court of Human Rights.[18][19][20] In light of such cases, in 2012 the former Archbishop of Canterbury of the Anglican Communion, Lord Carey, and then head of the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland, Cardinal Keith O'Brien, have urged all Christians to wear cross necklaces regularly.[21][22][23]


    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_necklace
    Last edited by KC; 17-09-2015 at 10:49 AM.

  76. #276

    Default

    ^Now the Citizenship Board has to deal with people's 'religious expressions'.
    Give me and all of us a break. Just admit your wrong the quit posting on this thread.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  77. #277

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    ^Now the Citizenship Board has to deal with people's 'religious expressions'.
    Give me and all of us a break. Just admit your wrong the quit posting on this thread.
    Well maybe you're right. We have freedom of religion however our own preexisting traditions, and "expressions", established long before the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, was the fact that we were founded as a Christian country by christian (most specifically Protestant) rulers (both French and English).

    That old Charter really confused our traditions...

    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.

    If only we could go back to the days before those open, liberal minded British (namely Lord Sankey) interfered and gave our women more rights, life would be so much easier for guys like Harper.


    The British North America Act planted in Canada a living tree capable of growth and expansion within its natural limits. The object of the Act was to grant a Constitution to Canada. Like all written constitutions it has been subject to development through usage and convention. [Canadian Constitutional Studies, Sir Robert Borden (1922) p. 55.]

    Their Lordships do not conceive it to be the duty of this Board -- it is certainly not their desire -- to cut down the provisions of the Act by a narrow and technical construction, but rather to give it a large and liberal interpretation so that the Dominion to a great extent, but within certain fixed limits, may be mistress in her own house, as the provinces to a great extent, but within certain fixed limits, are mistresses in theirs. "The Privy Council, indeed, has laid down that Courts of law must treat the provisions of the British North America Act by the same methods of construction and exposition which they apply to other statutes. But there are statutes and statutes; and the strict construction deemed proper in the case, for example, of a penal or taxing statute or one passed to regulate the affairs of an English parish, would be often subversive of Parliament's real intent if applied to an Act passed to ensure the peace, order and good government of a British Colony." See Clement's Canadian Constitution, ed. 3, p. 347.

    ...


    The exclusion of women from all public offices is a relic of days more barbarous than ours, but it must be remembered that the necessity of the times often forced on man customs which in later years were not necessary. Such exclusion is probably due to the fact that the deliberative assemblies of the early tribes were attended by men under arms, and women did not bear arms. "Nihil autem neque publicae neque privatae rei, nisi armati, agunt:" Tacitus Germania, ch. 13. Yet the tribes did not despise the advice of women: "Inesse quin etiam sanctum et providum putant, nec aut consilia earum aspernantur aut responsa neglegunt:" Germania, ch. 8.

    http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/en/browseSubjects/edwardspc.asp

    Last edited by KC; 17-09-2015 at 11:14 AM.

  78. #278
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,423

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    ^Now the Citizenship Board has to deal with people's 'religious expressions'.
    Give me and all of us a break. Just admit your wrong the quit posting on this thread.
    No they don't have to worry about particular religious expressions. They just have to allow a person's legal everyday dress. Pretty simple.

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

  79. #279

    Default

    ^Well, the particular case that was brought before the courts was one of 'freedom of religion' not 'freedom of expression'. As the niqab is not a compulsion under Islam it was rather bogus to put it under the banner of 'religious freedom'. The niqab is not a tenant of Islamic faith. How could religious freedom be denied when the niqab is not deemed a religious garment by it's own faith.
    The court case was not about peoples everyday dress. It was about religious freedom. If Zunera Ishaq had have wanted to make an issue of it why did she not file the case under 'freedom of expression' and not 'freedom of religion'.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  80. #280
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,423

    Default

    Given Islam has no organized structure which dictates theology, what is or isn't part of their faith is pretty much up to them. There are branches in which face coverings are a part of the faith and others where it is not. I don't think it's the role of any Canadian government agency to be delving into theological arguments over what is the true Islam. It is enough that it is the practice of significant numbers of Muslim women.

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

  81. #281
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    ^really in terms of number it's NOT a significant number of women. A small fraction of a percent.

    The undefined nature of what religious expression and practices are legitimate, and the impossibility of judging what is true islam or whatever should be a red flag against the idea that we can or should have any special accommodation of religion.

    The constitution doesn't.

    We are protected by the constitution against being discriminated against on the bases of religion. That's a very different thing. If a thing is illegal or if a thing is compulsory it should remain so no matter the religious persuasion of a particular citizen.

    I understand that there are limits to "50 shades" type sexual practices, that lasting physical harm is not legal no matter if the practice is desired, mutual and exhaustive consent is recorded. Logically, religious practices that include flagellation, like the Filipino re-enacted crucifixions are also illegal, and to allow a practice for religious reasons but not for sexual or social reasons would, in any rational view, be discrimination on the bases of religion and unconstitutional.

    Face coverings are the same. If a niqab is permitted but a balaclava is not it is not a case of permitting religious freedom, but a case of discrimination on the basis of religion. This particular case is muddied, a bit, because the incumbent interdiction against face coverings had never been codified, or even brought into case law, since from the beginning of English common law and the time of the Magna Carta 800 years ago it was just so basic, so reasonable, so obvious that in 800 years no one ever tried to participate in any official ceremony with their full face obscured.
    And this dates back to the times when knights would have full face shields on their helmets and wore their ID on their shields.

    I'm a Christian but I say bring on the Colander hats, we need to realize how impossible this current idea of religious freedom is.

  82. #282

    Default

    ^ as you indicate, every freedom has limitations.

    Since religious beliefs and expressions, or the conflicts between religious beliefs and expressions, can have very harmful effects on individuals and society, it is very reasonable that we seek out those limits.

    Now, whether even seeing clothing, cosmetics, tattoos, decorations as part of any mental/spiritual belief system seems to be a stretch to me but like a nation's flag, things like symbolism, idolatry, pagentry, colours, etc are all part and parcel of all religious branding and product differentiation process. So it's probably a good thing for the government to go ahead and seek out the start and end to such limitations.

    We just have to keep in mind that Canada's Supreme Court once found that women were not persons. (It was Sankey and the British Privy Council that overturned Canada's ruling against women.)

  83. #283

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Turnbull View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    ^Now the Citizenship Board has to deal with people's 'religious expressions'.
    Give me and all of us a break. Just admit your wrong the quit posting on this thread.
    No they don't have to worry about particular religious expressions. They just have to allow a person's legal everyday dress. Pretty simple.
    Yes, yes they do. It's in the Citizenship act. The Harper Government tried to ban face coverings in the policy manual which doesn't have the power of legislation.

    "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.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/niqa...rter-1.2994954
    Even if the Citizenship Act itself had been amended to ban the naquib, it probably would have been found unconstitutional anyway.

  84. #284
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,423

    Default

    Which part of the Citizenship Act addresses the person's religion and/or religious expression? I haven't read the whole thing yet but I haven't found any reference to religion or how the applicant is required to dress at the oath taking.

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

  85. #285

    Default

    Well, I included this part from the judges ruling.

    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 from the act:

    CEREMONIAL PROCEDURES OF CITIZENSHIP JUDGES

    17. (1) The ceremonial procedures to be followed by citizenship judges shall be appropriate to impress on new citizens the responsibilities and privileges of citizenship and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, a citizenship judge shall, during a ceremony held for the presentation of certificates of citizenship,
    (a) emphasize the significance of the ceremony as a milestone in the lives of the new citizens;
    (b) subject to subsection 22(1), administer the oath of citizenship with dignity and solemnity, allowing the greatest possible freedom in the religious solemnization or the solemn affirmation thereof;
    (c) personally present certificates of citizenship, unless otherwise directed by the Minister; and
    (d) promote good citizenship, including respect for the law, the exercise of the right to vote, participation in community affairs and intergroup understanding.
    (2) Unless the Minister otherwise directs, a certificate of citizenship issued to a person who has been granted citizenship under subsection 5(l) of the Act shall be presented at a ceremony described in subsection (l).

    http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/r.../FullText.html
    And the reference of section 22(1) above:

    21. Subject to section 22, a person who takes the oath of citizenship pursuant to subsection 19(1) or 20(1) shall, at the time the person takes it, sign a certificate in prescribed form certifying that the person has taken the oath, and the certificate shall be countersigned by the citizenship officer or foreign service officer who administered the oath and forwarded to the Registrar.

  86. #286
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    ^It reads to me as though the intent of that section was to allow new citizens to swear the oath on the deity/holy book other highly respected object of their choice.

    Perhaps it could be better worded.

  87. #287
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,423

    Default

    Hadn't found that yet as it's not in the Act but in the Regulations for the Act. Regulations are written based on the Act but do not require any approval from Parliament. Notably even the regulations make no mention of a dress code for taking the oath. Either way there is nothing in the act that justifies preventing a person from taking the oath for wearing a niqab.

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

  88. #288
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    ^ There's also nothing there to justify preventing a person from taking the oath in a balaclava or an "anonymous" mask.

  89. #289
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,423

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    ^ There's also nothing there to justify preventing a person from taking the oath in a balaclava or an "anonymous" mask.
    Technically true although it would be clear that anyone doing that was just being obstinate rather than wishing to take the oath in their traditional and/or everyday clothing. Personally I'd say if someone really wants to do that, let them. They're the ones looking like fools. I expect no one would be doing that though.

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

  90. #290
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    ^ A agree that "really wants to" should be considered equal to any religious justification.

    Disagree that they would only be looking like fools. It would be clear that the "looking like fools" would be to the purpose of making light of their oath to Canada, and disrespecting Canada itself. The Niqab is similar. To insist that historical norms of Canada and it's ancestor nations that the face be exposed at official ceremonies be overturned so that the desire of a single individual to hide her face can be indulged is to make a clear statement that the traditions and norms of Canada mean nothing to her except where they can be used to her advantage.

    The primary difference between the Balaclava and the Niqab, then, is that to wear the Balaclava is a satirical protest against the demise of the idea that Canada can be a society in which there are common values, norms and culture.
    To wear the Niqab is to desire that demise.

  91. #291
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,095

    Default

    Why is anyone caring what someone else is wearing?

  92. #292
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,423

    Default

    A tradition of how one dresses at a ceremony should never trump a tradition of rights and freedoms. If anything should to be defended it is the latter. The primary common values and norms we should be defending are founded on basic human rights.

    And for the record, I am an atheist and feel the veil and niqab are repressive in their roots and represent values I do not agree with; however it is still the case that individuals are free to wear them just as they are all other religious symbols I feel the same about.

    There is exactly one reason for opposing the niqab in this ceremony, and that is to stigmatize and humiliate the people wearing them. That is something no Canadian should be proud of.

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

  93. #293
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    ^^Because a face mask is very different from normal clothing but carries with it a portable segregation, and because religious freedom should not mean special religious accommodation and exemption from previously universal social expectations.

  94. #294
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,095

    Default

    ^Previously universal social expectations were likely never universal, nor constant. Things have always been changing, and will continue to change.

    What right do I, or you, have to tell someone else what they should or shouldn't wear?

  95. #295
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    What right? Depends on the setting. In a private setting, nothing. Even on a public street very little. I don't see a niqab as different than a balaclava or ski goggles. People wear them some times, if you do wear them you are expected to remove them quickly when you come inside, and certainly before participating in a public institution, and a private establishment should have the right to allow or prohibit it as they see fit without fear of repercussion or human rights suit unless the ban is instituted in an actual discriminatory manner.

    So I care partly because I believe that open face-to-face communication is and important part of social interaction, and I believe that Niqab and Burka both create a unequal situation where the wearer is hidden yet can see the other, and unlike dark sunglasses or a hood or anything else there is a assumption that to ask to remove it is an offense, and to make it unwelcome (no shirt, no shoes, no visible face, no service?) would be discriminatory, islamophobic, xenophobic, whatever.
    I care partly because I see that it is often a tool of suppression.
    I care partly because it is a very intentional segregation device, a portable cloister that allows the wearer to gain advantages of society while remaining walled off from it.

    But mostly because I see this as one of a pattern of human rights trump cards being played where they don't belong, not to access equality but to shape policy and society to the liking of the complainant, in this case to be able to wear a particular face covering even where doing so is an imposition on others. This is only one case and I suppose not the end of the world, but the general trend is very worrying.

  96. #296
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    For the record, I don't believe that the Niqab should be illegal. It should be accepted anywhere a face or scarf is acceptable in the winter. But I do believe that it should be within the right of any business or property manager to disallow it (or not) and of anyone conducting business with a wearer to request that it be removed (or not) without being accused of being a xenophobe, and I believe that it has no place within our public institutions. I believe that just because one group is more insistent on a particular right is no reason to grant it to them.

  97. #297

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    ^^Because a face mask is very different from normal clothing but carries with it a portable segregation, and because religious freedom should not mean special religious accommodation and exemption from previously universal social expectations.
    Who's to judge what was a universal social expectation? I'm older and quite ok with it. If it matters, I'm not an immigrant, my family roots here go back to the 1850s. My wife is ok with it and her roots go back to the early 1800s. I have other family that goes back far further. A sibling's spouse, something like 300-350 years Canadian - and very liberal attitudes despite a very religious family line. Dominant nation cultural heritage/backgrounds maybe? Again English, Scottish, Irish and French in our family (plus others). Or maybe some sort or snooty class thing determines social expectations? Aunts and uncles on both my mother's and father's side have 'dined' (with hundreds of others) with the Queen on her visits here... It's possible (if they were still around) that they'd disagree with the liberal view, but their values reflect a very white, long gone upbringing.
    Last edited by KC; 17-09-2015 at 04:52 PM.

  98. #298

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Well, I included this part from the judges ruling.

    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 from the act:

    CEREMONIAL PROCEDURES OF CITIZENSHIP JUDGES

    17. (1) The ceremonial procedures to be followed by citizenship judges shall be appropriate to impress on new citizens the responsibilities and privileges of citizenship and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, a citizenship judge shall, during a ceremony held for the presentation of certificates of citizenship,
    (a) emphasize the significance of the ceremony as a milestone in the lives of the new citizens;
    (b) subject to subsection 22(1), administer the oath of citizenship with dignity and solemnity, allowing the greatest possible freedom in the religious solemnization or the solemn affirmation thereof;
    (c) personally present certificates of citizenship, unless otherwise directed by the Minister; and
    (d) promote good citizenship, including respect for the law, the exercise of the right to vote, participation in community affairs and intergroup understanding.
    (2) Unless the Minister otherwise directs, a certificate of citizenship issued to a person who has been granted citizenship under subsection 5(l) of the Act shall be presented at a ceremony described in subsection (l).

    http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/r.../FullText.html
    And the reference of section 22(1) above:

    21. Subject to section 22, a person who takes the oath of citizenship pursuant to subsection 19(1) or 20(1) shall, at the time the person takes it, sign a certificate in prescribed form certifying that the person has taken the oath, and the certificate shall be countersigned by the citizenship officer or foreign service officer who administered the oath and forwarded to the Registrar.
    administer the oath of citizenship with dignity and solemnity, allowing the greatest possible freedom in the religious solemnization or the solemn affirmation thereof;

    ^as quoted by you:

    ..............as stated before, gawd knows, many many times before. No matter how solemn or dignified the oath of citizenship is the niqab is not a requirement of the Islamic religion. Let's call the niqab an 'option' of the faith as that is what it is. Muslim women have the 'option' to wear it, not the compulsion under their faith. You should not be able to claim your religious rights have been violated on a non essential garment. If it's not a tenant of your faith your religious freedom has not been compromised.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  99. #299

    Default

    From an article in the Edmonton Sun, written by a Muslim woman.


    As a Muslim mother who never saw a niqab when I was growing up in Karachi, Pakistan, I am astonished to see Canada’s judiciary caving in to Islamists who have nothing but contempt for Canada’s values of gender equality.
    I write this as a Muslim Canadian who does not have any specific political leanings.
    But in the 25 years I have called Canada home, I have seen a steady rise of Muslim women being strangled in the pernicious black tent that is passed off to naïve and guilt-ridden white, mainstream Canadians as an essential Islamic practice.
    The niqab and burka have nothing to do with Islam.
    They’re the political flags of the Muslim Brotherhood, ISIS, the Taliban, al-Qaida and Saudi Arabia.

    The rest of the article can be found here:

    http://www.torontosun.com/2015/09/15...-public-places
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  100. #300

    Default

    I have no use for religion but if we're going to accept one of them, we have to accept them all so long as doing so doesn't infringe on the rights of anyone else. A woman having her face covered doesn't infringe on your rights anymore than a nun wearing a habit does or a Hasidic Jew with his ringlets. Hell, a Pastafarian doesn't either for that matter. If we're going to accept a religion where God slept with his own mother so she'd give birth to him just so he could die, how more ridiculous does it have to be?

    If a person's identity is confirmed, why does it matter if they wear a naqib or a clerical collar or a spaghetti strainer or, if you're a Doukhobor and want to wear nothing at all?

    As time goes on, the old ways will die off and the new generations will have moved closer to the cultural norms of present day Canada. The children usually are less radical in their religious beliefs regardless of what that religion is.

Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 1234567 ... 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
  •