You're as entitled to your extreme view of such trivial immodesty as she is to hers. But the practical point is that there is no need to consider the business of identification is in any way compromised, and there never was. No one has argued with that practical purpose. No one except the folks who set the farfetched possibility up as a stalking horse.
What extra cost? Do tell. As for abiding by the rules, the Ms. Ishaq has been doing exactly that all the way along, the courts have now said three times in a row, that it is the government which is not obeying its own citizenship act.
what is extreme is this individual using swearing in ceremony(a once in a lifetime event) to exhibit her intolerance and prejudice. All the while, every time she'll feel like shopping in Buffalo, she'll compromise like they all do. Just not for the sake of this country. Fuck her and the horse she rode in on.
Wow, that will be a relief to many Canadians
Are we saying that the Charter is out of touch with the Canadian population and values? For example, the vast majority of Canadians do not want women to cover their faces.
My goodness! She's not being at all intolerant; it's the Citizenship Minister, who's dictating how she must observe her religion to suit his prejudices (and yours I suspect) breaking the law and defying the Charter to do so.
Nonsense. Every Muslim, like every Jew, Christian, Hindu Sikh and Bhuddist practises their religion in their own way. Muslims don't even have a hierarchical clergy to pronounce on such stuff. The Catholic flavour of Christianity most certainly does, and not every Catholic observes the stated requirements Not even every priest.
The Charter has serious difficulties functionning in a pluralistic society. Since Canada needs immigration to maintain positve population growth, increasingly more requests for accomodation will occur with people entering Canada and demanding accomodation even before citizenship is given. If Harper is returned, then I would say enough of the Canadian electorate just may in fact feel theat the Charter is out of touch. Harper the dick, is either wholesome or loathsome, depending on where you stand and so is Zunera Ishaq. Both are arrogant and contemptuous of others and provoke the necessary checks and balances for us to move forward as a society.
But it's OK for men? For children? Where did you come up with this notion? Who did the poll? The vast majority do not want women forced to cover their faces, for sure. But arre they willing to allow some Government Minister to be the Supreme judge of religious acceptability? And how does anyone imagine they'll draft that bit of soft-shoeing past the freedom of religion the Charter says is our right.
What a ludicrous thought that everyone's behaviour, clothing style, music, religion, etc should be based on the majority polls of Canadians. I guess we can ban the selling of tobacco since over 80% of Canadians don't smoke. Who eats haggis - let's ban that sucker. Of course terb will be banned along with strip joints, MP's, SP's. Finally we can get a vote on facial hair not to mention men's mullets & ponytails.
Really - you think among the all the passport officers on duty - there isn't any females .. really ??? And the extra room- there are not extra rooms already available for female/ male searches by customs ? Or do you notice those performed while you are standing in line ? I also hate the waste in funds by having male/female washrooms - if you want savings - there's your ticket !
The TERBite you replied to doesn't make Canadian law, and that's what governs the ceremony. Ms. Ishaq didn't ask for a separate room, nor did the Courts order one. She has repeatedly said she will show her face to the appropriate officials, male or female, for the reasonable and lawful purpose of establishing her identity. The only parties to this crap-fest who aren't acting lawfully are the Minister and his boss; the Courts have explicitly said so. Ms. Ishaq, on the other hand is standing up for Canadian values of respect for the law, and the Charter and the values of peace, order, good government and tolerance they put into black and white words. Even if the government to whom she will swear loyalty has no respect for the values, and continues to defy the words.
Allah doesn't speak to me but, apparently, he or she speaks to Muslims.
We accommodate all kinds of beliefs and traditions. There's a Sikh or something woman working for our provincial government who insists on carrying a knife on her belt to the office. We accommodate even that. It's not about religion, traditions, etc. It's about respect, one and only time show of respect! That's why this issue works so well for Harper and sinks Mulcair at the same time. Most sane people can see the reason why she's doing this. She's got no respect for us and the country. Showing her face to get in was a OK, but a swearing in ceremony is not important enough for her. Judging by the public's reaction it would seem that even multiculturalism has limits in Canada. Interesting.
Do please address the real issue here. She's acting exactly as the law says. The Ministers who demand she remove her veil are breaking the law. Her right to wear a veil is supported by the Charter, the Minister's right to order women to dress as he prefers is supported by no law at all. Just a few very questionable opinion polls.
You are confusing Canadian Law with canadian values. you are correct on the letter of the law, however recent polls have indicated that 82% prefer a ban on the Niquab for ceremonies such as this. I would offer that the poll is the true reflection of Canadian values. http://www.torontosun.com/2015/09/24/polling-data-on-niqabs-shows-82-of-canadians-support-ban
