The White Man in That Photo
- Thread starter Smallcock
- Start date
Wow, what a story, and so sad...how many more go unrecognized and shunned out for standing up against unequality and the status quo...it sheds light on the ones who become ghosts and the ones still becoming this...
Thank you for bringing such an inspiring story here. In spite of the suffering and abuse the bigots subjected Peter Norman to throughout the remainder of his life, it's worth remembering "…the better angels of our natures" eventually prevailed over them.
Always hope.
---------------
Yes, I do see the irony of juxtaposing my temporary sig-pic with that message. We've got our own chance to stand pat with the bigots or take a small hopeful step past that and on to something better.
What I find disturbing is that he is still absent from this statute given how much hell he needed to endure and the price he paid, even the movement he was fighting for did not recognize what this guy did properly...guess it did not fit in with their agenda ..SMH...this stuff is still evident today, the double standards we see all the time hiding within discrimination, racism and political and religious inequality.
Like a ghost.
Like a ghost.
Sorry, just trying to understand your comment. Are you saying that the women who are told not to wear the niquab in Canada are facing the same inequality similar to the basis behind this story. Or are you saying that the women wearing the niquab are facing inequality because their religion represses them like this to hide their face and individuality and makes them ashamed of their body. Or are you saying that they should all be treated equal like the rest of us and not force their religion down our throats uproot our constitution umdermine or security and laws and not cover their face in certain places like courts, certain professions while driving etc. like Canadians are obligated to follow regardless of race religion sex or beliefs.
No has tried to make you muslim have they?
The majority of canadians are opposed to women choosing to wear niqab during swearing in ceremony (even if they show their face to judge separately to confirm identity). The tyranny of the majority should not prevail. In the sixties- equal rights for black people was opposed by the majority of white america and white australia. They were wrong. In the same way, the current majority of canadians opposed to the wearing of the niqab at a ceremony are wrong. This has been artificially created by our current fear mongering pm.
I am not comparing the two different struggles
So how is this not a double standard. So the majority of us are expected to follow the law, but let's make exceptions for the women wearing niquab. Why not have the option for everyone to cover their face then, why only women and why only niquab?. Heck, I feel like going to a bank, let me cover my face. Or heck even more, I feel like driving in a niquab let me just cover my face. I feel like being a judge or police officer, let me just wear a niquab? Where does it end, why are we required to make exceptions for them. What makes them sepical, above the rest of the Canadians and above our laws? So then anybody can say they believe in having a bag over their head at any place any time. Where does it stop then? What you just pick and choose, how do you pick and choose, under who bias, under whose influence?/You know I am against the conservatives on most issues but this is one issue that will likely make me change my vote for them. This is protecting fundamental Canadian principles and laws and supporting equality and NOT supporting reverse inequality. This should be about equality treating us all equal free from poisonous bias of ALL religions. This is what we should fight for which is to treat everyone equal regardless or your religion, race or beliefs.
You can't wear a knife but sikhs can. You can't wear a police uniform but a policeman can. There are lots of rules which apply to groups which don't apply to you. Its not reverse inequality and really has zero impact on your life. They aren't putting a bag over their head- they believe its what they need to do. You disagree. Ok. You can have that opinion but where your rights stop, a they should, is on forcing them to take it off.
Start wearing the niqab if you choose. See if anyone stops you. I won't.
So you are comparing a religions group to a police officers as groups?
Police will stop me...You can't wear a niqab while driving in Ontario http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/politics/w...ring-french-language-leaders-debate-1.3243621 however this is up to the province and if we get a niqab loving premier maybe they allow this and next thing you know you have a niqab or bag loving driver covering their face pick your kids upat the school bus stop.
Anybody with average intelligence can become a cop and what is to stop them from trying to wear a niquab on the job claiming inequality or a bag if they believe in wearing a bag or a mask or how about a Service Ontario Employee giving you your passport?
I was sworn in showing my face to Hazel Mccallion. So if I believed in wearing a bag, not a niqab, because this is what I believe, I am then allowed to become a citizen and get sworn in wearing a bag? Hmmm somehow this logic fails critique? What if I and 10 of my other friends believe in wearing bags while boarding planes and going through security checks, I guess we should be allowed to do this in your eyes because we just believe it and then challenge police officers or security guards when asked to take off our bags
This is why laws need to change to prevent this kind of inequality and poison from spreading like the Sikhs being allowed to wear knifes.
IMO allowing people to cover their face is just going to become a mess with many holes in the system created and left open to exploit...kind of what this kid is trying to pull and got away in the video link below, how can the police do their job, how can we function then as an equal society? Imaging a band of men testing this strategy at check points or banks or other places where it is important to show your face like. Imaging how much people can exploit the system with the niqab principle?
This is why laws need to protect us equality as a whole and free from bias, religious influence, discrimination etc...if we allow the influence from biased sources such as religious underlies, we undermine the system as a whole and create reverse inequality for our society as a whole.
https://youtu.be/RZHfylk2j3o
Amazing story. It's a shame the black guys didn't stand up for him like he did for them.What I find disturbing is that he is still absent from this statute given how much hell he needed to endure and the price he paid, even the movement he was fighting for did not recognize what this guy did properly...guess it did not fit in with their agenda ..SMH...this stuff is still evident today, the double standards we see all the time hiding within discrimination, racism and political and religious inequality.
Like a ghost.
Still, he died with dignity. The organization that felt he should be left out will never see their own shame through their self righteous ideology
At the air port they have to show their face to security as they do at the border. Same as when they become citizens- they have to show their face and prove their identity. After that- at a ceremony they can follow their religious and or cultural dictates and where a niqab. No security is breached. And no reverse discrimination occurs. It doesn't impact you in anyway other than you get angry because you can't tell them how to dress.
You were doing well until your last couple of words....seriously red? Are you even capable of posting a statement or an opinion without drivel, assumptions and troll bait? Now you you are an expert on people, a psychologist and psychic and know how I feel and when I get angry ?
You like to assume a lot red and spit so much drivel...I.e."The majority of canadians are opposed to women choosing to wear niqab during swearing in ceremony (even if they show their face to judge separately to confirm identity). The tyranny of the majority should not prevail. In the sixties- equal rights for black people was opposed by the majority of white america and white australia. They were wrong. In the same way, the current majority of canadians opposed to the wearing of the niqab at a ceremony are wrong. This has been artificially created by our current fear mongering pm.
Now you know what the majority of Canadians think.
You know why and when I get angry.
Then you say the tyrant of the majority should not prevail. You are comparing equal rights in the 60s to the niqab in Canada.
Focus red, this discussion started when I asked you how this story was related to OPs story and equal rights. You started talking about being sworn in..."The majority of canadians are opposed to women choosing to wear niqab during swearing in ceremony (even if they show their face to judge separately to confirm identity)". So from this statement is it okay to treat the niqab wearing ladies different from the rest of the people being sworn in Canada to become citizens, and having them wear the niqab and show their face to the judge separately? How is this unequal treatment of niqab wearing ladies and not reverse inequality and treating these women special and different from the majority of people being sworn in? How is the niqab related to OPs story then and the struggles of the 60s and quite obvious discrimination.
Instead of assuming things to shit red, and pulling drivel out of your ass why not ask before you assume. I don't care what they wear on the street or at home or in a mall etc. However if they are trying to break our law, or trying to change the law, or seek special treatment especially at the expense of taxpayers such as to allow them tonhave a covered face being sworn in or to drive with niqab, or bypass security checkpoints because their man is with them, or call discrimination because of this then I have an issue. So I ask again red, how is this unequal treatment of ladies who decide to wear a niqab and follow our current law. The law is there for a reason red. Of course it can be changed and this is why we need to elect the ones who will look after our most fundamental interest and now allow Canadain system and laws to get undermined and go to shit.
Who's side are you on red? Do you even care about Canada and people equality vs. inadvertently supporting inequalities.
If Harper had followed the law when he tried to ban the niqab, then he wouldn't have had his case tossed out three times because the ban was illegal. And that was before considering the Charter aspect. He made no new law, and broke the existing law when he banned the niqab.
You and I may disagree about our Charter rights being fundamental Canadian principles, but we protect nothing but dictatorship if anyone in power can force their 'principle's on others contrary to the law.
Your rant was full of brief points both serious and silly, responding to each would chop a page into incomprehensibility. Figure out a less shotgun presentation and I'll happily discuss.
But you finished: "This should be about equality treating us all equal free from poisonous bias of ALL religions. This is what we should fight for which is to treat everyone equal regardless or your religion, race or beliefs." It is. The Charter says no one gets to tell anyone what their religious belief or practice must be or must not be. Not the Pope, not Jason Kenney, not the Grand Mufti of Cairo, not the Moderator of the United Church, not the flinkis in the PMO who wrote the order (not a law) Harper signed, and not some pollsters head-count of people someone says are your fellow-believers.. Your belief is what is protected by the Charter, and everyone of every faith or no faith is to be free from being dictated to. All equal.
Nevertheless, had Harper chosen to proceed lawfully back in 2011, he could have claimed limiting face coverings was the sort of thing all democracies do, and the Charter specifically says that if that sort of reason stands up, the law does too, even if it offends someone's religious rights. But he passed no law. The Charter also has the Notwithstanding clause, that brooms away all consideration of rights. If the government wrote that into the law, Ms. Ishaq wouldn't have had any case at all. But Harper passed no law.
He didn't even offer one single reason why the last judge should give him the temporary stay he'd asked for, supposedly to appeal to the Supremes. So Ms. Ishaq won, not by being special, but by asking for what everyone wants and deserves: To be treated fairly under the law and according to the law. The same sort of equal treatment we all want and deserve.
Damn it oldjones, why do you have to throw voice of reason in this. I was having fun teasing and twisting our poor old red for a bit...he knows he's on my special list. Will need to read your stuff over a couple of times...thx for your opinion..BTW he started first fucking with me a while back, and after his 3rd attempt I decided it was time to pay him back the favor. 
