This matter is only in relation to the current laws. Laws change and involve over time. Imagine how fast it would change if someone is falsely "sworn in". It's a big issue in Quebec. To Mulcair's credit he has stuck to his beliefs even though it will cost his biggest support base. The Liberals, on the other hand, will say anything, or in this case not say, anything if they see a vote or two in it.
Zunera Ishaq cleared by court to take citizenship oath wearing niqab
- Thread starter Avatar
- Start date
Absolutely correct.
Of coarse some here will state that there may not be an "recognized" religion,... with a record of castrating and raping boys, and mutilating girls,...that "requires" believers to wear a balaclava,... to be considered a "recognized" religion.
Why not allow people who paint their face to create another image of themselves as part of their religion/culture,...and to do so while doing their job as a civil servant,... interviewing the public for a passport.
What really gets me,...is some here think they are being open minded supporting hiding a persons face,...when the exact opposite is the case.
Do these simple minded,...belong to a "religion" that requires them to wear,...blinders,...???
FAST
I particularly like this part,...
,... I would tell him that aside from the religious aspect, I like how it makes me feel: like people have to look beyond what I look like to get to know me. That I don’t have to worry about my physical appearance and can concentrate on my inner self. That it empowers me in this regard.
Says a lot about the person,...doesn't it.
FAST
Its a dead cat issue, put on the table to stop us talking about Harper's failures.
And sadly its working.
And sadly its working.
Says a guy hiding behind a username when he 'goes public'. So that says a lot about you, does it?
We already allow "…people who paint their face
Not long ago, no woman of 'our' culture would attend church or even venture into public without a hat — often with attached veil — and gloves, and her husband/brother/father would make sure she didn't shame the family by appearing so undressed. Not to mention she'd be refused entry to churches, courtrooms and businesses. But society didn't collapse when we got over that nonsense, and at least some of us —not Harper or his supporters — believe all people have the right to decide such stuff by their own beliefs.We even passed laws that say so.
We get that you believe you have a right to force on women, your ideas of what is proper wear and what isn't. But why don't you spell them out for us, and see if you can justify your version of ignoring women's rights when compared to 'theirs'. Until someone does, we have to stick with the laws and Charter as they are, not just make up crap decrees to suit ourselves. As the Court told the PM.
There's none so blind as those who will not see.
Actually , it simply proves the point that anonymity allows someone to avoid accountability. This is generally preferred for online personas, and most fraud attempts try to exploit this by avoiding accountability (e.g. Western Union).
Given accountability is one of the issues with the niqab (along with gender equality etc.), I think this is about as close as we will ever get to you agreeing with FAST.
It's the only thoughtful reason for never getting around to passing a niqab law in four years, and not being able to come up with a single reason why Ms. Ishaq should not be immediately allowed to take the oath. By opening the divide between prejudice and principle it's made both sides more aware of their differences than their common ground which is disastrous for healthy democracy that only thrives when there is majority consensus.
But if all that matters is welding your loyalists more closely to your side, then it's a productive tool. What it does not do is increase your vote count, not unless you can persuade multitudes of others to abandon everything they care about, hold their noses and side with you and your despised party over this stupid bit of cloth, and against legal, religious and women's rights.
We'll see Monday night.
As to FAST and me, you're right; whatever bad stuff he says can be attributed to a veiled woman, that same bad stuff clearly applies to hiding-him. D'ya think he's gonna demand a rightful end to internet anonymity to preserve our old stock traditional Canadian values? I suspect you're maybe trying to drag in the long-dead ID issue involving the niqab. It never existed in the Ishaq case, nor has anyone recounted a case of a wearer refusing to identify themselves when required. Like the case itself, that was never an issue. Nor for that matter was gender equality, except insofar as the government was coercing a woman to give up her lawful right.Actually , it simply proves the point that anonymity allows someone to avoid accountability. This is generally preferred for online personas, and most fraud attempts try to exploit this by avoiding accountability (e.g. Western Union).
Given accountability is one of the issues with the niqab (along with gender equality etc.), I think this is about as close as we will ever get to you agreeing with FAST.
Of course if the rule is to be barefaced at all times, then gas masks, welder's goggles and respirators will have to be re-engineered and/or outlawed along with balaclavas and ski masks — even for those 'secret' police squads. And what about overhanging hoodies and parkas?
But as long as we do that by proper lawful means so we can all have our say and count the votes for and against before it becomes law, so be it. At least until we discover the underfunded, under-staffed, over-politicized legal drafting team made ludicrous and serious errors that can't be enforced and won't withstand scrutiny.
YEP,...pretty much says it all,...and in less than 1000 words of word processor dyhrea.Actually , it simply proves the point that anonymity allows someone to avoid accountability. This is generally preferred for online personas, and most fraud attempts try to exploit this by avoiding accountability (e.g. Western Union).
Given accountability is one of the issues with the niqab (along with gender equality etc.), I think this is about as close as we will ever get to you agreeing with FAST.
Especially the example of using the net for anonymity,... hiding ones face in the name of religion,...does not change what that accomplishes.
Not to lessen the obvious gender equality issue though.
To close,...I take offense with ANYBODY who says I have said,... bad stuff about this women,...the ridiculous decision by a court,,,now that is really bad stuff,...and is going to come and bite the dumb ass judge's ass,...in the not too distant future.
Just wondering,...anybody know what religion the judge is,...???
FAST
The Court said: There is no law that permits the Minister to ban the niqab. There is a law that requires the Minister to accommodate her wish to remain veiled. No opinion, just straight black and white fact. Do tell us how upholding the law is ridiculous and bad stuff. If Courts don't do that who will? Harper? He's the one doing the stuff that's against the law. "Bad stuff' by definition.
As for anonymity, how is Ms. Zunera Ishaq being anonymous? That's you hiding and evading accountability, not her.
How would a judge's religion be relevant to determining what the law say the government must do? And when the government offer not one single reason for keeping their illegal ban operating pending appeal, any judge of any religion would say: No reason=no delay.
You' sound kinda desperate with your inventions and fantasies about ridiculous bad stuff and dragging in the judge's religion.
And the case is settled. You should be considering how to get your guy not to spill the next lot of milk, not still whining about this easily avoided mess.
