Except,...for a religious requirement,...some idiotic judge allowed a women to insult Canada, for religious reasons.
So I guess that means you agree with the majority of Canadians that the idiot judge was WRONG.
FAST
NYT - With Anti-Muslim Campaign, Canada Has Its Trump Moment
- Thread starter Avatar
- Start date
So I guess that means you agree with the majority of Canadians that the idiot judge was WRONG.
FAST
There are many Sikhs who have abandoned the turban, especially the second and third generation of Sikhs. The families have accepted it as well. But we all respect those who wish to continue wearing the turbans.
You felt insulted? Were you at the swearing in ceremony? So you claim to be wiser than the judge, by judging him and calling him an idiot? Can you quote the Constitution that proves that the judge was wrong and you are right because you hold on to your narrow minded views.
I'm ok with that. Just like I'm ok with the law that says women can go topless. My only issue is that there is a time and place for clothing or lack of clothing choices. For example, I usually wear a baseball cap but I do take it off during the national anthem and I would also take off my cap at a citizen oath ceremony.
While I support freedom of choice in clothing (or lack thereof), I would never support anyone wearing a white hood and robe or a brownshirt even if it is legal to do so. Those garments are symbols of hate. Also, I think the niqab is historically a symbol of the oppression of women.
The women who wear it don't think so. They think it is historically a symbol of their faith.
In fact historically the niqab was not as popular as it is now. It has gained substantial popularity in the last fifty years from being worn by only the most conservative Muslims historically.
Hopefully the dead cat issue is done and we don't have to talk about this non-issue again for a few years.
Goodbye Harper.
And good riddance to the most non transparent and boring PM in Canadian History.
The judge allowed her to hide her face,...for religious reasons,...when there are NONE that require her to do so
That means that ANYBODY could attend the ceremony,...and hide their face,...for what ever reason they would like to come up with,...!!!
Should the courts be in the position to decide what religious/culture practice to allow,...and what not too,...???
I guess that's my main issue,...besides I still feel it was an insult,...just to satisfy,...in her words,..."empowerment",...and NOT a religious issue,...
FAST
That is false. While it is not in the Koran, there are hadiths that require it. In particular the hadiths of Aisha. The Koran is the literal word of God as conveyed by his Prophet, while the Hadiths are merely the Prophets own words, as reported by others. But being the words of the Prophet they still carry a lot of weight with devout Muslims.
But they are accepted as religious doctrine by some, and for those that accept the Hadiths that require a woman to cover her head, the niqab is a religious obligation.
It is true there are other Muslims who dispute the validity of those hadiths, just as some Christians think the Pope is infallible and others think he is a nobody.
I think Canadians, regardless of their religion, should be allowed to dress or not dress as they want. Sikhs wear a turban, I wear a baseball cap. I also fully support a woman's legal right to go topless. My only issue is that there is a time and place for everything.
Not quite. The judge said, "The law requires the Citizenship officials to allow her to hide her face based on her religious beliefs."
We should note that nowhere in Canadian law and certainly not in the Charter is there any legal authority given to anybody (or any body) to dictate a belief to anyone else, or compel how they profess their belief. That is the free choice and the exclusive right of the believer. The Charter protects that choice and right above all other laws.
However if we disagree on that time and place, we are all required to keep our disagreements peaceable, polite and within the law. The government went beyond the law; the Court made them stop and stay within it.
Exactly my point,...meaningless,...!!!
Who gets to decide that a persons religious beliefs are legit,....some judge who is an expert on EVERY wacko religion in the world,...or just a select few,...picked by who,...???
FAST
This always the delicate dance. For example, I can, but don't, keep my baseball cap on during the national anthem and I will probably get dirty looks but that is probably the extent of the disagreement. Same with women who exercise their legal topless rights at the local public swimming pool.
There are some tests set out in law to determine if someone legitimately holdsa religious belief, these tests primarily come from courts having to decide if someone claiming to be a conscientious objector legitimately holds a religious belief or is just trying to get out of going to war.
The tests relate to whether the beliefs are recognized by a community, the individual having a history of participation, etc.
So you can't just make up crazy claims, the courts will validate trust the beliefs are consistent with a religious community you are known to be active in.
What the court WON'T do is debate the Koran. If your religious community wears the niqab, and your participation in that community is clear, the court will accept you have a religious belief.
It also depends on the circumstances in which the issue arises. A sikh claiming a religious exception to keep his turban on will have to work harder in the court if he's trying to avoid wearing a motorcycle helmet, than if he wants to enter a restaurant that bars hats on men. We adjust the primacy of rights in accord with sensible and customary limitations that make society work. The rights always come first, then the limits and only as their need is proven. Once the Court ruled the law was against them not her, the Harper government offered not one single reason why Ms. Ishaq should be further prevented from taking her oath.
No one ever needed to see anyone's lips moving at a Citizenship ceremony. If in doubt all they had to do was stand next to them or ask them to say it again.
The least defensible reason to limit anyone's personal religious practice is to cite some outside religious authority as if they've been given the power to define and compel believers. That's called state religion and the next step is defining just one True Belief.
So FAST, to answer your question, it's you who gets to decide if your beliefs are legit. We only get to limit them as we can prove there is some overriding need to. So if you've picked some wacko religion, we'll just snigger up our sleeves, but you'd better be ready to work as damn hard as every real believer — like Zunera Ishaq, and those sikhs and jews and Jehovah's Witnesses and Hindus and … — who fought for the right you toss off as if it was nothing. And thanks to folks like you, your fight will be hard and costly. Like theirs.
We can all be grateful your version of defining religious orthodoxy isn't as deadly as some, but it is the same.
