dialamah

I argue for "choice" and I support our country's commitment to our own laws, even if it means I have to put up with women dressed in ugly, body-covering clothes, or paying someone $10,000,000 because we abrogated his rights. Some people seem to feel different standards or laws should apply depending on whether they personally approve of the folk in question. Islamic Ideology doesn't even come into it. If people think dressing a certain way gets them into heaven, then they can dress that way if they want. If someone thinks that God wants them do harm to others, and they do, then they should go to jail.

Perhaps you misunderstand me. If the issue is that we should be able to see people's faces, does it apply equally to everyone all the time, or just to Muslim women? I am assuming that someone allergic to sunlight, or just nuts, would uncover for ID purposes in a 'safe space' whatever that meant for them.

That's a retarded statement to make about someone you don't even know.

These women will take it off, in private, for licenses and passports and where visual ID is required - perhaps to enroll in school or prove who they are prior to giving witness in court. And, while I personally am not comfortable with not being able to see someone's face in school, on the street or even on the witness stand, I also don't think that it's a requirement that I do. And, are people "required" to show their face? There used to be a guy in a neighborhood I lived in who always wore a beekeeper's outfit when outside (maybe inside too, I don't know). Perhaps he was nuts and protecting himself from alien rays, or maybe he was allergic to sunlight, but for whatever reason his face was always covered. Should that not have been allowed?

No, didn't miss the one re: citizenship oath. But she did remove it for proper identification prior. So, she was flexible in removing her face covering when necessary; the court ruled she was within her rights to wear it during the "ceremony". Re: witness in court. By your own cite, the woman eventually chose to remove her niqab to testify. Re: wearing a face covering for voting. Elections Canada does not require picture ID to vote. Thus, I could show up at your polling station, after having stolen a prescription bottle and a library card from you, and vote in your name. If picture ID is not a necessity when voting, what difference does it make if one's face is visible? But I ask you about all of these situations... is there a problem with our rights in Canada to challenge our systems? Isn't that what too many countries lack? Perhaps instead of being angry at the people who do so, be grateful that they, and we, can. If you don't like the decisions of the courts, that is hardly the fault of those who submit and win challenges.

Cite? Wait. Are you talking about Canadian Courts or those in other countries?

Yup you did, and I missed that. My bad.

Not necessarily. Someone's support of me doesn't mean I support them. I would be more likely to consider him alt-right if he were giving money to the Rebel.

I was a JW too for a period of time. I joined voluntarily and accepted their teachings. After some years I left. The important aspect to this is that I "chose" to join. I wasn't force-fed or brainwashed. When I wanted to leave, I did, and like you, I lost family and friends. To paint all adherents to JW's as helpless victims of brainwashing is wrong, imo. I don't mean to downplay or dismiss the influence of religious teachings on adults, but at some point I think you have to let adults choose even that which you believe is ill-advised. With children, I agree with you that parental and religious teachings can have a much more profound effect and lead them into serious harm and even death. I think in those cases it is appropriate that the larger society, through the government, protect kids in those situations. I have to say, it seems odd to me that your acknowledgement and understanding of kids being harmed by extreme religious teachings does not extend to Khadr, who was 12 when taken to Afghanistan and had spent his childhood exposed to an extreme ideology.

The new wording is rather similar to the original wording: Weir's original lyrics from 1908 contained no religious references and used the phrase "thou dost in us command" before they were changed by Weir in 1914 to read "in all thy sons command".[1][10][11][12] In 1926, a fourth verse of a religious nature was added.[13] (from Wikipedia)

Sure. No snickers for me though, I joined Weight Watchers and today my weigh-in has me 10 lbs lighter.

@Goddess As I should expect by now, you misconstrued my comments and made a ton of assumptions about my motivation. 1. My intent was to offer support to you because I felt you were being infairly attacked. 2. My reference to Islamic Dress was specifically intended for the items you dislike, was not intended to "distract" nor imply anything about how you feel about cultural dress. 3. My bad, no doubt, for even trying to speak on your behalf, and I appreciate your clarification.

According to Pew Research, Islam is the fastest growing religion in the States. There are several reasons for this, among them the relative youth of it's adherents and their tendency to larger families. However, they also gain many converts from Christian religions; the number of people who leave Islam and the number who convert to Islam are about the same. Why do you suppose women, born and raised in a Western country, would choose to wear something like a burqa or niqab? Do you think they are 'forced'? Fair enough. And so I think you and I agree - the woman herself has to decide not to wear it. We can't impose our will on her, however much we might think she is being harmed. You know, my granddaughter got herself involved with some guy who's very controlling and suspicious of her every move. I've been worried about her, because she's at a vulnerable place in her life - but I had to bite my tongue and keep my comments very gentle and light, because until she's is ready to see what's going on, none of my criticism, advice or worry is going to persuade her. Thankfully, however, she let me know yesterday that she's about to move out. Now, I already love my granddaughter, so it was easy to accept her even when I saw her making a mistake - but should we do anything less even for women we don't know? And for that moment in time, it really is the truth - at least for them, and even if they are having internal doubts. Given your experience, I bet you'd agree that even as you were having doubts, you would still defend what you were doing as your choice. I know I did, for at least a couple of years.

Her response above suggests she'd let them. Plus she's not a fan of dictating to women what they should wear, whether its the gov, religion or individuals. She just hates Islamic dress because she views it as misogynistic and not a truly "free" choice.

1. I haven't noticed any withholding of information about the burka et al. It is controversial around the world, including in Islamic countries. 2. I suspect your assumption is that if these women were informed of its misogynistic implications, they'd toss it. Given that in the West especially this information is pretty well broadcast, I think most Muslim women are pretty well informed. How could they not be?

This is not your opinion if its Muslims being sexist though; they are misogynistic barbarians, as far as you are concerned. So why are you giving everyone else in the world a pass?

Interesting; I've worked for both Federal and Provincial governments for short periods of time and had no idea about that. It's true that there wasn't a lot of hugging between employees of opposite sex - which is the same as my experience in the private sector - but there was one manager who would often touch other employees on their shoulder or arms; he was very well liked. He was definitely more 'touchy' than other managers, but then he was an immigrant so perhaps he was missing some cultural information. Anyway, I think the woman who complained that a manager touched *someone else* is ridiculous and she ought to have been ignored. Humans are social beings and touch is important. Rather than banning all touching, the goal should be to educate people as to what constitutes appropriate touching. The issue I had with the pic that was posted was that it contributes to the notion that inappropriate touching is exactly the same as appropriate physical contact. If you can't, or won't, recognize the difference than you are part of the problem, imo.

The fact that so many men here can't tell the difference between enthusiastic participation and unwanted advances is an indication of why so many men are being felled for being clumsy oafs and offending women they hope to woo. Now that we've had the enthusiastic participation pic, here's one of the opposite. Pay attention, boys, this info could save your job some day.

I was responding to your statement that there were only a few residential schools run by the Catholic Church.

Yes. Its a shame that societal attitudes hinder both men and women from speaking up. I do hope men who have been abused by women do start speaking up. They'll likely have to go through a similar trial by fire that women have endured, but I for one would like to get to a place where nobody felt they couldn't speak up.

I agree; there is no real evidence that women behave any differently than men when in power. Perhaps we do need a few accusations of women who abused their positions to encourage discussions about power imbalances rather than women vs. men.

Well thanks for the clarification and cup of coffee. I did think you were taking a dig at me. Anyway, I think in the context of the residential schools and the mores of the time, there was not much difference between them. At the same time the difference between, for example, the Baptists and the United Church of today are significantly different and in some contexts that would certainly matter. One can't claim that Christians hate gays based on the Baptists.

Yawn.

The majority of the residential schools were run by the Catholic Church, with a few run by other Christian denominations. But why does it matter which particular Christian sect imposed horrors on the people in their care? They all claimed to be following the God of the Bible.