dialamah

Turns out, we're not in Singapore. I also note that when Singapore attempts to lash a Canadian citizen, there's a huge outcry against it. So, this not very smart remark is just because you feel you are losing the debate, hmmm? It's the government that is being obtuse. The Citizen Act requires that individual religious beliefs are to be accorded the greatest possible freedom. It also says that any changes involving the oath need to go through Cabinet. So, for a time, niqab wearing women could take their oath with faces covered and they did so, apparently without any impact on national security. But, in 2011, Kenney decided this needed to be changed, and implemented a mandatory policy, despite warnings from advisers that was not going to fly if taken to court. He seemed to figure he could implement a 'policy' and if he made it mandatory, nobody would question it. Given we're dealing with new Canadians, he wasn't too far off the mark - until Ms. Zunera said "Wait, is that really the law?" Sure enough, it is not. If we cannot count on the courts to uphold the laws set by the government, or if we expect them to ignore laws, based on uninformed public opinion then we're in deep trouble. In other countries that would be called "corruption". Calling the courts obtuse because they support a law you don't happen to like is common, but not very smart. Allowing oneself to be manipulated by a political party - also common, also not smart.

Not so, else there wouldn't be both Sunni and Shia Muslims.

By banning an article of clothing that a person/family consider part of their religious culture, we aren't sending a message of 'respect'. We're sending a message of "Yeah, we can be oppressive too! It's Canadian oppression though, so you'll realize later that you like it". You don't teach someone tolerance or freedom by removing their choice.

Absolutely! I have a gut feeling that I should win a huge lottery! I can hardly wait till Harper and his Cons put that into an omnibus bill!