Bob

I thought you were being sarcastic when you told jbg that the Jewish experience in today's Islamic Republic of Iran was good, but once again giving you the benefit of the doubt proves to be an exercise in futility as you parrot more anti-Semitic talking points and do pro-bono propaganidization on MLW. Without going into the details of the oppression Jews deal with in today's Iran, which is of a slightly different flavour than the oppression the rest of Iranians have to deal with if the Jews have family abroad, consider the fact that the former Soviet Union also had laws guaranteeing equality for all people. I mean, those lucky Jews even had sovereignty and independence in the Oblast! I guess the Jewish experience in the former Soviet Union was just fine and dandy, as well. Dre is, quite literally, MLW's own resident counterpart of Samantha Smith's parents or Seoul City Sue, parroting the narrative of the enemy. So, so vile.

I like Michael Coren, too, and I agree with your sentiment that he needs to diversify his portfolio. He would do well to spend time researching and learning about some other issues and broadening the scope of his show beyond the usual low-hanging fruit: Islam and moral/social issues (usually something about sexuality or abortion) from a Christian perspective. I hate conservative/religious Islam more than anyone, but Coren seems to talk about it every day.

The Squid - It is not the business of the government to engage is Islamic theological scholarship to determine was is or isn't "legitimate" "Islamic law". Appeals to Muslim organizations that contest the religious requirement for a women to cover her face in public as support for banning face-coverings in certain circumstances is a non-sequitur, as the new rule applies to all men and women for obvious reasons. I really don't expect Jason Kenney or his ministry to be experts on Islamic exegesis, moreover, it's irrelevant. Hopefully Canada will eventually make moves towards banning face covering in more and more circumstances. As an aside, I has a ridiculous conversation with a typical idiot Canadian leftist a few months back, where I asked him what the limit would be for him with respect to the proportion of his local female population in Ottawa dressing up in burqas and niqabs. I asked him, 5%? 10%? 50%? 100%? How much are you willing to tolerate? Well, predictably, as a devout idiot leftist committed to committing Canadian cultural suicide, he told me he'd be perfectly comfortable living in an Ottawa (and later he extended this to the entirety of Canada) where all women dressed in such a way - essentially being perfectly comfortable with an Islamist Canada. I guarantee you will get the same predictably stupid answers from the leftists in this thread: cybercoma, eyeball, dre, and Black Dog. Ask them what the upper threshold is that they're willing to tolerate with respect to the proportion of Canadian women dressing in burqas and niqabs, and they'll give you the same politically correct answer: 100%.

Showing one's face is a human practise that has been an integral part of human communication across the globe since the origin of humanity. Don't follow cybercome's lies that this is some Western phenomenon. The vast majority of Muslim-majority societies also do no subscribe to this perverted and misogynistic practise. Cybercoma needs an "at-risk" or "vulnerable" minority in order to fulfil her racist/prejudicial need to patronize. As a committed leftist, she needs such groups in order to chase the phantom of oppression and persecution, much like Don Quixote and his windmills.

Since all religiously-mandated behaviour is rooted in "humiliation" and "distress", right? Not much of a religious scholar, are you? Anyone remember the movie Donnie Darko, where Patrick Swayze's character (Jim Cuningham) is this snake oil salesperson who markets a sort of emotional/mental health training program to schools to present to their students? This is exactly what cybercoma is coming across as at this moment with this constant harping on about this imaginary "humiliation" and "distress" that would certainly be experienced by Islamist women required to show their faces in any circumstance. As The_Squid realizes, this is entirely pulled out of cybercoma's you-know-what. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6A0GdR2LlKo

What you don't understand is that face-to-face communication is not a "Western" practise, it's an integral part of humanity. It's how humanity has conducted itself for hundreds of thousands of years, across the globe. There is nothing "revealing" about people interacting with one another with their faces exposed. On the other hand, hardcore Islamist practises of covering up the faces of women with burkas and niqabs is, essentially, what you are defending. If an Islamist woman does indeed experience "distress" or "humiliation", as you and eyeball are asserting, then she needs to seek help from a mental health professional. We would say the same thing about any other person who felt compelled to cover their faces in public in order to avoid such emotions in the normal circumstance of having his or her face seen by others. Consider also that I haven't even yet called you and eyeball out on your ridiculous assertion that Islamist women would in fact experience "distress" and "humiliation" in circumstances where they are required to reveal their faces. You just made that shit up, and eyeball ran with it... predictably.

Although not quite a Speedo, that comment kinda reminded me of this scene.

This is perhaps the tenth time in this thread you've been unable to distinguish between covering one's face and covering the rest of one's body. The most recent example being your monumentally stupid attempt to draw a parallel between a religious head-covering like a kippah or turban and a face-covering like the niqab or burka. I specifically stated that the mental health of a person who experiences "humiliation" or "distress" under the normal circumstances of having his or her face shown in public needs to be called into question. Since we're talking about Islamist women, however, they're given a pass. Everyone in here knows what we'd think of a person who always wore a mask out in public in order to protect him or herself from the "humiliation" or "distress" of having his or her face exposes in public. You, however, liken this to the self-consciousness a person may feel wearing revealing bathing attire. I must admit, cybercoma, you continue to deliver satisfaction to me in this thread, fulfilling my masochistic side where I enjoy seeing people humiliated by having their stupidity exposed. You're nothing if not dependable.

The screaming and howling seems to be coming from your direction, actually, as the vast majority of Canadians support this new rule. I guess the majority of Canada lives in "Hicksille". As I've already said, if these Islamist women who feel compelled to hide their faces from the public actually do experience "humiliation" when their faces are visible to the public, perhaps they need to see a mental health professional. After all, under any other circumstances, the mental health of an individual who experiences "humiliation" when his or her face is visible to the public would be questionable.

I must have a masochistic side in that I get genuine pleasure watching these leftists trip over themselves looking for arguments to support their attack on this new rule. The foundations of their desperate argumentation are multifaceted: hatred of Harper and his so-called conservative government, a die-hard need to defend any perceived "vulnerable" or "at-risk" minority that they pretend to care about (in this case, Muslims and/or women) from the phantom of oppression from the racist "Christian and white" majority, as well as some other things I don't have the patience to get into, right now. Although I wouldn't have thought this thread could get any funnier, it did - I invite everyone to read the posts above from eyeball an cybercoma, while they pretend to care about imagined "distress" and "humiliation" that would invariably be experienced by these pious Islamist women should they reveal their faces to the public when swearing a public oath during a citizenship ceremony. What true humanitarians you two are! Perhaps we should add a new mental disorder to the DSM-IV, where women who experience humiliation and distress when not wearing a mask now get diagnosed with a treatable illness (let's call it "Islamorexia"). If any non-Muslim woman or man ever experienced such self-dread under the normal circumstances of having their faces seen in public, we'd immediately consider giving them psychological/psychiatric treatment for mental illness. Since in this case it's an Islamist woman (one of their cherished "at-risk" minorities), however, it's "normal".

It's funny how leftists demand "evidence" and "research" when discussing issues of principle, or things that are prima facie true. I guess you want a "scientific" study that human communication is in large part predicated on observations of other people's faces, which is the premise for people showing their faces in court? Or a peer-reviewed research paper that demonstrates that a person's identity is primarily attached to his or her likeness in modern society, which is why we have photographs on things like driver's licenses and membership-cards?

No, the new rule sets a standard that applies equally to all men and women. Certain misogynistic Islamic practises, however, such as the expectation of women to cover their faces with niqabs and burkas, are irreconcilable with this new rule. Most importantly, the legitimate reasons for requiring a person to show his or her face while swearing the oath during a citizenship ceremony (as well as many other regularly-occurring circumstances of modern life where one must identify themselves with their faces) have been repeatedly explained to you and other leftists in this thread, and predictably ignored and/or not understood by you and your brand.

The sad truth for you is that I can advance the false leftist narratives that you subscribe to far better than you can. It doesn't make these false narratives any more valid, however, just because a more gifted individual like myself (who is more intelligent and educated than you) can advance a more convincing and coherent argument supporting them than you can. I know the narratives that you subscribe to better than you do. That's one reason why it's so easy to rip them apart.

This is an expected reply from a person who still can't grasp that this is about having one's face displayed publicly when taking a public oath. Kippahs and turbans cover the head and hair, respectively, not one's countenance. It's sad that you don't grasp the difference.

More hysterics from the knee-jerk leftist. The state is "dictating" that everyone, men and women included, Muslims and non-Muslims alike, must display their faces publicly when swearing a public oath. How this is likened to dictatorship tells us what we've known about you for some time - that you're not a serious poster whose exclusive operandi is hysterical hyperbole.

I will second that, cybercoma has, as you've just said, repeatedly advanced this narrative that women in today's Canada are magically held to some higher standard of vanity in this society as opposed to men. I guess it's somewhat true, given that women tend to spend more on their vanity than men, but it's not that significant and certainly not indicative of some systemic social wrong that needs to be corrected. This fantasy narrative, of course, leads cybercoma to conclude that women are still suffering from unjustifiable inequality in our societies that is a result of gender discrimination. Rather than simply address the issue of the thread, leftists like cybercoma will predictably obfuscate and veer off the subject matter into ridiculous tangents as you've just shown. Consider that a fellow leftist, dre, tried to derail the thread into a talk about VISA's policies for identity verification at the point-of-sale. The leftists simply cannot stay on topic.

Black Dog is such a waste of time. It's hilarious to see him parrot the feminist narrative of victimized women in contemporary society with respect to allegations of how the standards of vanity they are expected to live up to as oh-so-crushing. What a horrible life it must be for a woman in today's America or Canada! I mean, girls can't help but feel insecure when they're BOMBARDED with images of pretty women in our society! Oh, the horror! How did you ever make it past the age of twenty-five under such oppressive circumstances, American Woman? Tell us your harrowing story of courage and perseverance, surviving as a woman in such a misogynistic society.

The new rule applies equally to both men and women. The state is not "telling women what they can and cannot wear", the state is setting a standard that one's countenance, male or female, must be shown when swearing a public oath. Predictably, you're parroting a twisted feminist narrative, thinking that the state is "oppressing women" with this new rule that applies equally to both men and women.

Since when did this hysterical prediction about what Islamist/ultra-orthodox Muslim women "avoiding getting their citizenship" as a consequence of this new rule graduate to become a "fact"? You sure do have a wild imagination and and feel comfortable composing ridiculous predictive narratives, you must be a liberal arts student studying nonsense. You'll make a great apparatchik in some government bureau conducting "studies" about "social impacts" of public policy.

I never advanced an argument for banning face-coverings based on an examination of the cultural origins of the niqab and hijab. I never have, I never will. I'm simply bringing it up as a somewhat relevant side-discussion, not as grounds for public policy changes. Every argument I've advanced for restrictions of face-coverings in certain (and ideally virtually all) circumstances come from a purely practical point of departure. Many reasons have been provided by myself and other in this thread, feel free to go read them again. So your attempt at ascribing ulterior motives to those of us who support restrictions on face-covering, just as cybercoma has done, is essentially an attempt at smearing us and shutting down (but really dumbing down) the debate. You're telling us that we don't care about security/fraud concerns, what we really want is to make life difficult for certain Muslims. It's basically a new iteration of the race-card, but this time it's the "you hate Muslims" card ("Islamophobia"?). When legitimate reasons for requiring a person to show his or likeness are provided, they're ignored, and we go into irrelevant discussions about credit card/vendor policies. It's pointless to talk to people like you, clearly.

There is no difference between the two concepts. The niqab and burka are both products of a misogynistic culture/value system.

So you're joining the team that ignores all the legitimate reasons why having one's face covered is unacceptable under certain circumstances, and intentionally try to obfuscate the debate and ascribe an ulterior motive to those of us (80% of Canadians) who support this new rule of one's face needing to be shown during the citizenship oath. Like cybercoma, it doesn't matter what legitimate reasons are advanced in support of these types of restrictions during various circumstances, because what we're all really trying to do is offend Muslims. Forget about everything that's been said in this thread, we're all just a bunch of contradictory right-wingers who want to "dictate wardrobe choices". I'm trying to change the direction of the discussion because clearly there is a certain group of people in here,, who all happen to be leftists, who refuse to be honest in this discussion. So what's the point of beating a dead horse? I'm not arguing in favour of banning the niqab and nurka on the grounds of these attires constituting a misogynistic practice, I'm simply trying to discuss a somewhat related issue - the origins of these face-covering practices masquerading as "modesty". I've already explained, clearly, why face-coverings should be banned, at a minimum, in various circumstances. Ideally, they'd be banned almost everywhere.

This has nothing to do with what women can or cannot wear, but has everything to do with requiring all people, men and women alike, to show their identities during certain circumstances. This has already been explained to you many times, in great detail, and of course you will continue to ignore legitimate reasons for requiring a person to identify him or herself. I mean, you've been doing it the entire thread, you and I both know you won't stop now.

I'm not going to continue this inane conversation, as it's clearly an attempt to derail the subject matter of the thread. We could not get more irrelevant than we are at this point. I'll say one last thing, however - I never stated that a merchant must request ID from a customer as POS when processing a credit card transaction, so why should I look for support in the guide to a statement I never made? Back to the subject of how to deal with face-coverings in Canada..... perhaps we can talk about what, more broadly, the niqab and burka really represent and what "values" they are borne out of? Hint - the "values" are misogyny and chauvinism, and contempt of female sexuality.

"Gender inequality".... another phantom for a leftist like you to chase indefinitely. Ever consider the fact that there's this thing called "pregnancy" that can occur in a woman's life, and it can occur more than once, that can take away time that'd otherwise be used towards career progression, and that this thing called "pregnancy" doesn't happen to men? There are also several professions that are overwhelmingly dominated by females, yet we hear little about "gender equality" there. Then there's the "gender inequality" of child custody as a consequence of separation/divorce with most judgments being in favour of the mother. Please continue sharing fake statistics about "78% of girls hating their bodies by age 15" in order to drum up hysteria about a non-existent issue. Then go make some "equal pay for equal work!" signs and go join Obama while he chases the same phantom. This thread, coming from you, completely fits in with the ridiculous assertions you made in the thread about the new rules for showing one's face during the citizenship oath, where you asserted that political women are held to some different standard with respect to their appearance than men. While that may be true to some small degree (although it probably isn't), it's largely inconsequential.