Bob

He was alright.

That's completely irrelevant to the already irrelevant tangent being discussed. That's an attempt to pass legislation as a "protection" for vendors from being obligated to accept payment from higher-fee cards, rather than the false assertion from dre with his imaginary excerpt from "VISA policy" that prohibits vendors from requesting ID to verify the identity of clients. So from one irrelevant and false tangent to another. Great work.

Well, it's over - http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/story/2011/12/16/sk-canadian-wheat-board-1112.html. Big thanks to blueblood for his contributions to this thread, he's definitely somewhat of an insider.

Clearly, it's a complete waste of time to engage cybercoma. Although it is kinda fun, in an immature way, to decimate his "arguments". It quickly gets boring however, as he just ignores everything (or perhaps he incapable of understanding what is being said).

Either you're committed to stupidity or you're trying to obfuscate in order to save face. We're not talking about interactions that don't take place in person, such as your fax example. I shouldn't have to point out that one's likeness, in public, holds them accountable for their behaviour, whereas having one's likeness hidden, in public, reduces their accountability for their behaviour. You're just embarrassing yourself further as you dig this hole of your deeper and deeper with your obstinance. Fortunately for you, nobody really expects anything more from you.

Good luck showing us the agreement or contract in which vendors are obligated to accept any payment from a presented credit card and/or are prohibited from requesting ID to very a client's identity. Perhaps you'll share another fake "except" like dre did? Another copy-and-paste Google search reveals that dre runs to Google and becomes an expert in five seconds on whatever topic he chooses... He doesn't even read the links he posts, which don't contain the language he thinks they do. What a pathetic poster.

I'll ignore the rest of the nonsense in your post and just deal with this basic principle. People are accountable for their actions by virtue of their identity. One's identity is directly tied to one's countenance. When one's countenance is concealed, their accountability for their actions is diminished. In other words, your face is who you are. This is why face-coverings must be taken very seriously and prohibited in many circumstances, which have already been explained to you in great detail (which you of course continue to ignore) This is a basic social concept you're either unable or unwilling to grasp. I cannot make it any clearer than that. You're welcome for the spoonfeeding.

Merchants can do whatever they want to do with respect to requesting ID for the processing of credit card transactions, the credit card company cannot obligate a merchant to accept a transaction without ID. If a consumer doesn't wish to provide ID, that's his or her decision, and the merchant can refuse to accept the payment and render the goods/services. The VISA policy you pasted contradicts itself, anyways. Nevermind the fact that this is a completely irrelevant tangent to the subject matter of the thread...

If it hasn't already been explained to why swearing the citizenship oath, going into a bank, and shopping at a store all provide reasonable grounds to request a person to show his or her face, the I will do so now. You are aware that swearing an oath is a public act, correct? You are aware that accountability for the the oath being sworn is manifested through the nature of the oath being made in public correct? Accountability is created through others witnessing the oath being sworn, and through the natural (call it biological, if you want) viewing of one's countenance while it is being done. A person is held accountable for his or her actions (including the swearing of oaths) through his or identity, and one's identity is inextricable from one's face. Do you understand that? It is the same principle that applies in the justice system, where the accused is entitled to see the accuser. There is something essential about people being able to look at one another, unimpeded, in these types of situations. ON a more biological level, it is the same reason why infants naturally direct their gaze to faces of people. We're biologically programmed to do so, as our faces, as well as our voices and other body language, are part of human communication. As far as stores and banks go, both can advance the argument that for security purposes they require all of their customers/clients to show their faces. Of course this would bring about controversy and legal challenges from the usual suspects, but perhaps this is where the government can show some leadership and at least implement laws that protect private businesses from lawsuits alleging religious discrimination should they choose to implement such policies. Beyond that, I've already provided you with examples in the context of certain situations in a bank where showing one's face is an essential part of the security of the transaction. Of course, you ignored those examples.

Yes, apparently vanity concerns only affect the fairer sex in the eyes of the public... according to cybercoma's false social narrative, anyways.

The "w" is beside the "e" on the keyboard, you know? Guess that's hard for you notice.

According to cybercoma, there aren't any "valid reasons for being able to positively identify someone" by showing their face. This is all about us not liking the niqab/burka. We're "frightened" by it.

Wrong. Many practical problems have been presented, and you've ignored them all.

I worked at a bank for years while in university, I'm well aware of the absence of requirements for presenting photo ID during most transactions. Still, there are circumstances where photo ID is required. For example, opening up an account or applying for credit. You've completely ignored the point, anyways.... not surprisingly, I should add.

So in other words, you're parroting the feminist narrative that there is a double-standard in politics between men and women when it comes to appearance? That the electorate holds higher standards for women with respect to things like how telegenic they are than for men?

It's always interesting to see the socialists defend the "liberties" of Islamists, essentially supporting a misogynistic practise that effectively isolates women and is rooted in a shaming of women by virtue of their sexuality. The truth? These socialists only take this position on this issue because they're reflexively ally with groups they perceive as "vulnerable", "oppressed", or "marginalized". These days, certain Muslim organizations have done an effective job selling this lie that they are discriminated against in Western societies, and jacee has drunk their Kool-Aid and is going for seconds. Her support for the "freedom" of Islamists to perpetuate their inferior cultural practises is rooted in reflexive support for these "lesser" groups that need her political patronage. Basically, she needs an imagined underdog to cheer for, regardless of who, where, or why. In this case, it's the Islamist cloaked woman.

That's true, but private businesses such as banks should be permitted to deny service to people who refuse to identify themselves in accordance with the policies of the business. Eventually banks will begin to add photos to their bank cards, as certain credit cards already do (like my photo on my Costco AMEX). Another example would be a gym or fitness club membership with a photo - the private business should be permitted to deny service to individuals who refuse to identify themselves in-line with the business membership/customer policies. Unfortunately, in left-wing Canada, that would inevitably bring about a constitutional challenge and/or HRC complaint from the usual suspects.

It's really not the government's business to investigate and interpret religion and associated exegesis. I was unimpressed with Jason Kenney's statements about the niqab and/or burka not being "Islamic law" by virtue of it not being explicitly ordered in the Koran. Since when is Jason Kenney's job to be an Islamic theologian? It is completely irrelevant whether or not it is an Islamic requirement for women to cover their faces. Would Jason Kenney's decision to require all people to show their faces when swearing their citizenship oath be different if the Koran explicitly stated that a woman must cover her face? I sure hope not. What's right is right and what's just is just, and this is not contingent on what the Koran, or any other religious book or associated exegeses/commentaries say. The reason I'm making this point is because the OP seems to be trying to make the same argument as Jason Kenney did during his PR campaign the other day when the new rule was implemented - that since face-coverings for women are apparently not "Islamic law", given the broad nature of the instruction for "modesty" in the Koran, then this new rule doesn't transgress "Islamic law". "It's cultural, not religious", people like this say. Is Jason Kenney telling us that he will consult the Koran in the future when formulating public policy, in order not to make any changes that might explicitly contradict "Islamic law" as he sees it? Weak argumentation from Jason Kenney, but I still like him.

Although dre has never been worthy of any serious respect (he can't even spell "controversial"), he's really sunk to a new low in this thread. He's literally towing the Islamist line that Zionists created, or at the very least greatly fostered and grew, anti-Semitism in Europe towards the ends of achieving Zionist ambitions. This is a total fabrication, and the simple version is that Zionism's origins were largely a reactionary movement towards the reality of anti-Semitic persecution. We needed a solution the oppression facing us (and the upcoming pinnacle of this hatred - the Holocaust), and that solution was and remains self-determination through statehood.

The early Zionist brainstorming that considered Uganda doesn't show anything about the falsehood of Israel being the eternal homeland of the Jewish people. What it shows is that the early Zionist movement was contemplating various solutions to the problems of statelessness. Nothing more, nothing less.

Of course this isn't true, but carry on....

Where the hell did this come from? Another Jew-hater, of course. You might as well just say that Jews are like Nazis. I'm guessing this person is so consumed with self-loathing and hatred that the envy of what the Jews represent: academic achievement, contributions to the arts, and overall success, consume him/her. "Damn Jews! They have so much! Who the hell do they think they are?!"

Of course this entire post of yours is an absolute lie. You're literally trying to blame Zionism for anti-Semitism and the Holocaust, while American Woman is obviously sensible enough to see through your bullshit and recognize Zionism as reactionary towards the realities of anti-Jewish persecution. It's really sick how you're trying to spin this into some sort of chicken-and-egg narrative. You're literally parroting the Islamist anti-Semitic narrative of Zionism, where everything is some evil Jewish conspiracy.

All of his quotes, except the one from Ben-Gurion, are false. Do a copy-and-paste Google search with the false Herzl quote and the false Klaussner quote and see for yourself. It's quite revealing when you consider the sites that dre must have visited in order to lift those "quotes".

This is a gross misrepresentation of Zionism, early Zionist motivations, and Ben-Gurion and Herzl. You are literally towing the anti-Semitic narrative of trying to demonize Zionism by demonizing some of its most notable historical leaders. Ben-Gurion's quote, which is almost exclusively referenced by anti-Semitic/anti-Zionist websites (all one needs to do is copy-and-paste that quote you shared into a Google search to see the types of vile sites that reference it gleefully), is simply his recognition that without statehood, the Jewish people would eternally be victimized and vulnerable. The message, which you are trying to smear, is actually quite obvious - if a heavy price must be paid for the survival of the Jewish people, then so be it. Your liberal sensitivities are clearly rattled by Ben-Gurion speaking candidly, as a leader, about the tough decision he would have made if forced into making such a terrible choice. Yet you parrot the anti-Semitic canard that this quote somehow reveals an inhuman Zionist leader. The same thing is true for your alleged Herzl quote, no doubt also copy-and-pasted from an anti-Semitic website. It seems to be a false quote, so I won't address it. I invite anyone here to copy-and-paste a portion of the alleged Herzl quote into a Google search, and see for yourself the types of sites that dre frequents. Virtually all of the results are patently anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist websites. The false narrative of Zionist "collaboration" with Nazis in order to advance the Zionist call is another smear tactic from the usual suspects, as if the Jews of the time weren't in an impossible position. For dre to portray himself as sitting in judgment of those Jews that had to make terrible decisions between saving some and losing others is unsurprising, but typical given his despicable history of posting on these issues, all in a disgusting attempt to smear Zionism. The quote from Rabbi Klausner is also lifted from a false anti-Semitic source, found in this anti-Zionist/anti-Semitic book: The Mythical Foundations of Israeli Policy So this is what dre's been reduced to, parroting false quotes (except for the Ben-Gurion quote) lifted from anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist websites in order to parrot the typical narrative of the evil cold-blooded Zionists who wanted nothing except to establish an evil colonial entity. Nevermind the fact that what compelled the early Zionists, and what continues to compel Zionists today is an understanding of history that teaches us that without self-determination through statehood, we will always be vulnerable to the wishes of our enemies. Moreover, if we don't stand up for ourselves, nobody will. Zionism was and remains a movement of emancipation and liberation, yet this Jew-hater is committed to smearing the movement with outright lies and spin. Really, really sickening.