Face veils banned for citizenship oaths

[Black Dog]

I don't like that they wear the face veil. I don't like that anyone dictate to a woman what she should or shouldn't wear whether it's revealing clothing or a burqa.

Generally speaking I agree. But I think there's certain times where the state has right to make people show their face. I'm not sure if citizenship ceremonies are that place or not, but I think it's about sending a message to that effect.

[GostHacked]

I'm talking about GostHacked having a total about-face when it comes to the Rule of Law theory of jurisprudence. He's using Rule of Law to say that women must uncover their faces when 1) this wasn't a law yesterday, and 2) he's completely against Rule of Law theory when it comes to smoking pot. In other words, he's being a hypocrite.

We are all hypocrites in this fashion. We all have rules that we don't like and don't adhere to. Hell not even our leaders can adhere to the rule that they set out for themselves. Our country has been involved in illegal wars (Libya is a good example) and have killed people and we seem to be fine with that?

So what rules of the law have you broken as of late?

[Keepitsimple]

This is really a tempest in a teapot - stirred up by contrarians and those who do not have a grasp of the importance of core Canadian values. We want new Canadians to participate in society - not to come here and shut people out:

The Muslim Canadian Congress, meanwhile, welcomed the new regulation, urging Ottawa to go even further and ban the burka and niqab from all public places in Canada.

Tahir Gora, the group's secretary general, said women who wear the veils are the victims of male chauvinism and brainwashing.

As a result, he said they have marginalized themselves within Canadian society.

"If they want to use this religious thing, they can use it at their religious places, they can use (it) at their homes," said Gora, who noted the burka and niqab are not compulsory in the Muslim faith.

[sharkman]

I don't like that they wear the face veil. I don't like that anyone dictate to a woman what she should or shouldn't wear whether it's revealing clothing or a burqa.

Well I'm fine with face veils. They can wear whatever they want within Canadian law, which already dictates the dress of all Canadian women(and men). Just take off the veil so your face can be seen for the citizenship oath like everyone else in the room.

Edited December 13, 2011 by sharkman

[cybercoma]

Generally speaking I agree. But I think there's certain times where the state has right to make people show their face. I'm not sure if citizenship ceremonies are that place or not, but I think it's about sending a message to that effect.

Reasonable accommodations have been brought up here. There are ways of verifying their identity without putting them into a situation that is culturally offensive or worse sacreligious. I would expect a more regressive country to require someone to piss on their religious to become a citizen, but not Canada. We're better than that. There needs to be a compelling reason (basically, it needs to be illegal or impossible to accommodate) to make someone do something that is against their religious beliefs. People keep saying the veil is not religious, but there is no central authority in Islam. So they can't say "The Vatican says this" as they would with Roman Catholicism. I believe there could be situations where it's absolutely necessary for them to reveal their faces. Before an attorney in court or when being questioned by the police are two of those situations. However, reasonable accommodations must still be made. However, in the instance of the police, they ought to be accommodating by having a female officer question her in a private room, just as you would have female officers strip-searching female inmates during processing. You don't have male officers strip-searching female inmates using the excuses like, "you're a criminal and it's the law! You have no rights! You don't want to be strip-searched by a male officer, don't commit a crime!" It would be considered an unnecessary humiliation. Even patting down female suspects when arresting them will be done by a female officer. We make accommodations all the time so we don't humiliate people and those aren't even religious reasons.

[cybercoma]

This is really a tempest in a teapot - stirred up by contrarians and those who do not have a grasp of the importance of core Canadian values. We want new Canadians to participate in society - not to come here and shut people out:

I agree. I think one of our most important Core Canadian Values is being accommodating to various cultures and ethnicities when it's reasonable. As far as the MCC goes, see my earlier post about their split in 2006, which led to the creation of the CMU. When their entire board resigned, their letter said al you need to know about the MCC's agenda since then.

Edited December 13, 2011 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

.

Edited December 13, 2011 by cybercoma

[sharkman]

I'm talking about GostHacked having a total about-face when it comes to the Rule of Law theory of jurisprudence. He's using Rule of Law to say that women must uncover their faces when 1) this wasn't a law yesterday, and 2) he's completely against Rule of Law theory when it comes to smoking pot. In other words, he's being a hypocrite.

So if you can call someone a hypocrite then you win the debate?

[Wilber]

omg...do you think they went through the entire citizenship procedure just so they switch in a double at the ceremony

At what point in the "entire citizenship procedure" were they physically identified if it is too humiliating to show their face. Who really applied for citizenship? Who wrote the test? Who is being sworn in? They will also never qualify for a Canadian passport unless they uncover their face for the photo.

lets do nude searches at the airport security you don't women know will be humiliated you are just taking their word, they push you cave...

Why would you only do nude searches on women? Letch.

Doesn't matter, they can't leave the country without a passport.

[wyly]

So if you can call someone a hypocrite then you win the debate?

yup that's how it usually works...in legal matters as well...

[wyly]

At what point in the "entire citizenship procedure" were they physically identified if it is too humiliating to show their face. Who really applied for citizenship? Who wrote the test? Who is being sworn in? They will also never qualify for a Canadian passport unless they uncover their face for the photo.

they are finger printed which is the most reliable form of identification...the entire facial identification thing is a red herring...what nefarious twisted plot would have them finger printed then switch in an imposter at the swearing in ceremony?... Edited December 13, 2011 by wyly

[olp1fan]

like the polygamy case.. judges found it reasonable to be able to marry more than one person but found the culture of abuse

of how young women were being forced to marry unreasonable

its reasonable to be able to wear face veils but unreasonable for the culture to force you to wear the veil

therefore burkas & face veils should be banned altogether

maybe the culture of abuse will end

[wyly]

like the polygamy case.. judges found it reasonable to be able to marry more than one person but found the culture of abuse

of how young women were being forced to marry unreasonable

its reasonable to be able to wear face veils but unreasonable for the culture to force you to wear the veil

therefore burkas & face veils should be banned altogether

maybe the culture of abuse will end

you've never established they're forced or abused...you're just making up shitte as you go along as you normally do...

[olp1fan]

you've never established they're forced or abused...you're just making up shitte as you go along as you normally do...

you'd have to understand their culture to understand how women are strong armed or threatened into wearing cultural

garnents and outter garments

[wyly]

you'd have to understand their culture to understand how women are strong armed or threatened into wearing cultural

garnents and outter garments

now you're claiming to MLB's resident expert on cultural and religious dress of islamic women?

[eyeball]

you'd have to understand their culture to understand how women are strong armed or threatened into wearing cultural

garnents and outter garments

I think the men in these cultures that can't control themselves around unveiled women should be forced to wear blinders when they move to Canada.

[olp1fan]

now you're claiming to MLB's resident expert on cultural and religious dress of islamic women?

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1879864,00.html

[Wilber]

they are finger printed which is the most reliable form of identification...the entire facial identification thing is a red herring...what nefarious twisted plot would have them finger printed then switch in an imposter at the swearing in ceremony?...

Are their finger prints checked when they write the exam? When they take the oath? When they vote? When a sales clerk asks them for ID when using a credit card, or when they are asked for ID at any other time? Fact is, they can do all kinds of things without properly identifying themselves that you or I could never do.

[olp1fan]

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1879864,00.html

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1879864,00.html

Edited December 13, 2011 by olp1fan

[fellowtraveller]

Note that Pakistan- an Islamic state with some major and harcore fundamentalist influences- forbids the covering of womens faces for drivers licence and passport photos, and for official checks of those documents like court appearance, traffic stops or aircraft security screening. No accomodation is made for female officers looking at the documents or the face. If further physical inspection is required, it is done by the same gender, same as in Canada.

I don't know what they do for female immigrants to Pakistan, I suspect there are not many of those.

Perhaps we should follow the Pakistani example, follow their lead in terms of cultural sensitivity.

[eyeball]

As for this oath, do we require corporations that move here to utter it? They're just people too after all. But speaking of veils and hidden intents, for all we know they're the liege lords this oath is ultimately for.

[cybercoma]

its reasonable to be able to wear face veils

therefore burkas & face veils should be banned altogether

[Tilter]

To what end? It's completely unnecessary that they show their face in public for this reason, when it is forbidden by their religion. There's absolutely no reason that this is necessary, such that it would be worth violating their Charter Rights.

So driving a car would be OK when Vision is obscured? --- Not if I was a cop & saw it happen

[Tilter]

Note that Pakistan- an Islamic state with some major and harcore fundamentalist influences- forbids the covering of womens faces for drivers licence and passport photos, and for official checks of those documents like court appearance, traffic stops or aircraft security screening. No accomodation is made for female officers looking at the documents or the face. If further physical inspection is required, it is done by the same gender, same as in Canada.

I don't know what they do for female immigrants to Pakistan, I suspect there are not many of those.

Perhaps we should follow the Pakistani example, follow their lead in terms of cultural sensitivity.

Yeah--- it's a hot destination for refugees :blink:

[cybercoma]

I think the men in these cultures that can't control themselves around unveiled women should be forced to wear blinders when they move to Canada.

I hope you realize that this statement is no better than the one made by the judge in Ontario that said women invite men to rape them by dressing a particular way. It doesn't matter how a woman dresses in any culture, there are going to be men who can't control themselves. Women are constantly threatened by inappropriate advances, sexual harassment, abuse and rape.