Face veils banned for citizenship oaths

[cybercoma]

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.

What other examples set by Iran and Pakistan do you want to follow?

[GostHacked]

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

You know I made this comment in another thread sometime over the last year. And I used to have a problem with it. A woman in my building wears the full face veil with the little slit for the eyes, and while driving I had an issue of safety. But then, living in Canada, many of us are so bundled up in the winter that we encounter the same issues. Hell some people don't have ANY obstructions in their view but can't drive worth anything. Some people simple cannot drive and should NOT be on the road.

[cybercoma]

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

No. Driving a car is not ok with vision obscured. What does that have to do with anything? Did a woman in a full-faced burqa get into a car accident and I missed it?

[olp1fan]

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.

it was a torontos constable police man that said that which started the slut walk

Edited December 13, 2011 by olp1fan

[cybercoma]

it was torontos chief of police that said that which started the slut walk

Thank you. I stand corrected.

There was a judge prior to him that made a similar comment though. The judge was chastized, which is why the Chief of Police's comment drew so much fire. It was the second time a public official made the comment in less than 6 months, IIRC.

[Tilter]

No. Driving a car is not ok with vision obscured. What does that have to do with anything? Did a woman in a full-faced burqa get into a car accident and I missed it?

There are many blinded by burqa women drivers & they should all be charged. Mind you, it wouldn't do that much good--- the burqa clad woman driver presents her driver's licence with a picture of a burqa clad woman on it---- how does the Cop know who she is?

And should they even be driving?

Like an Arab Idiot Official (senior academic--Kamal Subhi) said last week in a report for the Shura Council, the kingdom's legislative assembly -- that allowing women to drive "would spell the end of virginity in the kingdom"-Hmmmmmm ---Do Arab cars have some sort of prosthetic installed which would cause this damage? :lol:

Edited December 13, 2011 by Tilter

[sharkman]

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

We are arguing philosophies and issues here, we are not in the courtroom. I think ideas are more important and trump mere name calling. If all it takes to strike down an idea someone expresses is whether you can character assassinate them, then what kind of debate is that?

[sharkman]

You know I made this comment in another thread sometime over the last year. And I used to have a problem with it. A woman in my building wears the full face veil with the little slit for the eyes, and while driving I had an issue of safety. But then, living in Canada, many of us are so bundled up in the winter that we encounter the same issues. Hell some people don't have ANY obstructions in their view but can't drive worth anything. Some people simple cannot drive and should NOT be on the road.

And the ironic part is that veiled woman are usually not even allowed to drive. Females are treated so poorly in those cultures and when they come to Canada we want to respect this bigotry and enshrine it in our laws.

[The_Squid]

This is a good decision.

This garb is used to opress women in other cultures (it is questionable whether this is religious garb or merely cultural, although, either way I agree with the decision).

In Canadian culture (to which these people are going to become citizens of) it is common practice to show one's face when communicating, except under extenuating circumstances (-30 + windchill).

It is also common practice that we identify individuals by their faces.

For these reasons, this decision is a sound one.

If you want to become Canadian, there are certain things that one must conform to.... if this is too much for you to do, the option of going back to your home country is always there...

[guyser]

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

What Ccharge Officer ?

[guyser]

There are many blinded by burqa women drivers & they should all be charged.

Keep stepping in it!

[cybercoma]

We are arguing philosophies and issues here, we are not in the courtroom. I think ideas are more important and trump mere name calling. If all it takes to strike down an idea someone expresses is whether you can character assassinate them, then what kind of debate is that?

I'm stating a rational fact. I'm not assassinating his character. He supports Rule of Law in some situations but not others. That's the definition of hypocrisy. When it comes to laws he wants to break (pot laws), he doesn't believe they should be followed. When it comes to laws that don't affect him at all (requiring women to remove their face veils), he thinks they should be deported if they don't follow it. I'm not attacking him or his character. I'm attacking his arguments. What is with people lately thinking that analyzing and critically assessing a person's arguments or facts they present is somehow a personal attack?

[sharkman]

I'm stating a rational fact. I'm not assassinating his character. He supports Rule of Law in some situations but not others. That's the definition of hypocrisy. When it comes to laws he wants to break (pot laws), he doesn't believe they should be followed. When it comes to laws that don't affect him at all (requiring women to remove their face veils), he thinks they should be deported if they don't follow it. I'm not attacking him or his character. I'm attacking his arguments. What is with people lately thinking that analyzing and critically assessing a person's arguments or facts they present is somehow a personal attack?

You may have a point in your example, I don't know since I haven't witnessed your claims, but I could take your word for it.

However, I was speaking in general terms, not your specific example. For instance the issue of whether a woman should unveil when taking the oath is much bigger than whether a single poster is expressing hypocritical views or not.

[GostHacked]

I'm stating a rational fact. I'm not assassinating his character. He supports Rule of Law in some situations but not others. That's the definition of hypocrisy.

Which we all are. Because we all break rules we don't think are valid. This is 100% true. But the technical difference is I am already a citizen of Canada and subject to the rules (even if I break them). However these people are just getting here and not citizens until they are sworn in. If they don't like it, they can go back to where they came from. I do have a choice and can face the consequences, these people have a choice as well, take the veil off, or go back home. If it's important to them, then they will do what they are required.

When it comes to laws he wants to break (pot laws), he doesn't believe they should be followed. When it comes to laws that don't affect him at all (requiring women to remove their face veils), he thinks they should be deported if they don't follow it.

So what rules don't you follow? And we can nitpick about every law too. From rolling through stop signs to bribing government officials.

I'm not attacking him or his character. I'm attacking his arguments. What is with people lately thinking that analyzing and critically assessing a person's arguments or facts they present is somehow a personal attack?

True, I've seen 'personal attacks' on me and this is hardly one of them.

[cybercoma]

You may have a point in your example, I don't know since I haven't witnessed your claims, but I could take your word for it.

However, I was speaking in general terms, not your specific example. For instance the issue of whether a woman should unveil when taking the oath is much bigger than whether a single poster is expressing hypocritical views or not.

Of course. He was saying she should because it's the Rule of Law, but he doesn't agree with Rule of Law as having legal validity when particular values superecede it. In the case of the veil, that value is religious and ethnic accommodation and not humiliating people. When a woman is arrested, she is not strip-searched by a male cop because that would be humiliating. It's much more difficult to accommodate her by ensuring that there's a female cop to do this than it is to accommodate a woman wearing a veil at a citizenship oath. However, it's also much more humiliating for the arrestee. In either case, though, it's a humiliation and the strip-search example is evidence that we go out of our way to try not to humiliate people when it's reasonable. If a foreign woman would be humiliated by showing her face in public around men, then it is our duty to accommodate her where that is reasonable. Many examples have been given as to how this would be possible. There are other situations where it would not be possible or reasonable to accommodate her. I have not seen any evidence from the arugments in this thread that it would be reasonable to force a woman to feel humiliated in public just to take this oath.

[cybercoma]

So what rules don't you follow? And we can nitpick about every law too. From rolling through stop signs to bribing government officials.

I don't believe rule of law is the be all and end all of legal validity, so your point is moot. Your earlier argument tried to make this claim, when you've shown yourself that you don't agree with it. That's the only reason I called you a hypocrite, which, to be honest, is far too strong of a word anyway. It's just inconsistent.

[Wilber]

the burqa clad woman driver presents her driver's licence with a picture of a burqa clad woman on it---- how does the Cop know who she is?

Haul them off to the station, finger print them and confirm their identity with immigration's data base. How else could you positively identify them?

[dre]

For instance the issue of whether a woman should unveil when taking the oath is much bigger than whether a single poster is expressing hypocritical views or not.

Actually I would say that the importance is roughly the same. Have you seen this sacred "oath" being discussed here? Its a one sentence long oath of allegience to the Qeen of England, and it takes about 8 seconds to recite at normal talking speed.

The only issue here, is that we would even waste even a single dollar writing legislation around it, and then trying to defend it in court when theres an inevitable charter challenge.

Theres like REAL WORK for these people to do! WTF.

[dre]

Haul them off to the station, finger print them and confirm their identity with immigration's data base. How else could you positively identify them?

When theres a real ID issue, the police should have the authority to demand they remove any face coverings so that an ID can be made.

[cybercoma]

What I want to know is what's this the red-herring for. There must be something controversial going on right now that they're throwing this to the media as a diversion. Mackay back in town? They don't want people to notice the Environment Minster's 180? Must be something.

Edited December 13, 2011 by cybercoma

[guyser]

Haul them off to the station, finger print them and confirm their identity with immigration's data base. How else could you positively identify them?

Illegal.

What arrest are you making?

[g_bambino]

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?...

You are suggesting a fingerprint scanner and computer connected to a central database be available at every citizenship court?

[Guest American Woman]

(I am also curious why AW would have expected this issue to come up first in the US.)

I think this statement explains why I feel the way I do:

Canada, a country that prides itself on having one of the world’s most liberal systems for immigration, just banned women from wearing veils while taking the oath of citizenship.

link

It's just not something I would have expected from Canada.

Edited December 13, 2011 by American Woman

[Wilber]

Illegal.

What arrest are you making?

Any arrest, how else do you identify them? Please tell me, I'm listening.

[Wilber]

When theres a real ID issue, the police should have the authority to demand they remove any face coverings so that an ID can be made.

But then there would have to have an ID with a picture of their uncovered face on it. But that would be too humiliating. Right?