Face veils banned for citizenship oaths

[cybercoma]

If you think that just is in Muslim families

How do you draw this conclusion? I don't think it's just in Muslim families and I didn't even imply it. I was illustrating how this veil ruling could create a barrier to reporting violence.

And if anyone wants to see how society has warped our overall view of women on the whole, all you need to so is look at any fashion magazine or any magazine for the most part. Do any of you realize how much editing in something like Photoshop happens to make the model beautiful? So yea, to Cybercoma's point, western society subliminally puts a lot of emphasis on how a woman looks. I think that is the point Cybercoma was trying to make.

Thank you. That's but one small example of how it's accomplished. Many people don't read magazines. It's a dying industry. It extends to television, movies, and advertisements in stores. I keep going back to it because it's so startlingly insulting, but look at how the news reporters treated Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton during the 2008 election cycle. They were both harshly scrutinzed on their appearances, such as whether or not Palin had breast-implants and Clinton looking "haggard" or "manly" in her pant-suits. The same kind of attention was not paid to the male candidates appearances. The closest we got to that kind of scrutiny was about John McCain's age. His appearance really had nothing to do with it at all. And even in that case, his age was a problem because Sarah Palin could have become president if he died in office. In any case, my point is that it's not just on the stands at the grocery store checkouts that this happens, it's everywhere.

[cybercoma]

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.

No, it's sad that you don't grasp the fact that the law does not affect everyone equally, as you're implying. It targets Muslims because of their particular religious and cultural codes.

[Bob]

No, it's sad that you don't grasp the fact that the law does not affect everyone equally, as you're implying. It targets Muslims because of their particular religious and cultural codes.

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.

[cybercoma]

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.

If you had actually read my posts in this thread, you would have seen that I already used the example you provided in that post. Not only that, but I've provided countless other examples and empirical data to support my argument.

You know what kind of evidence you've used to support your argument that this is a false evidence?

None.

Since you're so gifted and obviously more intelligent and educated than me, it should be easy for you to put a little effort into providing evidence for your argument and proving your conclusion. I'm sure you're well aware that arguing that you're smarter than me is a logical fallacy and doesn't actually prove your conclusion about my argument being false narrative. I'm positive you already knew that though, since you're so very educated.

[Bob]

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?

[cybercoma]

No, the new rule sets a standard that applies equally to all men and women.

I never argued that it didn't.

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.

That's exactly what I said too.

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.

I understand the reasons as they've been explained, but I reject your notion that they are legitimate for all of the reasons already expressed in this thread:

1) Religious expression

2) Public humiliation

3) Reasonable accommodation

4) Muslim men are oppressive for dictating how their wives should dress. This law dicates how a Muslim woman should dress. Therefore, this law is oppressive.

5) Threatens abused women by isolating them due to the threat of deportation

6) Threatens abused women by making them think twice about coming to Canada where they have a better opportunity to be protected

[cybercoma]

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?

No one has argued otherwise. In fact, it has been said many times in this thread that there are situations where a Muslim woman showing her face would be valid. The argument is that this is not one of them because of all the reasons I listed, but also because no one has been able to reasonable explain why it is absolutely necessary during this oath. They're reciting a passage. Not answering questions where you would have to determine the veracity of their statements. When they sign their citizenship paperwork, they are agreeing to be bound by the tenets of the oath and all the other obligations of being a Canadian citizen.

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?

Primarily, but not solely. The fact of the matter is that their identity is a moot point during the oath. They would have already had to apply for citizenship, met the criteria, and have taken the test before they get to the point of swearing the oath. The identity of the pers9on is already confirmed before the ceremony, so it is unnecessary to require them to verify their identity in a way that they would find humiliating at this ceremony.

[eyeball]

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.

Go bite yourself.

Force is force. I agree with the sentiment that the niqab is a symbol and tool of subjugation of women and I think their subjugation is repulsive. That said forcing women to remove the veil and show their faces to men however noble the intent of the state will result in many women feeling very distressed. I just don't see the point of distressing them anymore than they already are to accommodate people who get stressed out at the thought of them taking an oath without their veil on.

I can see accommodating Muslim women because I think their distress is more genuine and far more painful that your's or Jason Kenney's. Sorry that's just how it is. Suggestions to accommodate both Muslim women and the must-see-their-faces crowd, such as giving the oath without a veil to women witnesses only, have been rejected out of hand by the latter. Why you absolutely must have men as well is...well who cares, I sure as hell don't. It's just a silly no account oath anyway.

If we absolutely must send these women a message I want to send them a compassionate message. I'd also like to send a more forceful message to the men in their lives, hence my suggestion they wear blinders instead of making their women wear veils. I'm not above using force as long as it's directed at the people who deserve it.

Above all else though I'd really like to rub the message Kenney is sending in his face, because it stinks of the craven political base-pandering that seems all too typical of the Conservatives these days.

[g_bambino]

That said forcing women to remove the veil and show their faces to men however noble the intent of the state will result in many women feeling very distressed.

Has anyone actually been able to affirm that the new rule requires women who regulary wear the niqāb to remove it in the company of men or in a crowd that consists partly of men? The Oath of Citizenship is typically recited simultaneously by a group of people, but it doesn't have to be. Unless things have changed, only certain officials need be present to administer the oath, the citizenship applicant recites the oath, and signs a copy of it.

[Bob]

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".

Edited December 19, 2011 by Bob

[cybercoma]

Poor, Bob. More concerned with trying to create the appearance of people being wrong than actually doing anything to prove them wrong.

Looks like you're not all that gifted after all.

[eyeball]

Has anyone actually been able to affirm that the new rule requires women who regulary wear the niqāb to remove it in the company of men or in a crowd that consists partly of men? The Oath of Citizenship is typically recited simultaneously by a group of people, but it doesn't have to be. Unless things have changed, only certain officials need be present to administer the oath, the citizenship applicant recites the oath, and signs a copy of it.

I don't know. In any case it sure sounds like Kenney's supporters require and expect women to effectively humiliate themselves.

How much do you want to bet if Muslim women are accommodated with women only witnesses that the screaming and howling of outrage from Hicksville will only increase?

[Guest American Woman]

Has anyone actually been able to affirm that the new rule requires women who regulary wear the niqāb to remove it in the company of men or in a crowd that consists partly of men? The Oath of Citizenship is typically recited simultaneously by a group of people, but it doesn't have to be. Unless things have changed, only certain officials need be present to administer the oath, the citizenship applicant recites the oath, and signs a copy of it.

From what I've read, everyone becoming a citizen recites the oath together. They "openly" pledge their loyalty to Canada. I'm sure some of the applicants are men as are some of the "certain officials" who "need [to] be present" during the oath.

[dre]

And if you've listened to bigamists explain their beliefs, multiple wives/sister wives are an important part of their spirituality. Yet it's not allowed by law.

Not allowing one to engage in every aspect of their spirituality is not the kind of harm I was referring to, which is why I clearly mentioned threats, violence, and abuse.

If the "various articles of clothing" keep one from embracing our open society and prevent women and young girls from living a life of equality, then I would say they are part of the "root problem." Furthermore, the "patriarchal nature" of their culture and their "religious beliefs" are often intertwined. As for the ways to deal with one without the other, I see no suggestions as to how to go about that - only the claim that it's doable.

You've got to be kidding. This is so not "akin" to it that I'll simply say not all slaves worked in cotton fields. That seems about as relevant as your comparison.

Yes, they are treated better by our societies - but if they don't feel part of that society, if they can't assimilate into it, if they are held apart by threats, violence, and abuse - it goes against our values. I have to wonder, though, how many Muslims would not immigrate to the west for that reason - has there been a huge decline in the Muslim population in France? In Belgium?

But if we allowed Muslims to engage in other practices that go against our culture, that might get more to immigrate here - so should we do that?

That's your take on it. We shall see what develops over time. I don't see where limiting what someone can wear is more of a violation than limiting what someone can say. So you have your opinion, I have mine. Just because you believe a certain way doesn't make it a "non starter."

And like *I* said, no I'm not. I've clearly said it's about more than "freedom;" it's about "equality."

As I said, religious rights do not have absolute constitutional protection. And that's a very good thing.

That's your take on it. We shall see what develops over time. I don't see where limiting what someone can wear is more of a violation than limiting what someone can say. So you have your opinion, I have mine. Just because you believe a certain way doesn't make it a "non starter."

The problem is in both cases the bar is set very high. The government has to have a compelling operation reason, that cannot be easily worked around. A law for example forcing a muslim driver to remove her face covering so that the police can check her ID against her drivers license is likely to upheld. But a law banning that particular religious expression based on it being unpopular with westerners, or based on the assertion that its subjigates some women would require a constitutional amendment. This is EXACTLY why religious freedom is protected. Its to protect minorities from the will of a majority in cases where those minorities are unpopular. In this case, we have allowed these strange customs for decades, or even centuries. This stuff is coming up now, simply because muslims and islamic culture are very unpopular in the west.

And like *I* said, no I'm not. I've clearly said it's about more than "freedom;" it's about "equality."

A women thats free and equal is not told how to dress.

Anyhow... lets move beyond talking about this ban that is never going to happen, and talk about how you want to implement it. Who will be the burka police? What will happen to women that violate the ban, and how far do you want to go? Will it be a small offense like a parking ticket? Will we drag these women through the courts? Prison if they are caught enough times? Seize their religious clothes?

[eyeball]

Anyhow... lets move beyond talking about this ban that is never going to happen, and talk about how you want to implement it. Who will be the burka police? What will happen to women that violate the ban, and how far do you want to go? Will it be a small offense like a parking ticket? Will we drag these women through the courts? Prison if they are caught enough times? Seize their religious clothes?

Presumably they'll be deported straight back to their hell-holes.

They get They're allowed two chances to humiliate themselves according to what I've read.

Edited December 19, 2011 by eyeball

[Bob]

I don't know. In any case it sure sounds like Kenney's supporters require and expect women to effectively humiliate themselves.

How much do you want to bet if Muslim women are accommodated with women only witnesses that the screaming and howling of outrage from Hicksville will only increase?

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.

[Guest American Woman]

But in the meantime the state will dictate what women mustn't wear?

You'd make a wonderful dictator.

And you'd make a wonderful drama queen.

The state of Canada "dictates" many, many things, yet - - Canada isn't a dictatorship.

[dre]

Has anyone actually been able to affirm that the new rule requires women who regulary wear the niqāb to remove it in the company of men or in a crowd that consists partly of men? The Oath of Citizenship is typically recited simultaneously by a group of people, but it doesn't have to be. Unless things have changed, only certain officials need be present to administer the oath, the citizenship applicant recites the oath, and signs a copy of it.

No people cant even stick to the subject, and instead this thread has becoming a rallying cry for people who are calling for some kind of outright ban for cultural reasons.

Your point is really solid though, and I made the same point earlier in the thread. Once this ends up before the courts, the government will have to prove that "reasonable accomodation" is not possible. But as you point out it is possible... You can just have them lift the veil for a moment for ID purposes, and/or other women could manage this process.

Thats why the law as it stands is not going to survive a court challenge.

[Black Dog]

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.

A good attitude to keep in mind. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to deliver some Hanukkah hams to my local synagogue. Yeah I know Jews don't dig on swine, but you'd really have to question the mental health of someone who doesn't like bacon.

[eyeball]

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".

I'm sure there are lots of times you've said the majority are too stupid to rub two thoughts together as well, this is another one of those moments.

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.

That's religion for you. Nothing messes up one's mind faster.

Poor 'souls'.

[eyeball]

And you'd make a wonderful drama queen.

The state of Canada "dictates" many, many things, yet - - Canada isn't a dictatorship.

When it goes out of it's way to cause such undue stress though it's even worse, it's just being an ass-hole.

[olp1fan]

Wrong. Those that wear the niqab (or compel others to do so)do so because they believe their religion demands it. Under Canadian law, that's all that matters.

we should ban all organized religion because of the damage it does to society

[The_Squid]

1) Religious expression

2) Public humiliation

Both of these are refuted by the articles written by Farzana Hassan, a Muslim Canadian woman (if you bothered to read them). I would venture to say that she is an expert on these matters.

3) Reasonable accommodation

I don't think this applies at all. It is a necessity to properly ID people at times. Asking for this is not unreasonable.

4) Muslim men are oppressive for dictating how their wives should dress. This law dicates how a Muslim woman should dress. Therefore, this law is oppressive.

No, nothing dictates how a woman should dress. This is pure hyperbole on your part.

5) Threatens abused women by isolating them due to the threat of deportation

You are not automatically deported if you are not a Canadian citizen. Where do you get this stuff from?

6) Threatens abused women by making them think twice about coming to Canada where they have a better opportunity to be protected

Yes, they do have better protections in Canada. Women are not dressed this way by choice, for the most part. Having to be properly identified will not do much to prevent abuse, but it does put Canadian values above the mysoginistic values that have them dressing this way. A small, but positive, step.

[Black Dog]

we should ban all organized religion because of the damage it does to society

What about disorganized religion?

[olp1fan]

What about disorganized religion?

as long as they arent making a profit from it i dont care