Face veils banned for citizenship oaths

[DogOnPorch]

You know, the same argument has been used on the subject of Jews since time immemorial. Perhaps that's where you got it from?

As for obeying the laws: what laws are being violated here?

The difference being that Orthodox Jews never did blow up buildings and kill folks to get their message across.

Also irrelevant. We are talking about Canada here.

Yes...world's away from the USA on everything. We even put our socks on differently.

[Black Dog]

The difference being that Orthodox Jews never did blow up buildings and kill folks to get their message across.

Neither do Muslims in this country, which is what we're talking about here. Stay focused!

Yes...world's away from the USA on everything. We even put our socks on differently.

U.S. supreme court decisions have no bearing on our own laws. You should know this.

Do you have ADD?

[jbg]

The difference being that Orthodox Jews never did blow up buildings and kill folks to get their message across.

With one major exception that proves the rule. The killing of Yitzhak Rabin.

Yes...world's away from the USA on everything. We even put our socks on differently.

Canada is a very different country and culture from the U.S.

The reason I gave the "peyote" example and the reason it is relevant is that the peyote decision is written in the context of an almost absolute First Amendment, of which your Charter lacks an equivalent. The "rights" provisions contain a "subject to" clause which makes the rights far from absolute.

[Scotty]

Again: irrelevant.

So if someone says it's part of their religion, even if the leading scholars and leaders of that religion say it isn't, then we still have to respect that?

So if a guy says it's part of his religion to take Viagra, open his fly, and stick his erection out all day, maybe with a little wrapping of mistletoe, we have to respect that too and can't demand he cover up?

[guyser]

The reason I gave the "peyote" example and the reason it is relevant is that the peyote decision is written in the context of an almost absolute First Amendment, of which your Charter lacks an equivalent.

In theory anyway.

In practice, much the same.

[Black Dog]

So if someone says it's part of their religion, even if the leading scholars and leaders of that religion say it isn't, then we still have to respect that?

Yes: the Supreme Court in Amselem affirmed that a religious practice is one that is sincerely, subjectively felt to be connected to the observance of one’s religion, regardless of whether or not the practice is universal, normative, or required by a religious authority.

So if a guy says it's part of his religion to take Viagra, open his fly, and stick his erection out all day, maybe with a little wrapping of mistletoe, we have to respect that too and can't demand he cover up?

No, as that would be a violation of obscenity laws; religious practices are only tolerated to the extent that they do not infringe on someone else’s rights or freedoms.

[DogOnPorch]

Neither do Muslims in this country, which is what we're talking about here. Stay focused!

Ummm...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Ontario_terrorism_plot

...or do you just count the hit and not the miss?

U.S. supreme court decisions have no bearing on our own laws. You should know this.

Canadians died in 9-11 and the war that followed (still follows).

Do you have ADD?

Loser.

Edited December 21, 2011 by DogOnPorch

[The_Squid]

Again: irrelevant.

You should tell cybercoma this.

It is constantly being brought up by cybercoma and refuted by someone else.

[Black Dog]

Ummm...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Ontario_terrorism_plot

...or do you just count the hit and not the miss?

More red herrings. We have laws about terrorist activity. But we're not talking about criminal activity here; rather, the subject is modes of dress as an alleged "badge of hostility."

In other words: terrorism has sweet fuck all to do with the subject at hand.

Canadians died in 9-11 and the war that followed (still follows).

Also irrelevant to the subject at hand.

Loser

ADD and Tourettes? Poor lil' guy.

Edited December 21, 2011 by Black Dog

[Black Dog]

You should tell cybercoma this.

It is constantly being brought up by cybercoma and refuted by someone else.

Tell him what? What's being refuted?

[DogOnPorch]

More red herrings. We have laws about terrorist activity. But we're not talking about criminal activity here; rather, the subject is modes of dress as an alleged "badge of hostility."

In other words: terrorism has sweet fuck all to do with the subject at hand.

Also irrelevant to the subject at hand.

ADD and Tourettes? Poor lil' guy.

Suffice that you have a new enemy in life.

[Black Dog]

Suffice that you have a new enemy in life.

Who? You?

If so, where do I fall on your enemies list? After Muslims, but before logic and clear thinking?

[DogOnPorch]

Who? You?

If so, where do I fall on your enemies list? After Muslims, but before logic and clear thinking?

Enjoy.

[Guest American Woman]

Yeah, actually it does. Worrying is an expression of fear. You worry because you think something bad might happen or you're afraid that something bad could happen. Worry is anxiety and anxiety is caused by fear.

One of the synonyms of "worry" is "concern," which is exactly how I read it when YOU first referred to "let Canadians worry about it."

But once again you are telling people how they feel. They say when they "worry" about something they are not "feeling fear," and yet you insist they are.

[cybercoma]

So if someone says it's part of their religion, even if the leading scholars and leaders of that religion say it isn't, then we still have to respect that?

So if a guy says it's part of his religion to take Viagra, open his fly, and stick his erection out all day, maybe with a little wrapping of mistletoe, we have to respect that too and can't demand he cover up?

Could you stop skipping over the notion of "reasonable accommodation" that has been key to this discussion since page 1. It's pretty annoying that you keep setting up these strawmen, such as the above. No one's saying religious freedom extends to sexually harassing people.

[cybercoma]

You should tell cybercoma this.

It is constantly being brought up by cybercoma and refuted by someone else.

What's irrelevant is the "ordained" part. That it is religious is very relevant.

[olp1fan]

One of the synonyms of "worry" is "concern," which is exactly how I read it when YOU first referred to "let Canadians worry about it."

But once again you are telling people how they feel. They say when they "worry" about something they are not "feeling fear," and yet you insist they are.

Cybercoma is all about the Nanny state, he thinks he knows what is best for everybody and what is best for everybody is pandering to the religious minority because somehow that defines Canada in his eyes

[Shady]

Neither do Muslims in this country, which is what we're talking about here. Stay focused!

Right. They just plan to assassinate the Prime Minister and bomb Parliament.

[Guest American Woman]

Actually, a more accurate description of the practice would be to say that it is a way that some Muslim men express their religious devotion. They force it upon the women. It isn't a choice, for the most part.

This is the problem with the practice. It's often very much the way men perceive religious devotion, not the women being forced into it perceive it. As I've pointed out, and unless I've missed it no one has commented on it, a 2003 poll in France showed 77% of the girls wearing the niqab doing so only because of threats, force, fear of violence. That's a pretty significant percentage.

Canada has laws against speech that may incite violence, harm; why should clothing that can cause harm, the prevention of equality for women, be any different? Does the right to wear something overshadow the right to equality? Should that right supersede the rights of the women who are being oppressed? As I've pointed out, in spite of one's religious beliefs, polygamy is not legal. Religious beliefs in and of themselves do not have absolute protection.

[guyser]

Canada has laws against speech that may incite violence, harm; why should clothing that can cause harm, the prevention of equality for women, be any different? Does the right to wear something overshadow the right to equality? Should that right supersede the rights of the women who are being oppressed?

The clothing does not cause harm per se. The harm comes from the misogynistic tendencies of those they domicile with.

Women have the equality enshrined in law, but in practice it can and is denied by others, but it does exist.

Again, the right to wear something is not enshrined in any law or Charter or Constitution. Under the freedom section is where its antecedent is found. What this law (banned veils) does is turn the it upside down and removes the right of free expression, however small or slight or short that period may be (the Oath takes but a minute)

The oppression comes from the domicile situation. Hardly unique to Muslims as all cultures, all religions and pretty much anything else also has an element of oppression.

Jews oppress their women with some clothing , Hasidic's even worse (and in black---yikes) Italian fathers (old school) have two different sets of rules for their kids. Son, rule #1-do whatever ya want, Girls, rule # 1-do what I say and you arent leaving this house (hyperbole to make the point)

Romanians (no idea their religion) especially the women, must look rich , all the while live in a sorry ass trailer but there is a shiny new car out front.

[olp1fan]

From 2010

http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2010/07/28/14850246.html

OTTAWA - Canada should ban burkas in public, according to more than half of the people polled exclusively for QMI Agency.

The Leger Marketing online poll found 54% of people surveyed said the government should follow France's lead and not allow women to wear burkas in public for safety and transparency reasons.

Only 20% of respondents said Canada shouldn't consider a ban because it's an issue of freedom of religion and freedom of expression, and 15% said it didn't affect them either way.

Older Canadians were more likely to agree with a ban, with 71% of those 65 years and older choosing that option. Only 40% of Canadians 18-34 years old said burkas should be banned.

Leger Marketing vice-president Dave Scholz said the poll surprised staff at the research firm.

"This is Canada -- we don't ban anything," he said.

Sentiment was particularly strong in Quebec, where the debate over reasonable accommodation for new Canadians has been raging, with 73% of respondents saying they want a ban.

Morton Weinfeld, a sociology professor at McGill University, said the strong response in Quebec could be a result of spending 50 years cutting down the place of Catholicism in the province.

"Why should they fill that void with Islam?" he said.

"Quebec is perhaps the most strongly feminist place in Canada and the burka is a strongly anti-woman phenomenon."

Weinfeld said people should be careful when interpreting the survey results because the burka is the most extreme Islamic covering. He said nobody knows how many Canadians wear the burka.

The survey question didn't explain the difference between the burka, which covers the entire face, the niqab, which has a slit for the eyes, and the hijab, a headscarf.

The poll shows there's a need for more outreach and education, said the executive director of the Canadian Council on American-Islamic Relations.

"It's understandable that practices that might be unfamiliar to people cause tension and unease," said Ihsaan Gardee, adding it's a minority within a minority who cover their faces.

"When it's a woman's choice to practise a sincerely held religious belief ... it must be protected under the charter, provided it does not infringe on the rights of others," he said.

Muslim Canadian Congress founder Tarek Fatah, however, has been pushing for a ban on burkas.

"Progressive and liberal Muslims have been leading the fight against this abomination for the last 100 years," he said.

"This is one of the ugliest aspects of political Islam that has been imported into Canada and other western countries," Fatah added.

The web survey asked 1,526 people to choose the statement that best reflects their view of France's move to ban women from wearing a burka in public. The survey was conducted July 19-22. Leger doesn't measure margin of error in online surveys because it's not a random sample.

Burka: Most concealing of all Islamic veils. Covers entire body with mesh over the face.

Hijab: Arabic for veil. Square scarf covering head and neck is the most common style worn by Muslim women in the West.

Niqab: Veil for face that leaves only the eyes uncovered. Common across much of the Arabian peninsula and Pakistan.

QUESTION: Which statement best reflects your view on France's government trying to ban burkas in public?

54% Canada should follow France. Nobody should be able to cover their faces. It is a matter of public safety and business transparency.

20% Canada shouldn't even consider banning burkas. It's an issue of freedom of religion and expression

15% It doesn't affect me either way

11% Not sure

1% No answer

Percentage of population who think burkas should be banned

39% B.C.

45% Alberta

43% Saskatchewan, Manitoba

53% Ontario

73% Quebec

54% Atlantic

Due to rounding, not all figures add up to 100%

Edited December 21, 2011 by olp1fan

[cybercoma]

So it's less than 50% of people out West and right around 50% everywhere else, except for the xenophobic, ultra-nationalist province of Quebec. They're too busy protecting their own cultural enclave to worry about accommodating others.

[olp1fan]

except for the xenophobic, ultra-nationalist province of Quebec. They're too busy protecting their own cultural enclave to worry about accommodating others.

I will always admire Quebec for the protection of their culture..hopefully other provinces join suit with them in that regard

[guyser]

from 2012, just released guyser Inc Poll

Q?: Should the government ban the wearing of bikinis for anyone with a BMI above 24 ?

A: 89% of Canadians surveyed said Yes !

About as relevant I would think.

[guyser]

I will always admire Quebec for the protection of their culture..hopefully other provinces join suit with them in that regard

Its kept them relatively poor in comparison with the richer parts of Canada.