Face veils banned for citizenship oaths

[Wilber]

Driving with a hoody... driving with a goalie mask... driving with a cell phone... driving with a burka...

who cares??? All red herrings... distractions to the real topic.

I agree. Different issue.

[Guest American Woman]

Exactly. Then you get morons that use burqa and niqab interchangeably.

If that's a veiled jab at me, you responded to my post about a burka with a reference to a niquab, so actually it's better aimed at you.

[The_Squid]

We wont. The courts will protect minorities (especially unpopular ones) from the scumbags among us.

I think a good first step in this is for the Government of Canada to say that the Canadian Oath of Citizenship is more important than your cultural practice of wearing a face covering. Now off with the mask so we can swear you in as a citizen of Canada. You are no longer in a country that oppresses women.

Exactly. Then you get morons that use burqa and niqab interchangeably.

Then call me a moron.... but to pick nits like that doesn't really concern me. When I search for google images, they both look very similar. So perhaps many people don't completely understand the difference, however, the points made about face coverings still stand (whatever they are called).

veiled jab

Edited December 13, 2011 by The_Squid

[cybercoma]

You are no longer in a country that oppresses women.

Uh... yeah we do.

[g_bambino]

Then you get morons that use burqa and niqab interchangeably.

Is there such a thing as a burqa without a niqāb (or chadri)?

[DogOnPorch]

I don't see how anyone can seriously claim a hat interferes with vision the way a face covering does.

Burka

toque

There is no comparison.

The heck with vision. Look at those two photos. One is of a pretty well adjusted woman with a great smile and the other is of a shopping bag full of turnips. That pretty much sums up this issue. There's reasons I want to see someone's face. Basic human reasons. Putting women in bags is for cultures that think of women as property and whose men can not be trusted to keep their schlongs in their trousers around the innocent.

[cybercoma]

Is there such a thing as a burqa without a niqāb (or chadri)?

Is there such a thing as a niqab that's not a burqa?

[g_bambino]

Is there such a thing as a niqab that's not a burqa?

Yes, as I understand it; the burqua is the full, body covering outfit, whereas the niqāb and chadri are two different types of face covering parts, specifically. But, I can't think of when I've seen a burqa worn without either the niqāb or chadri.

[Guest American Woman]

I think a good first step in this is for the Government of Canada to say that the Canadian Oath of Citizenship is more important than your cultural practice of wearing a face covering. Now off with the mask so we can swear you in as a citizen of Canada. You are no longer in a country that oppresses women.

As a woman and the mother of two daughters, I count my blessings - I cannot imagine living in a nation where women do not have rights and equality to men. I think this is a brave step for Canada - I say brave because I'm sure Canada will be bombarded with criticism.

[The_Squid]

Uh... yeah we do.

Individuals might.... as a society, no we do not. In fact, we have laws against those individuals who practice discrimination. So your contention that women are not equal in law to men is patently false.

We should make all attempts to discredit and disallow those who are trying to import this practice in to Canada under the guise of religion or cultural practices. Let's call it what it is... oppression.

[cybercoma]

Yes, as I understand it; the burqua is the full, body covering outfit, whereas the niqāb and chadri are two different types of face covering parts, specifically. But, I can't think of when I've seen a burqa worn without either the niqāb or chadri.

The terms are commonly used to refer to two different things. The Burqa, while covering the whole body, covers the entire face. The Niqab is typically used to refer to the face coverings where the eyes are open.

[Guest American Woman]

The heck with vision. Look at those two photos. One is of a pretty well adjusted woman with a great smile and the other is of a shopping bag full of turnips.

I couldn't help but notice the genuine smile on the woman with the toque either. Who knows what's going on behind the burka? The woman could be black and blue.

At any rate, if people want to live in cultures that allow it, so be it. But I give Canada a thumbs up for this decision. I applaud Kenney too, for not mincing words and not being afraid to speak his mind - no fear of being politically incorrect there.

[cybercoma]

Individuals might.... as a society, no we do not. In fact, we have laws against those individuals who practice discrimination. So your contention that women are not equal in law to men is patently false.

We should make all attempts to discredit and disallow those who are trying to import this practice in to Canada under the guise of religion or cultural practices. Let's call it what it is... oppression.

You said they're not in a country that oppresses women. You didn't say anything about legal equality and I didn't say that women don't have legal equality. I said women are oppressed in Canada and that's the truth. I've already posted one of many studies in this thread that indicates as much.

[The_Squid]

As a woman and the mother of two daughters, I count my blessings - I cannot imagine living in a nation where women do not have rights and equality to men. I think this is a brave step for Canada - I say brave because I'm sure Canada will be bombarded with criticism.

In these oppressive cultures to be allowed to be beaten, treated as a second class citizen, even stoned to death for even having allegations (by men) that you are an adulterer would be hell on earth. It is barbaric. Anyone wanting to import that to Canada should be sent packing.

[cybercoma]

At any rate, if people want to live in cultures that allow it, so be it. But I give Canada a thumbs up for this decision.

Canada is one of those countries that allows it. This decision only has to do with the 8 seconds it takes to swear that oath.

[cybercoma]

In these oppressive cultures to be allowed to be beaten, treated as a second class citizen, even stoned to death for even having allegations (by men) that you are an adulterer would be hell on earth. It is barbaric. Anyone wanting to import that to Canada should be sent packing.

It's not right and guess what... Canada is one of those oppressive cultures where women are beaten and treated as second class citizens as well. Stoning is barbaric, so thank god we don't do that here too.

[The_Squid]

You said they're not in a country that oppresses women. You didn't say anything about legal equality and I didn't say that women don't have legal equality. I said women are oppressed in Canada and that's the truth. I've already posted one of many studies in this thread that indicates as much.

True enough... we have enough mysoginist dirtbags in this society. Luckily, our laws, and most people, are trying to combat this so-called oppression.

I say so-called because, while there may be inequality left over from when women weren't treated equally to men, I contend that outright oppression of women in Canada is a rare event and getting rarer. There is equality in law, which these other cultures absolutely do not have.

[The_Squid]

It's not right and guess what... Canada is one of those oppressive cultures where women are beaten and treated as second class citizens as well. Stoning is barbaric, so thank god we don't do that here too.

Canada is certainly NOT and oppressive culture. You exaggerate.

Most women can work freely, speak their minds and be rid of individuals who are "oppressive" in nature. There are services for abuse victims.

To state that Canada is an aoppressive culture is a massive stretch!

Edited December 13, 2011 by The_Squid

[Jack Weber]

Theres nothing in the bible that says christians have wear crucifix symbols either. But its still religious expression.

Heck... for that matter MOST religious customs, expressions, and rituals have very little to do with ancient holy books.

Does the wearing of a crucifix block the view of ones face for identification purposes?

[cybercoma]

True enough... we have enough mysoginist dirtbags in this society. Luckily, our laws, and most people, are trying to combat this so-called oppression.

I say so-called because, while there may be inequality left over from when women weren't treated equally to men, I contend that outright oppression of women in Canada is a rare event and getting rarer. There is equality in law, which these other cultures absolutely do not have.

It's not left over. It still exists and it's more insidious because we give the appearance of equality when it doesn't actually exist in practice. Women are far more likely to be raped, assaulted in the home, be paid less than men at work, to hold part-time jobs, to be unemployed, to be sexually harassed at work, to undergo cosmetic surgery to change their bodies, to have self-esteem issues, to suffer from depression, to live in poverty (especially widows, single-mothers, and aboriginals) and on and on. We don't stone them to death when their husbands cheat on them though or make them cover themselves in public. Good for us. Edited December 13, 2011 by cybercoma

[guyser]

I don't see how anyone can seriously claim a hat interferes with vision the way a face covering does.

Burka

toque

There is no comparison.

Think dark tinted faceshield on a motorcycle helmet....lots of those.

Think of a one eyed driver....lots of those.

[guyser]

There's reasons I want to see someone's face. Basic human reasons.

Oh bullshit.There are no reasons other than this is a nice set up to re-hash your usual talking points

You dont complain when its 30 below and someone wears a mask, you dont moan and bitch when a motorcycle rider goes by w full faceshield.

But this is something you can moan and bitch about and forget all the others.

Try again junior.

Edited December 13, 2011 by guyser

[dre]

Does the wearing of a crucifix block the view of ones face for identification purposes?

Nope. But the point is whether or not the Koran calls for hijabs or not is utterly irrelevent.

[Jack Weber]

Nope. But the point is whether or not the Koran calls for hijabs or not is utterly irrelevent.

So why hide one's,specifically female, identity???

[dre]

Canada is one of those countries that allows it. This decision only has to do with the 8 seconds it takes to swear that oath.

Which again is what makes this debate really silly. People are bringing up terrorism, and going on about muslim culture as if theres some kind of connection to whether or a female immigrant is allowed to cover her face during the 8 second reciting of a single sentence pledging allegiance to the queen of england.

And watch... well spend MILLIONS of dollars on this. I guarantee it. Its a bizzaro world.