Face veils banned for citizenship oaths

[Guest American Woman]

The 'excuse' by AW that some men wear burqas in robbing banks, however, is not sincere: If it was, then Hallowe'en masks would have been made illegal long ago.

And wearing or holding your scarf over your face (or balaclava) in winter in Canada is sometimes an absolute necessity ... or a snowmobile helmet ...

"Excuse?" What excuse? I pointed out real situations - per your request. YOU are the one who brought it up, I responded, and I'm making "excuses?"

FYI, if someone were to walk into a bank with a Halloween mask on, I think they might draw a bit of attention standing in line. By the same token, one usually needn't hold their scarf over their face (or balaclava) at a bank. That's generally not an absolute necessity. Y'all do have central heating in Canada, right? Generally a snowmobile helmet isn't an absolute necessity in a bank either. Unless it's a drive-thru Igloo. However, I don't think the vast majority of bank robberies take place in the drive-thru.

So yeah. I was "sincere" with my examples. They really happened. Don't know how one can get any more "sincere" than that.

[Wilber]

It would be racist and Islamophobic to blame the Burqa for someone using a mask in a bank robbery. People use all sorts of masks when robbing banks. It happens all the time, but this one should be sensationalized and all over the news because it was a Burqa? How is the fact that it's a Burqa even relevant to the story? Is there a rampant problem of Burqa covered criminals knocking over banks? No.

When did Muslim become a race?

[cybercoma]

"Excuse?" What excuse? I pointed out real situations - per your request. YOU are the one who brought it up, I responded, and I'm making "excuses?"

FYI, if someone were to walk into a bank with a Halloween mask on, I think they might draw a bit of attention standing in line. By the same token, one usually needn't hold their scarf over their face (or balaclava) at a bank. That's generally not an absolute necessity. Y'all do have central heating in Canada, right? Generally a snowmobile helmet isn't an absolute necessity in a bank either. Unless it's a drive-thru Igloo. However, I don't think the vast majority of bank robberies take place in the drive-thru.

So yeah. I was "sincere" with my examples. They really happened. Don't know how one can get any more "sincere" than that.

It's also not illegal to wear a scarf, balaclava, helmet, or even a Halloween mask in a bank.

[cybercoma]

When did Muslim become a race?

Bigoted and ethnocentric. Better?

[Wilber]

Bigoted and ethnocentric. Better?

If you wish. It just pisses me off the way some people throw the R word around. People choose their religion, they can't choose their race. There is nothing wrong with questioning choices, that's why forums like this exist.

[cybercoma]

If you wish. It just pisses me off the way some people throw the R word around. People choose their religion, they can't choose their race. There is nothing wrong with questioning choices, that's why forums like this exist.

Research suggests people don't choose their religion. They actually just adopt the religion of their parents and community, but I agree with your point.

[Wilber]

Research suggests people don't choose their religion. They actually just adopt the religion of their parents and community, but I agree with your point.

No, they choose to adopt the religion of their parents and they can choose not to.

[cybercoma]

No, they choose to adopt the religion of their parents and they can choose not to.

A child doesn't choose to adopt or reject the religion of their parents. Parents usually raise their children within a religion, if they subscribe to one. Choosing to go against that is extremely difficult and it tends to define your entire world view. Some people will reject religion as they get older, but few actually switch religions (suggesting that a conscious choice was made).

[DogOnPorch]

"Excuse?" What excuse? I pointed out real situations - per your request. YOU are the one who brought it up, I responded, and I'm making "excuses?"

FYI, if someone were to walk into a bank with a Halloween mask on, I think they might draw a bit of attention standing in line. By the same token, one usually needn't hold their scarf over their face (or balaclava) at a bank. That's generally not an absolute necessity. Y'all do have central heating in Canada, right? Generally a snowmobile helmet isn't an absolute necessity in a bank either. Unless it's a drive-thru Igloo. However, I don't think the vast majority of bank robberies take place in the drive-thru.

So yeah. I was "sincere" with my examples. They really happened. Don't know how one can get any more "sincere" than that.

I live in an area with very harsh winters and I can assure you there is central heating, heated autos and drive-thru banks. Still, nobody 'normal' walks around in a balaclava unless it's -40C or worse...and even then...it ruins your hair. So the average citizen dresses nearly exactly like you in the Mid-West during the winter. Anyone fully covered is viewed with suspicion as per the high crime rate...just like in many American cities. Don't let these ying-yangs paint a picture of Red Serge covered Mounties in jaunty hats directing snowmobile traffic. Doesn't happen anywhere south of Yellowknife.

[jacee]

Point being ... I'd like to be able to put my scarf over my face for whatever reason, and not be arrested for THAT alone.

I am opposed to laws or illegal police orders to arrest anyone with their face covered.

Edited December 16, 2011 by jacee

[Wilber]

A child doesn't choose to adopt or reject the religion of their parents. Parents usually raise their children within a religion, if they subscribe to one. Choosing to go against that is extremely difficult and it tends to define your entire world view. Some people will reject religion as they get older, but few actually switch religions (suggesting that a conscious choice was made).

We are not talking about children. Are you saying that a person is not responsible for any behavior throughout their life as long as their parents displayed the same behavior?

[Wilber]

Point being ... I'd like to be able to put my scarf over my face for whatever reason, and not be arrested for THAT alone.

I am opposed to laws or illegal police orders to arrest anyone with their face covered.

You are opposed to something that doesn't exist.

[sharkman]

I think we have become hyper sensitive in Canada. It clouds our common sense and has us so scared of appearing to be racist or bigoted that we become reverse bigots.

[Guest Peeves]

I found this excerpt from your link interesting:

It wasn't even reported out of fear of accusations of racism and Islamophobia - and Kenney has been accused of bigotry and it's been insinuated that he's an Islamaphobe as well.

above reply truncated for brevity.

I btw immediately get pissed off if anyone calls another an Islamophobe for discusing facts or giving an opinion. Personal name calling- resorting to insults, is jejune and simply unworthy of most rational adults in a discussion. If one criticizes the church for not earlier addressing sexual abuse, are they Christianaphobes? No, they are discussing facts. If they lie about the church they are liars.

The National Post had ? (tongue in cheek?)'expose on burkas by a Muslim woman today. I'm not surprised since most

Westernized Muslims find the covering by burka, niqab or the lie to be repugnant. Some (few) here defend a 'dress' that Muslims themselves find objectionable. Some (few) here think appeasement = accommodation when it only supports a political objective bu Islamists.

There is quite simply no argument to support the wearing of a mask in public. At least not to many or most. A disguise, a mask, a cloak, obscuring ones sex, identity just doesn't have anything to support it in our society.

Take a way the phony unsupported religious argument and you are left with quite simply an obstruction to any honest and open relationship.

By Afsun Qureshi

The issue of Muslim headgear never stays out of the headlines for long. The latest brouhaha began when Citizenship and Immigration Minister Jason Kenney declared that new Canadians would have to show their faces when taking their oath of citizenship. Most (including this newspaper’s editorial board) applauded. Others cried foul.

From where I sit, in England’s so-called London-stan, I have a different view on the matter. Let me suggest that we un-complicate the issue by stripping it of its most controversial element, religion. Instead, let us examine the top five non-religious reasons women should avoid opaque head coverings and the robes that go with them.

see the list at link.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/12/16/afsun-qureshi-six-secular-reasons-to-ban-the-burka/

Edited December 16, 2011 by Peeves

[Black Dog]

Libby? An example of how looks aren't that important in terms of power.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libby_Davies

Thanks, and definitely. Sorta like Janet Reno, eh?

Um. I don't think saying "Looks don't matter for women in politics: just look at this ugly cow!" makes the point you think it does.

[Bob]

Good decision by Jason Kenney, but it doesn't go far enough. Full face covering must be banned in more circumstances, and private businesses should be permitted to deny service to people who cover their faces for security concerns. For example, when providing one's health card for the rendering of medical services, all individuals should be required to show their faces so that their identities may be confirmed. Same goes for voting, for police detentions and arrests, for legal testimony, and so forth. As usual, the leftists are engaging in apologism for Islamist ideology and inferior/barbaric cultural practises. Kinda reminds me of when Justin Trudeau stated that he was "uncomfortable with the tone" of the revised Canadian citizenship guide that was released a little while back, implying that perhaps honour killings shouldn't be characterized as "barbaric". This is the leftist moral relativist mindset in full effect.

Ideally, full facial coverings would be completely banned in public given the fact having our faces shown adds an element of accountability/personal responsibility for one's actions. Also, viewing each other's faces is an integral part of in-person human communication that is sickeningly cut off by a misogynistic cultural/religious practise.

[dre]

Good decision by Jason Kenney, but it doesn't go far enough. Full face covering must be banned in more circumstances, and private businesses should be permitted to deny service to people who cover their faces for security concerns. For example, when providing one's health card for the rendering of medical services, all individuals should be required to show their faces so that their identities may be confirmed. Same goes for voting, for police detentions and arrests, for legal testimony, and so forth. As usual, the leftists are engaging in apologism for Islamist ideology and inferior/barbaric cultural practises. Kinda reminds me of when Justin Trudeau stated that he was "uncomfortable with the tone" of the revised Canadian citizenship guide that was released a little while back, implying that perhaps honour killings shouldn't be characterized as "barbaric". This is the leftist moral relativist mindset in full effect.

Ideally, full facial coverings would be completely banned in public given the fact having our faces shown adds an element of accountability/personal responsibility for one's actions. Also, viewing each other's faces is an integral part of in-person human communication that is sickeningly cut off by a misogynistic cultural/religious practise.

Man... Halloween is gonna suck.

[Keepitsimple]

Seldom have Canadians been more in agreement with government than with this issue. Once again, the opposition is completely out-of-step with Canadians. This common sense approach has the support of more than 80% of the public and crosses all demographic and party lines. Lets see how the opposition votes on this one.

Link: http://www.torontosun.com/2011/12/15/no-veil-rule-has-support-of-canadians

[jacee]

As I said, I don't want to see any ridiculous laws that would cause me to be arrested for putting my scarf over my face.

And I doubt people want to see Hallowe'en masks made illegal.

None of this 'concern' is justified. It's just blind bigotry with no consideration of the implications for broader society.

We are NOT going to outlaw face coverings.

End of story.

[guyser]

Man... Halloween is gonna suck.

and getting gas for my motorcycle and snowmobile, keeping warm on a blustery day....all thsoe busts at footbal games since the face is painted ,

Somebody went full stupid on their post without thinking. No surprise there.

[Guest American Woman]

Um. I don't think saying "Looks don't matter for women in politics: just look at this ugly cow!" makes the point you think it does.

And I don't think you understand the point I was making at all.

[Guest American Woman]

I live in an area with very harsh winters and I can assure you there is central heating, heated autos and drive-thru banks. Still, nobody 'normal' walks around in a balaclava unless it's -40C or worse...and even then...it ruins your hair. So the average citizen dresses nearly exactly like you in the Mid-West during the winter.

Oh, I know. Some of my post was tongue -in-cheek, hence the wink.

I live in an area that if full of snowmobilers, toque wearers, scarves, motorcycles in the summer, and on Halloween - Halloween masks. I also worked in a bank for several years and not one person has ever come in with their face covered by a helmet - either motorcycle or snow mobile, a scarf wrapped around their entire face, a ski mask, or a Halloween mask.

I believe that in businesses such as a bank, one should not be able to enter if their identity is concealed. Had anyone come into the bank in the middle of June wearing a Halloween mask, I would have hit the panic button, summoning the police. If anyone had come in with a ski mask on, or a scarf wrapped entirely around their face, it would have put us all on on alert. These situations would put any good employee on alert - but Burkas are normal Muslim attire, therefore drawing less attention, making it easier to blend in, giving no cause for being on 'alert,' and easy to conceal one's entire identity. Hence the difference.

But the idea that we have to make all of these things illegal is ludicrous and tells me that some cannot think beyond their 'we must be tolerant of everything Muslims do' mindset. I see the idea of not being allowed to conceal one's identity in certain situations as no different from other dress codes, such as "no shoes, no shirt, no service." What good are security cameras if they can pick nothing up? Even someone in a ski mask, a scarf, a Halloween mask does not hide if someone is male or female and they have identifying clothing - jacket, pants, etc. while a burka completely conceals one's identity.

Anyone fully covered is viewed with suspicion as per the high crime rate...just like in many American cities. Don't let these ying-yangs paint a picture of Red Serge covered Mounties in jaunty hats directing snowmobile traffic. Doesn't happen anywhere south of Yellowknife.

Our countries, as I've often said, are very similar. Our cities, what concerns the police/authorities, I'm sure are the same - and we also have our share of snowmobile traffic in our great white north.

[cybercoma]

We are not talking about children. Are you saying that a person is not responsible for any behavior throughout their life as long as their parents displayed the same behavior?

That's not what I'm saying at all. All I'm saying is that the research shows the people are very unlikely to change from the religion of their parents, even into adulthood. Some do, but the vast majority don't.

[Guest American Woman]

We are NOT going to outlaw face coverings.

End of story.

Well, since you say so .... I guess that's that.

As already posted:

Veils and face coverings are already banned in Quebec for people receiving some government services.

Canada is considering a wider ban on veils in government offices, schools and hospitals.

[Bob]

It's also not illegal to wear a scarf, balaclava, helmet, or even a Halloween mask in a bank.

That's true, but private businesses such as banks should be permitted to deny service to people who refuse to identify themselves in accordance with the policies of the business. Eventually banks will begin to add photos to their bank cards, as certain credit cards already do (like my photo on my Costco AMEX). Another example would be a gym or fitness club membership with a photo - the private business should be permitted to deny service to individuals who refuse to identify themselves in-line with the business membership/customer policies. Unfortunately, in left-wing Canada, that would inevitably bring about a constitutional challenge and/or HRC complaint from the usual suspects.