Face veils banned for citizenship oaths

[Bob]

I haven't ignored them all. I've even said there are quite reasonable situations for removing the veil. In a room full of people for the citizenship oath isn't one of them, neither is walking into a bank or shopping at a store.

If it hasn't already been explained to why swearing the citizenship oath, going into a bank, and shopping at a store all provide reasonable grounds to request a person to show his or her face, the I will do so now.

You are aware that swearing an oath is a public act, correct? You are aware that accountability for the the oath being sworn is manifested through the nature of the oath being made in public correct? Accountability is created through others witnessing the oath being sworn, and through the natural (call it biological, if you want) viewing of one's countenance while it is being done. A person is held accountable for his or her actions (including the swearing of oaths) through his or identity, and one's identity is inextricable from one's face. Do you understand that? It is the same principle that applies in the justice system, where the accused is entitled to see the accuser. There is something essential about people being able to look at one another, unimpeded, in these types of situations.

ON a more biological level, it is the same reason why infants naturally direct their gaze to faces of people. We're biologically programmed to do so, as our faces, as well as our voices and other body language, are part of human communication.

As far as stores and banks go, both can advance the argument that for security purposes they require all of their customers/clients to show their faces. Of course this would bring about controversy and legal challenges from the usual suspects, but perhaps this is where the government can show some leadership and at least implement laws that protect private businesses from lawsuits alleging religious discrimination should they choose to implement such policies. Beyond that, I've already provided you with examples in the context of certain situations in a bank where showing one's face is an essential part of the security of the transaction. Of course, you ignored those examples.

Edited December 16, 2011 by Bob

[cybercoma]

Really, what happens when a sales clerk asks for picture ID when a credit card is used? This is more than reasonable, it protects the store, the credit card company and the card holder. Would you accept a cheque from someone you didn't know and couldn't identify? I wouldn't.

Credit cards use chips now and for that matter I write Check ID on the back of my credit card (instead of signing it) for businesses that don't have the chip.

Do you know how many times I've had someone check my ID?

In the last 7 years since I've been doing that, I was asked 1 time for ID.

As for verifying identity, clerks don't ask for ID and are not required to unless the signatures don't match.

[dre]

Really, what happens when a sales clerk asks for picture ID when a credit card is used? This is more than reasonable, it protects the store, the credit card company and the card holder. Would you accept a cheque from someone you didn't know and couldn't identify? I wouldn't.

This is a rather contrived and fake scenario. No such ID is required to use a credit card. And in fact some major credit card companies do not even allow stores to refuse card use based on ID.

Heres an excerpt from Visas merchant policy...

Although Visa Rules do not preclude merchants from asking for cardholder ID, merchants cannot make an ID a condition of acceptance. Therefore, merchants cannot refuse to complete a purchase transaction because a cardholder refuses to provide ID. Visa believes merchants should not ask for ID as part of their regular card acceptance procedures

http://usa.visa.com/download/merchants/rules_for_visa_merchants.pdf

The same policy for master card can be found here...

http://www.mastercard.com/us/wce/PDF/MERC-Entire_Manual.pdf

American express and Discover both prohibit merchants from refusing card use based on ID (or lack of), and strongly discoure merchants from even asking for it.

[DogOnPorch]

When's the last time you've heard someone criticize a woman's looks by saying her ears are funny, she's TOO skinny, or she looks like a monkey. Criticisms about their looks are more often than not sexualized.

Please...we just had BD refer to Libby Davies as a fat ugly cow.

Edited December 16, 2011 by DogOnPorch

[Bob]

Merchants can do whatever they want to do with respect to requesting ID for the processing of credit card transactions, the credit card company cannot obligate a merchant to accept a transaction without ID. If a consumer doesn't wish to provide ID, that's his or her decision, and the merchant can refuse to accept the payment and render the goods/services. The VISA policy you pasted contradicts itself, anyways.

Nevermind the fact that this is a completely irrelevant tangent to the subject matter of the thread...

[dre]

If it hasn't already been explained to why swearing the citizenship oath, going into a bank, and shopping at a store all provide reasonable grounds to request a person to show his or her face, the I will do so now.

You are aware that swearing an oath is a public act, correct? You are aware that accountability for the the oath being sworn is manifested through the nature of the oath being made in public correct? Accountability is created through others witnessing the oath being sworn, and through the natural (call it biological, if you want) viewing of one's countenance while it is being done. A person is held accountable for his or her actions (including the swearing of oaths) through his or identity, and one's identity is inextricable from one's face. Do you understand that? It is the same principle that applies in the justice system, where the accused is entitled to see the accuser. There is something essential about people being able to look at one another, unimpeded, in these types of situations.

ON a more biological level, it is the same reason why infants naturally direct their gaze to faces of people. We're biologically programmed to do so, as our faces, as well as our voices and other body language, are part of human communication.

As far as stores and banks go, both can advance the argument that for security purposes they require all of their customers/clients to show their faces. Of course this would bring about controversy and legal challenges from the usual suspects, but perhaps this is where the government can show some leadership and at least implement laws that protect private businesses from lawsuits alleging religious discrimination should they choose to implement such policies. Beyond that, I've already provided you with examples in the context of certain situations in a bank where showing one's face is an essential part of the security of the transaction. Of course, you ignored those examples.

The problem is they have presumably been allowing these things for years. If this poses some kind of big problem in the system, then why have we not heard a single account of any substantive issue or problem caused during the oath swearing process?

Anyone your post is just an opinion, thats not how the law works. The courts are not going to ok any ban on religious garb based on "thats why babies gaze into the faces of people". The government will be asked to articulate a tangible and substantive problem caused by the veils, and demonstrate that theres no other easy way to remedy that problem besides forcing removal. And the only thing they have is the need to ID, then even THAT would not justify forcing removal for the whole ceremony. It could just be raised for a brief moment to allow the ID to be made.

[cybercoma]

A person is held accountable for his or her action ... through his or identity, and one's identity is inextricable from one's face. Do you understand that?

No. I have a hard time understanding nonsense used to justify ethnocentric bigotry. This sounds like that. People are "held accountable through their face"? That makes no sense whatsoever.

It is the same principle that applies in the justice system, where the accused is entitled to see the accuser. There is something essential about people being able to look at one another, unimpeded, in these types of situations.

A person does not have the right to actually see their accuser in court. Witnesses testify from behind screens all the time for their protection.

That's beside the point though. Interrogations by attorneys and detectives was one of the examples I myself gave earlier in this thread. They need to be able to read a person in those situations.

Swearing an oath of citizenship, you're not questioning anyone or trying to determine if they're lying. By being there, taking the citizenship test, and signing the paperwork indicating that they're a citizen, they have legally agreed to the oath that they have sworn. The oath itself is a ceremonial formality.

ON a more biological level, it is the same reason why infants naturally direct their gaze to faces of people. We're biologically programmed to do so, as our faces, as well as our voices and other body language, are part of human communication.

True. And irrelevant.

As far as stores and banks go, both can advance the argument that for security purposes they require all of their customers/clients to show their faces.

No they can't and you haven't be able to do so either.

I've already provided you with examples in the context of certain situations in a bank where showing one's face is an essential part of the security of the transaction. Of course, you ignored those examples.

No, actually you haven't made the argument. You've simply stated that it's necessary without actually providing any sort of argument as to why it would be. It's not illegal to have your face covered in a bank now. None of the banks in Canada are arguing that you should be able to.

Do you know when it is illegal to hide your face? When you're committing a crime. You want to imply that Muslim women are criminals or more prone to criminality because they cover their face. You're saying tha it's somehow a security threat. The only way it's a security threat is if they're committing a crime. But that's already illegal, so what you're arguing is nonsense. What you're arguing is that you ought to be able to dictate to others how they can or cannot dress based because you don't want to be uncomfortable with apparel that may be unconventional in the West.

[cybercoma]

Please...we just had BD refer to Libby Davies as a fat ugly cow.

That's my point.

[dre]

Merchants can do whatever they want to do with respect to requesting ID for the processing of credit card transactions, the credit card company cannot obligate a merchant to accept a transaction without ID. If a consumer doesn't wish to provide ID, that's his or her decision, and the merchant can refuse to accept the payment and render the goods/services. The VISA policy you pasted contradicts itself, anyways.

Nevermind the fact that this is a completely irrelevant tangent to the subject matter of the thread...

No sorry thats wrong. Merchants have a number of rules they are required in order to accept credit card transactions. Theyre pretty clear. In any case no... picture ID is absolutely not a requirement to using a credit card.

[Guest American Woman]

Merchants can do whatever they want to do with respect to requesting ID for the processing of credit card transactions, the credit card company cannot obligate a merchant to accept a transaction without ID. If a consumer doesn't wish to provide ID, that's his or her decision, and the merchant can refuse to accept the payment and render the goods/services.

This is true. A merchant doesn't even have to accept credit cards at all.

[cybercoma]

Merchants can do whatever they want to do with respect to requesting ID for the processing of credit card transactions, the credit card company cannot obligate a merchant to accept a transaction without ID. If a consumer doesn't wish to provide ID, that's his or her decision, and the merchant can refuse to accept the payment and render the goods/services. The VISA policy you pasted contradicts itself, anyways.

Nevermind the fact that this is a completely irrelevant tangent to the subject matter of the thread...

The merchants have a contract with credit card companies. The merchants are obligated to follow the agreements made in that contract. They cannot "do whatever they want to do."

[cybercoma]

This is true. A merchant doesn't even have to accept credit cards at all.

No crap. But if they choose to accept credit cards, they sign an agreement with the credit companies and must follow the rules laid out within it.

[Wilber]

This is a rather contrived and fake scenario. No such ID is required to use a credit card. And in fact some major credit card companies do not even allow stores to refuse card use based on ID.

Heres an excerpt from Visas merchant policy...

http://usa.visa.com/download/merchants/rules_for_visa_merchants.pdf

The same policy for master card can be found here...

http://www.mastercard.com/us/wce/PDF/MERC-Entire_Manual.pdf

American express and Discover both prohibit merchants from refusing card use based on ID (or lack of), and strongly discoure merchants from even asking for it.

So someone else should bear all the risk involved with someone else not willing to identify themselves because of their own hangups about not showing their face. They don't have to accomodate anyone else's needs at all. Got it.

[Black Dog]

Please...we just had BD refer to Libby Davies as a fat ugly cow.

Either you know what I was doing, which makes these little "gotchas" even more sad and puerile, or you really are as cretinous as you appear to be.

[Black Dog]

I love how you haven't understood one thing I've said, one point I've made, much less my "entire claim," yet on and on you go .....

No no, I've understood. Indeed, it's not hard at all. There's so little there.

[Guest American Woman]

Please...we just had BD refer to Libby Davies as a fat ugly cow.

Evidently comparing someone to a cow is completely different from comparing someone to a monkey. One is terrible, while the other - apparently not so much. Same with calling a guy a sissy, or skinny. Not terrible at all. Comment on a woman's weight - different story. Or so I'm told.

[DogOnPorch]

Either you know what I was doing, which makes these little "gotchas" even more sad and puerile, or you really are as cretinous as you appear to be.

If you look down, you'll notice I tied your shoelaces together. Enjoy.

[Bob]

No. I have a hard time understanding nonsense used to justify ethnocentric bigotry. This sounds like that. People are "held accountable through their face"? That makes no sense whatsoever.

I'll ignore the rest of the nonsense in your post and just deal with this basic principle. People are accountable for their actions by virtue of their identity. One's identity is directly tied to one's countenance. When one's countenance is concealed, their accountability for their actions is diminished. In other words, your face is who you are. This is why face-coverings must be taken very seriously and prohibited in many circumstances, which have already been explained to you in great detail (which you of course continue to ignore) This is a basic social concept you're either unable or unwilling to grasp. I cannot make it any clearer than that. You're welcome for the spoonfeeding.

[guyser]

If it hasn't already been explained to why swearing the citizenship oath, going into a bank, and shopping at a store all provide reasonable grounds to request a person to show his or her face, the I will do so now.

It has, at least so far as the citizenship oath , but the others are meh, but go ahead .

A person is held accountable for his or her actions (including the swearing of oaths) through his or identity, and one's identity is inextricable from one's face. Do you understand that? It is the same principle that applies in the justice system, where the accused is entitled to see the accuser. There is something essential about people being able to look at one another, unimpeded, in these types of situations.

Essential my ass.

Except there is no such thing in our justice system. The right to face onces accuser is not the same as 'seeing' ones accuser for the reason that a blind victim could challenge the charter.

ON a more biological level, it is the same reason why infants naturally direct their gaze to faces of people. We're biologically programmed to do so, as our faces, as well as our voices and other body language, are part of human communication.

In the first part, infants are biologically programmed to smell their mother. Sound and smell , only later on,. after months, does the baby see, and generally they cant focus for months.

Maybe we could have a smell oath?

As far as stores and banks go, both can advance the argument that for security purposes they require all of their customers/clients to show their faces. Of course, you ignored those examples.

Should have ignored this one too for it is blatantly false and ripe for ridicule, especially at this time of year. But i understand the urge to find something, anything, ot back up a moronic post, and you did well with this one.

Id love to see a retail store advance an argument for security they want to see the face of the buyer.

The judge would presumably laugh it out of court within 2 minutes.

The judge could just say " well, I have bought 50 gifts this past month for friends and family and not once did they ask to see my face, nor would they for security ! "

"I bought them all online "

[Black Dog]

If you look down, you'll notice I tied your shoelaces together. Enjoy.

So it's cretin, then, after all.

[dre]

So someone else should bear all the risk involved with someone else not willing to identify themselves because of their own hangups about not showing their face. They don't have to accomodate anyone else's needs at all. Got it.

No you dont understand. Credit card companies WANT their cards to be as good as money, and as easy to use as possible. They want as few conditions on their use as possible. Thats why the credit card companies cover most of the fraud. Same goes for interac. They do it to make more money.

[guyser]

When's the last time you've heard someone criticize a woman's looks by saying her ears are funny, she's TOO skinny, or she looks like a monkey. Criticisms about their looks are more often than not sexualized.

Pretty much every week if you read Rep. forums.

They talk about Michelle Obama that exact same way.

[cybercoma]

So someone else should bear all the risk involved with someone else not willing to identify themselves because of their own hangups about not showing their face. They don't have to accomodate anyone else's needs at all. Got it.

Huh? The merchants sign a contract. What's your point?

[Guest American Woman]

No no, I've understood. Indeed, it's not hard at all.

I see. You've understood what I'm saying, but chose to comment on things I've never said and totally miss my points anyway. Got'cha.

There's so little there.

Yet there you are responding to it all. Or more accurately, attempting to respond to it all - since you've completely missed the boat every time.

[jacee]

It's always interesting to see the socialists defend the "liberties" of Islamists, essentially supporting a misogynistic practise that effectively isolates women and is rooted in a shaming of women by virtue of their sexuality. The truth? These socialists only take this position on this issue because they're reflexively ally with groups they perceive as "vulnerable", "oppressed", or "marginalized". These days, certain Muslim organizations have done an effective job selling this lie that they are discriminated against in Western societies, and jacee has drunk their Kool-Aid and is going for seconds. Her support for the "freedom" of Islamists to perpetuate their inferior cultural practises is rooted in reflexive support for these "lesser" groups that need her political patronage. Basically, she needs an imagined underdog to cheer for, regardless of who, where, or why. In this case, it's the Islamist cloaked woman.

I'm defending my own freedoms from small-minded bigots who think they can make ALL face coverings EVERYWHERE illegal.

NOT going to happen.