Face veils banned for citizenship oaths

[cybercoma]

When one's countenance is concealed, their accountability for their actions is diminished.

You know, repeating and rewording the exact same statement many different ways does nothing to prove its validity.

You know why it doesn't make any sense whatsoever? Because if I'm faxed a contract and I sign it, without ever facing the person that presented it to me, I'm not actually accountable to them because they can't see my face, according to your logic. Or, I my accountability is somehow diminished.

Your argument makes no sense at all and other than rewording it in different ways, you've done nothing to prove its validity.

[Bob]

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."

Good luck showing us the agreement or contract in which vendors are obligated to accept any payment from a presented credit card and/or are prohibited from requesting ID to very a client's identity. Perhaps you'll share another fake "except" like dre did? Another copy-and-paste Google search reveals that dre runs to Google and becomes an expert in five seconds on whatever topic he chooses... He doesn't even read the links he posts, which don't contain the language he thinks they do. What a pathetic poster.

Edited December 16, 2011 by Bob

[dre]

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.

This is rather silly. After all you can do most of your banking through a machine or computer these days without any facial verification at all. If you have your number and your pin... you are authenticated. That doesnt mean that there isnt some cases where a facial id isnt necessary.

Any sort of blanket bans in stores or banks would not make it through the courts IMO, however for specific circumstances Muslims should and do have to remove their veils and can be compelled to.

[cybercoma]

Pretty much every week if you read Rep. forums.

They talk about Michelle Obama that exact same way.

Michelle Obama is a great example. She's reported on in the media first and foremost for her fashion-sense, rather than the all the philanthropy she has been involved in. Add to that Rep. forums insulting her for her appearance, rather than any substantial political value and there you go.

[DogOnPorch]

So it's cretin, then, after all.

Hey...you don't like me....and I don't even know you. But I can assure you that you have zero clue as to what motivates me or anything else in my life. I just hope that your pissy attitude doesn't extend towards the folks that you love.

Merry Christmas.

[Bob]

You know, repeating and rewording the exact same statement many different ways does nothing to prove its validity.

You know why it doesn't make any sense whatsoever? Because if I'm faxed a contract and I sign it, without ever facing the person that presented it to me, I'm not actually accountable to them because they can't see my face, according to your logic. Or, I my accountability is somehow diminished.

Your argument makes no sense at all and other than rewording it in different ways, you've done nothing to prove its validity.

Either you're committed to stupidity or you're trying to obfuscate in order to save face. We're not talking about interactions that don't take place in person, such as your fax example. I shouldn't have to point out that one's likeness, in public, holds them accountable for their behaviour, whereas having one's likeness hidden, in public, reduces their accountability for their behaviour. You're just embarrassing yourself further as you dig this hole of your deeper and deeper with your obstinance. Fortunately for you, nobody really expects anything more from you.

Edited December 16, 2011 by Bob

[cybercoma]

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.

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.

And here you are, once again, like a mature adult clarifying your arguments that are being misunderstood.

Wait... that's not at all what you're doing.

[cybercoma]

Good luck showing us the agreement or contract in which vendors are obligated to accept any payment from a presented credit card and/or are prohibited from requesting ID to very a client's identity. Perhaps you'll share another fake "except" like dre did? Another copy-and-paste Google search reveals that dre runs to Google and becomes an expert in five seconds on whatever topic he chooses... He doesn't even read the links he posts, which don't contain the language he thinks they do. What a pathetic poster.

That particular point doesn't even matter. I gave you two other examples of how identities are verified: 1) PINs, 2) signatures. Neither of those require visual confirmation of a person's appearance.

[Wilber]

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

My point is that everyone else has to accept whatever risk there is involved in a person wanting to hide their identity. You believe that is an accomodation people should have to make in order to satisfy someones notion of modesty. I don't. It is that simple.

[cybercoma]

Either you're committed to stupidity or you're trying to obfuscate in order to save face. We're not talking about interactions that don't take place in person, such as your fax example. I shouldn't have to point out that one's likeness, in public, holds them accountable for their behaviour, whereas having one's likeness hidden, in public, reduces their accountability for their behaviour. You're just embarrassing yourself further as you dig this hole of your deeper and deeper with your obstinance. Fortunately for you, nobody really expects anything more from you.

The only embarassment in this conversation is your petty insults.

A person is held accountable when they commit a crime when others can identify them. That's why it's already illegal to wear a mask when you commit a crime.

I fail to see how depositing money at the bank, buying something at the store, or going through the citizenship ceremony is something that requires someone to be identifiable and thus accountable.

[Bob]

My point is that everyone else has to accept whatever risk there is involved in a person wanting to hide their identity. You believe that is an accomodation people should have to make in order to satisfy someones notion of modesty. I don't. It is that simple.

Clearly, it's a complete waste of time to engage cybercoma. Although it is kinda fun, in an immature way, to decimate his "arguments". It quickly gets boring however, as he just ignores everything (or perhaps he incapable of understanding what is being said).

[cybercoma]

My point is that everyone else has to accept whatever risk there is involved in a person wanting to hide their identity. You believe that is an accomodation people should have to make in order to satisfy someones notion of modesty. I don't. It is that simple.

What risk?

How can people who would argue that "guns don't kill people; People kill people," actually argue that wearing a veil is a risk? You're saying that a woman by virtue of wearing a veil is a greater threat to society. That's completely unfounded. No one has provided any evidence whatsoever that this is the case.

Veils aren't a risk; people are a risk.

Edited December 16, 2011 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

Clearly, it's a complete waste of time to engage cybercoma. Although it is kinda fun, in an immature way, to decimate his "arguments". It quickly gets boring however, as he just ignores everything (or perhaps he incapable of understanding what is being said).

You've decimate my arguments so thoroughly by repeating the exact same statements without validating them, then resorting to immature namecalling when I press you to prove your point. I feel thoroughly pwned! Well done.

[Black Dog]

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.

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.

I wonder, then, if you could lay out your grand and sweeping vision here for us apparent simpletons since it requires such a high level of understanding.

Because from the words you have actually used, gender-based inequality (specifically that derived from physical appearance) does not exist because you have not personally experienced it and because of a few examples of women who don't conform, to conventional beauty standards who have found success (as well as a few males who have been judged on their looks). Furthermore, you claim that stating that gender-based inequality (specifically that derived from physical appearance) exists is in fact itself sexist.

I'd say that's a pretty fair reading of your p.o.v here and let me tell you: it doesn't fare well from the summary. It's solipsistic and betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of how this shit works.

[dre]

Good luck showing us the agreement or contract in which vendors are obligated to accept any payment from a presented credit card and/or are prohibited from requesting ID to very a client's identity. Perhaps you'll share another fake "except" like dre did? Another copy-and-paste Google search reveals that dre runs to Google and becomes an expert in five seconds on whatever topic he chooses... He doesn't even read the links he posts, which don't contain the language he thinks they do. What a pathetic poster.

Another copy-and-paste Google search reveals that dre runs to Google and becomes an expert in five seconds on whatever topic he chooses...

Yeah its called research, and nobody is going to be suprised that it seems like a strange and bizzare custom to you. Maybe we oughtta ban it .

I know that I never get asked for photo ID when I use my card, so I went and found some information to confirm that its not any kind of requirement. And like I said... stores are prohibited from refusing card use based on id. If you took the time to think about what credit cards are and how they work, you would have realized pretty quick that personal identification is rather irrelevent.

http://usa.visa.com/download/merchants/card-acceptance-guidelines-for-visa-merchants.pdf

[guyser]

Good luck showing us the agreement or contract in which vendors are obligated to accept any payment from a presented credit card and/or are prohibited from requesting ID to very a client's identity.

Sure no problem !

Specifically, the Bureaus is calling for the Competition Tribunal to strike down the "honour all cards" rule that maintains if a merchant accepts one of Visa or MasterCard's credit cards, it must accept all cards, including those with very high fees. In addition, it is seeking to end a rule that prevents merchants from adding a small surcharge to a purchase to cover the higher cost of a premium card. These are excellent suggestions and, in fact, were both put forward by CFIB in its original version of the Code of Conduct.

Competition Bureau, CDN Govt.

Some such as Desjardin issued VISA allows for ID to be presented or denial.

[Wilber]

What risk?

How can people who would argue that "guns don't kill people; People kill people," actually argue that wearing a veil is a risk? You're saying that a woman by virtue of wearing a veil is a greater threat to society. That's completely unfounded. No one has provided any evidence whatsoever that this is the case.

Veils aren't a risk; people are a risk.

I've never argued that but I assume you would be comfortable with everyone walking around armed in that case. Or would you rather just those who considered it a cultural or religious obligation, or just because it made them feel better about themselves.

I'm not saying women wearing a veil are a threat to society, I am saying that people who completely hide their identity and indeed gender, can be a greater risk to society than those who do not.

[Bob]

Sure no problem !

Competition Bureau, CDN Govt.

Some such as Desjardin issued VISA allows for ID to be presented or denial.

That's completely irrelevant to the already irrelevant tangent being discussed. That's an attempt to pass legislation as a "protection" for vendors from being obligated to accept payment from higher-fee cards, rather than the false assertion from dre with his imaginary excerpt from "VISA policy" that prohibits vendors from requesting ID to verify the identity of clients.

So from one irrelevant and false tangent to another. Great work.

[cybercoma]

I'm not saying women wearing a veil are a threat to society, I am saying that people who completely hide their identity and indeed gender, can be a greater risk to society than those who do not.

You're not saying that they're a threat, just that they can be a threat. Can't everyone be a threat? The veil is not the threat. Not even close. And we already have laws against concealing one's identity during a crime. Not sure how the veil changes risk.

[guyser]

SSOS I see eh bob

Nice dance. Ho0nesty on your part would be appreciated , not expected of course.

You asked

Good luck showing us the agreement or contract in which vendors are obligated to accept any payment from a presented credit card

I showed you .....

Further, once a merchant agrees to accept one of Visa or MasterCard's credit cards, that merchant must accept all credit cards offered by that company, including cards that impose significant costs on merchants, such as premium cards.

http://www.competitionbureau.gc.ca/eic/site/cb-bc.nsf/eng/03325.html

But this is true...

Although it is kinda fun, in an immature way, to decimate bob's "arguments".

Edited December 16, 2011 by guyser

[cybercoma]

That's completely irrelevant to the already irrelevant tangent being discussed. That's an attempt to pass legislation as a "protection" for vendors from being obligated to accept payment from higher-fee cards, rather than the false assertion from dre with his imaginary excerpt from "VISA policy" that prohibits vendors from requesting ID to verify the identity of clients.

So from one irrelevant and false tangent to another. Great work.

This is the guide they give to merchants that details how to process Visa transactions. I would ask you to show me where it says that the merchant must request ID from customers, but it doesn't say it anywhere.

http://www.visa.ca/en/merchant/pdfs/card_acceptance.pdf

Merchants not only are not required to ask for ID from a customer, but it may be illegal. One does not need to present ID to make a purchase at a store, unless the government regulates the sale of the products being purchased (ie, alcohol and cigarettes).

[cybercoma]

Also, if you check this form http://www.mastercard.us/support/merchant-violations.html the third option is "merchant required identification."

[Bob]

This is the guide they give to merchants that details how to process Visa transactions. I would ask you to show me where it says that the merchant must request ID from customers, but it doesn't say it anywhere.

http://www.visa.ca/en/merchant/pdfs/card_acceptance.pdf

Merchants not only are not required to ask for ID from a customer, but it may be illegal. One does not need to present ID to make a purchase at a store, unless the government regulates the sale of the products being purchased (ie, alcohol and cigarettes).

I'm not going to continue this inane conversation, as it's clearly an attempt to derail the subject matter of the thread. We could not get more irrelevant than we are at this point. I'll say one last thing, however - I never stated that a merchant must request ID from a customer as POS when processing a credit card transaction, so why should I look for support in the guide to a statement I never made?

Back to the subject of how to deal with face-coverings in Canada..... perhaps we can talk about what, more broadly, the niqab and burka really represent and what "values" they are borne out of? Hint - the "values" are misogyny and chauvinism, and contempt of female sexuality.

[cybercoma]

Hint - the "values" are misogyny and chauvinism, and contempt of female sexuality.

Values that we have in this society as well. For example, you trying to tell women what they can and cannot wear.

[Guest American Woman]

I wonder, then, if you could lay out your grand and sweeping vision here for us apparent simpletons since it requires such a high level of understanding.

Why? Since you don't get it now, I can't imagine that you ever will.

Because from the words you have actually used, gender-based inequality (specifically that derived from physical appearance) does not exist because you have not personally experienced it and because of a few examples of women who don't conform, to conventional beauty standards who have found success (as well as a few males who have been judged on their looks). Furthermore, you claim that stating that gender-based inequality (specifically that derived from physical appearance) exists is in fact itself sexist.

I'd say that's a pretty fair reading of your p.o.v here and let me tell you: it doesn't fare well from the summary. It's solipsistic and betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of how this shit works.

And I'd say it's a pretty ignorant reading of my POV here.

On second thought, make that totally ignorant.....