Black Dog Posted December 20, 2011 Report Posted December 20, 2011 Hopefully Canada will eventually make moves towards banning face covering in more and more circumstances. As an aside, I has a ridiculous conversation with a typical idiot Canadian leftist a few months back, where I asked him what the limit would be for him with respect to the proportion of his local female population in Ottawa dressing up in burqas and niqabs. I asked him, 5%? 10%? 50%? 100%? How much are you willing to tolerate? Well, predictably, as a devout idiot leftist committed to committing Canadian cultural suicide, he told me he'd be perfectly comfortable living in an Ottawa (and later he extended this to the entirety of Canada) where all women dressed in such a way - essentially being perfectly comfortable with an Islamist Canada. I love anecdotes, fake ones best of all. I guarantee you will get the same predictably stupid answers from the leftists in this thread: cybercoma, eyeball, dre, and Black Dog. Ask them what the upper threshold is that they're willing to tolerate with respect to the proportion of Canadian women dressing in burqas and niqabs, and they'll give you the same politically correct answer: 100%. You might as well ask what percentage of unicorns we'd tolerate as members of the Senate. It's an irrelevant hypothetical. I doubt even 5% of muslim women in Canada wear the niqab. BD ... Would you care to edit yourself ? It's not clever to post these things, and it doesn't add anything else good to the discussion. What'd I do? Quote
guyser Posted December 20, 2011 Report Posted December 20, 2011 (edited) You might as well ask what percentage of unicorns we'd tolerate as members of the Senate. It's an irrelevant hypothetical. I doubt even 5% of muslim women in Canada wear the niqab. The idiot was the one who asked the dumb question, but I assume that is lost on the idiot who asked. What'd I do? Probably the spot on comparison using Ron Jeremy . Edited December 20, 2011 by guyser Quote
dre Posted December 20, 2011 Report Posted December 20, 2011 (edited) This will inevitably end up before the courts in a charter case, based on one of three sections... s. 2(a)Freedom of conscience and religion s. 2( Freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression. s. 7 The rights to liberty and security of the person Challenges on all three of these sections have good potential for success. The question is what kind of case will the government make? ITs dificult to tell from Kenneys statements. For example... Kenney said he did not believe that veils are a religious requirement for Muslim women in all circumstances. "When Muslim women do the hajj to Mecca as part of their Koranic obligation of pilgrimage to the holy sites, they are required not to wear a veil. They are required to show their face," Kenney said in English. This looks really bad on Mr Kenney because it shows he does not understand Canadian law very well. This argument used by him, and by some posters here has no basis in law at all. Its a complete and total red herring and has already been rejected by the supreme court. To claim freedom of religion, one need only show “sincerity of belief” (Syndicat Northcrest v Amselem, 2004 SCC 47) It is irrelevant whether the niqab is required by the Koran. Charter rights are not absolute, but the government will have to prove that the reasonable accomodation standard was honored, and this is going to be extremely hard to do based on the body of facts available so far. The legal standards were defined in R. v Oakes. That ruling is here http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1986/1986canlii46/1986canlii46.html. Section 1 of the Charter has two functions: First, it guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in the provisions which follow it; and second, it states explicitly the exclusive justificatory criteria (outside of s. 33 of the Constitutional Act, 1982) against which limitations on those rights and freedoms may be measured. The onus of proving that a limitation on any Charter right is reasonable and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society rests upon the party seeking to uphold the limitation. Limits on constitutionally guaranteed rights are clearly exceptions to the general guarantee. The presumption is that Charter rights are guaranteed unless the party invoking s. 1 can bring itself within the exceptional criteria justifying their being limited. The standard of proof under s. 1 is a preponderance of probabilities. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt would be unduly onerous on the party seeking to limit the right because concepts such as "reasonableness", "justifiability", and "free and democratic society" are not amenable to such a standard. Nevertheless, the preponderance of probability test must be applied rigorously. Two central criteria must be satisfied to establish that a limit is reasonable and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. First, the objective to be served by the measures limiting a Charter right must be sufficiently important to warrant overriding a constitutionally protected right or freedom. The standard must be high to ensure that trivial objectives or those discordant with the principles of a free and democratic society do not gain protection. At a minimum, an objective must relate to societal concerns which are pressing and substantial in a free and democratic society before it can be characterized as sufficiently important. Second, the party invoking s. 1 must show the means to be reasonable and demonstrably justified. This involves a form of proportionality test involving three important components. To begin, the measures must be fair and not arbitrary, carefully designed to achieve the objective in question and rationally connected to that objective. In addition, the means should impair the right in question as little as possible. Lastly, there must be a proportionality between the effects of the limiting measure and the objective ‑‑ the more severe the deleterious effects of a measure, the more important the objective must be. This is going to be an uphill battle, especially when Mr Kenney is advancing the same legal non-arguments being advanced by posters here. the measures limiting a Charter right must be sufficiently important to warrant overriding a constitutionally protected right or freedom. Im not quite sure how the government is going to show this, because these garments have been allowed for decades, and Iv never heard of a single problem presented by them. If the government has a solid legal foundation for the ban then they have not yet shared it with us. Edited December 20, 2011 by dre Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Michael Hardner Posted December 20, 2011 Report Posted December 20, 2011 What'd I do? I was referring to the profanity you posted a few pages back... Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
cybercoma Posted December 20, 2011 Report Posted December 20, 2011 This will inevitably end up before the courts in a charter case, based on one of three sections... s. 2(a)Freedom of conscience and religion s. 2( Freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression. s. 7 The rights to liberty and security of the person Challenges on all three of these sections have good potential for success. The question is what kind of case will the government make? ITs dificult to tell from Kenneys statements. For example... This looks really bad on Mr Kenney because it shows he does not understand Canadian law very well. This argument used by him, and by some posters here has no basis in law at all. Its a complete and total red herring and has already been rejected by the supreme court. To claim freedom of religion, one need only show “sincerity of belief” (Syndicat Northcrest v Amselem, 2004 SCC 47) It is irrelevant whether the niqab is required by the Koran. Charter rights are not absolute, but the government will have to prove that the reasonable accomodation standard was honored, and this is going to be extremely hard to do based on the body of facts available so far. The legal standards were defined in R. v Oakes. That ruling is here http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1986/1986canlii46/1986canlii46.html. This is going to be an uphill battle, especially when Mr Kenney is advancing the same legal non-arguments being advanced by posters here. Im not quite sure how the government is going to show this, because these garments have been allowed for decades, and Iv never heard of a single problem presented by them. If the government has a solid legal foundation for the ban then they have not yet shared it with us. Which is exactly what was argued back on page 1 before this whole thing got derailed. My bad. Quote
dre Posted December 20, 2011 Report Posted December 20, 2011 Which is exactly what was argued back on page 1 before this whole thing got derailed. My bad. No, i think we all helped derail the thread Its not just "your bad". Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
dre Posted December 20, 2011 Report Posted December 20, 2011 Which is exactly what was argued back on page 1 before this whole thing got derailed. My bad. No, i think we all helped derail the thread Its not just "your bad". BTW... even though the topic of this particular post is the meaningless and most likely illegal ban of burkas during the goofy one sentence pledge... Theres two other much more important events going on. One is bill 94, that would refuse all government services to all muslims wearing face coverings. This is in the legislature still and will definately spawn a constitutional challenge. Another case involves a women who was sexually assaulted and is being forced to choose between her religion, and justice by not being allowed to testify without her head thingy on. The Supreme Court heard arguments on that last week. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
cybercoma Posted December 20, 2011 Report Posted December 20, 2011 Another case involves a women who was sexually assaulted and is being forced to choose between her religion, and justice by not being allowed to testify without her head thingy on. The Supreme Court heard arguments on that last week. Link? Quote
dre Posted December 20, 2011 Report Posted December 20, 2011 (edited) Link? Sure heres a link... first one I found. Theres probably better ones out there but this will help get you started. http://en.islamtoday.net/artshow-230-4276.htm The Supreme Court of Canada heard arguments Thursday about whether a Muslim woman accusing her cousin and uncle of childhood sexual abuse should be allowed to wear a full face-covering on the witness stand.The case, which pits the woman's freedom of religion against the right to a fair trial for the accused, will have national significance for Muslim women in the Canadian justice system. Heres a link on Quebecs Bill 94. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/story/2010/03/24/quebec-reasonable-accommodation-law.html Muslim women or others who wear face coverings in Quebec will have to remove them if they want to work in the public sector or do business with government officials, according to legislation tabled on Wednesday. Im sending the thread even further off course now. Im not sure how I feel about the first case. In the second case I expect Bill 94 to get scrunched up into a ball and stuffed about 2 feet up Jean CHarests ass by the SCC. Its constitutes fairly serious charter violations IMO with meeting judicial standard thats been established for stripping someone of a charter right. It will also get argued against the three charter sections I posted above. Edited December 20, 2011 by dre Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
cybercoma Posted December 20, 2011 Report Posted December 20, 2011 I would be interested to see how the SCC responds to that case. Seeing a person's facial expressions during testimony is absolutely necessary. The prosecutors, the judge, and the jury needs to be able to gauge their responses. Quote
dre Posted December 20, 2011 Report Posted December 20, 2011 I would be interested to see how the SCC responds to that case. Seeing a person's facial expressions during testimony is absolutely necessary. The prosecutors, the judge, and the jury needs to be able to gauge their responses. Im not sure about "absolutely necessary" but its important. Religious freedom is important as well, and theres the worry that if they ban the head thingies lots of muslim women will just not come forward and report crimes. Im not sure which way the SCC will go. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
eyeball Posted December 20, 2011 Report Posted December 20, 2011 I guarantee you will get the same predictably stupid answers from the leftists in this thread: cybercoma, eyeball, dre, and Black Dog. Ask them what the upper threshold is that they're willing to tolerate with respect to the proportion of Canadian women dressing in burqas and niqabs, and they'll give you the same politically correct answer: 100%. I've repeatedly said that Muslim men who can't or won't control themselves should be forced to wear blinders. In what universe is that politically correct? Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
jbg Posted December 20, 2011 Report Posted December 20, 2011 Would I be allowed to wear a ski mask while walking in a mall during April? I usually where a ski mask while banking. After all, my eyes are visible. All kidding aside, I believe that if people want to deprive themselves of rights, by all means set themselves apart. If someone wants to come to Canada they should become Canadians. Just the way my ancestors wanted to be Americans. I am quite sure that they kissed the ground at Ellis Island, so glad not to have to worry about being killed for expressing their religious beliefs. They were free at last and grateful to the country that made them free. They even went to night school to learn English. And in some cases (though I disagree with this) Anglicized their names. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
dre Posted December 20, 2011 Report Posted December 20, 2011 (edited) I usually where a ski mask while banking. After all, my eyes are visible. All kidding aside, I believe that if people want to deprive themselves of rights, by all means set themselves apart. If someone wants to come to Canada they should become Canadians. Just the way my ancestors wanted to be Americans. I am quite sure that they kissed the ground at Ellis Island, so glad not to have to worry about being killed for expressing their religious beliefs. They were free at last and grateful to the country that made them free. They even went to night school to learn English. And in some cases (though I disagree with this) Anglicized their names. If someone wants to come to Canada they should become Canadians Cultural diversity is PART OF becoming Canadian. We are mutt country that has a diverse set of values and customs. As you can tell from this thread, even a bunch of Canadians cant agree on what "becoming Canadian" would even mean. Do they have to play hockey, drink beer, and bash in the heads of baby seals? Our values are spelled out pretty nicely in the charter. We expect both immigrants and other Canadians to obey laws that pass a series of constitutional tests, and we expect the government to stay out of your business as long as we do, and to infringe on your personal freedom ONLY when absolutely necessary. And we expect both the law and the judiciary to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority thats inherent in an our political system. Letting these religious immigrants have their own peculiar customs is actually a big part of what being "canadian" is about. Edited December 20, 2011 by dre Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
olp1fan Posted December 20, 2011 Report Posted December 20, 2011 we're not a mutt country.. the US is however is Quote
olp1fan Posted December 20, 2011 Report Posted December 20, 2011 Letting these religious immigrants have their own peculiar customs is actually a big part of what being "canadian" is about. Says who? you and a few other extreme lefties? Maybe thats what Canada was in the 80s and 90s and 2000s but we're going to try something else now don't like it? move to Iraq Quote
dre Posted December 20, 2011 Report Posted December 20, 2011 Says who? you and a few other extreme lefties? Maybe thats what Canada was in the 80s and 90s and 2000s but we're going to try something else now don't like it? move to Iraq Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Scotty Posted December 20, 2011 Report Posted December 20, 2011 You said it has to do with worrying. People worry because they're afraid. Why don't we just accept that 'worry' is a few steps down from fear and leave it at that? People worry about their children. That doesn't mean they're in constant fear. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Scotty Posted December 20, 2011 Report Posted December 20, 2011 But in the meantime the state will dictate what women mustn't wear? You'd make a wonderful dictator. The state dictates you have to wear clothes, and no one has yet come up with an adequate reply to why they shouldn't. We have to wear clothes because it offends people to not wear them. So who is to say banning the burqua because it offends is that much different? Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Scotty Posted December 20, 2011 Report Posted December 20, 2011 All you want to do is replace the husbands force with the states force. In both cases women are deprived of freedom and choice. You mean like how police will lay assault charges against a husband even if the wife says no, that she doesn't want that? You mean how like the state does this, and all concerned agree, because it's in her best interests, and she can't be relied on to make the proper decision due to intimidation from her husband and family? You mean like that? Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Scotty Posted December 20, 2011 Report Posted December 20, 2011 The irony here is that freedom of religious expression without interference from the state is a Canadian value. But it's not religious, it's cultural and political. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Scotty Posted December 20, 2011 Report Posted December 20, 2011 Wrong. Those that wear the niqab (or compel others to do so)do so because they believe their religion demands it. Under Canadian law, that's all that matters. Even when the top mullahs and imams say it has nothing to do with religion? Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
cybercoma Posted December 20, 2011 Report Posted December 20, 2011 Why don't we just accept that 'worry' is a few steps down from fear and leave it at that? People worry about their children. That doesn't mean they're in constant fear. 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. Quote
Scotty Posted December 20, 2011 Report Posted December 20, 2011 (edited) Because of the belief that the practice harms women and children. Wearing the burqa or niqab does not as yet meet that standard. I don't know. I'd suggest that a woman who wears them in Canada has no real future other than as an obedient housewife. In addition, you can't drive very well with them, they're heavy, stifling, and rob you of personality, of personhood, turning you into an object. As an object, children will laugh at you, and no one will voluntarily approach you. Your only friends will be within the small extremist community you belong to - which of course will help reinforce the requirement to wear the stupid things. That isn't harmful? Edited December 20, 2011 by Scotty Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
cybercoma Posted December 20, 2011 Report Posted December 20, 2011 The state dictates you have to wear clothes, and no one has yet come up with an adequate reply to why they shouldn't. We have to wear clothes because it offends people to not wear them. So who is to say banning the burqua because it offends is that much different? And how did that work out for women that wanted to go topless in Ontario? Quote
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.