Face veils banned for citizenship oaths

[guyser]

The 'state' isn't the only one to dictate dress code.

The state doesn't.

Edited December 20, 2011 by guyser

[Scotty]

The narrative here is that women are being forced by their domineering husbands/families to leave the house wearing the veil. So what makes you think they'll be let out of the house at all without it?

Human nature. I don't think the hubbie is going to want to do all the shopping, or take the kids to the doctors, or do any of the other chores their wives do.

[Scotty]

That doesn't follow. Only someone who constantly worries would be living in a constant state of fear.

People worry about their kids constantly, worry about their jobs, worry about paying the bills, worry about this or that problem the house has, worry about their health, worry about taxes, worry about the way society is going. Everyone on this site is worried about this or that direction they see the country or society following.

[cybercoma]

Human nature. I don't think the hubbie is going to want to do all the shopping, or take the kids to the doctors, or do any of the other chores their wives do.

Modern conceptions of gender roles is not human nature.

[Scotty]

Because the state doesn't ? Maybe thats why no one answered.

You are saying that if you walk down the street naked you won't be arrested?

[cybercoma]

People worry about their kids constantly, worry about their jobs, worry about paying the bills, worry about this or that problem the house has, worry about their health, worry about taxes, worry about the way society is going. Everyone on this site is worried about this or that direction they see the country or society following.

You have an awful lot of anxiety. You should probably see a doctor.

[cybercoma]

You are saying that if you walk down the street naked you won't be arrested?

It's highly unlikely. You would probably be written a citation or brought to the nearest psych ward.

[guyser]

You are saying that if you walk down the street naked you won't be arrested?

I am countering that the state does not mandate clothes.

It mandates no obscenity.

[DogOnPorch]

You have an awful lot of anxiety. You should probably see a doctor.

Just because you do not care for the people in your life, doesn't mean others do not. Because worry is a result of compassion as much as fear. It wasn't fear, for example, that made me take home a homeless cat. It was caring. I could have not given a damn, being the opposite response....

[guyser]

Just because you do not care for the people in your life, doesn't mean others do not.

For one he never said ' he didnt care'

And he is right, if one worries that much they should see a doctor because that is an unnatural amount of fear.

[sharkman]

You have an awful lot of anxiety. You should probably see a doctor.

Scotty was talking about the various things that people, not himself, worry about. Did you miss that?

[DogOnPorch]

For one he never said ' he didnt care'

And he is right, if one worries that much they should see a doctor because that is an unnatural amount of fear.

Actually he said all worry is based on fear which is untrue.

[cybercoma]

Scotty was talking about the various things that people, not himself, worry about. Did you miss that?

I was being facetious.

[caribe]

It's only right that Muslim women should remove the veil when in public situations: taking the oath of citizenship, passport photos and drivers licenses. It's only common sense that the authorities must know the identity of these people to prevent fraud. If they don't want to abide by the laws of society regarding this matter, they should be subjected to a legal fine. THey have an option of conforming to Canadian law or they can simply pack up and leave for an Islamic country: Saudi Arabia. Pakistan, etc. Canada is not an Islamic state, it's for everybody who want to contribute to our society and abide by our rules. Canada and the West does not have to cater to Muslims. I don't hear of Buddhists and Hindus, etc. shoving their ways as a means of challenging Canada's laws. The veil is simply a male oppression of women's rights in male dominated societies such as Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc.

[cybercoma]

Muslim women aren't "shoving their ways as a means of challenging Canada's laws." The law was just made up to challenge the ways some Muslim women express their religious devotion.

[The_Squid]

Muslim women aren't "shoving their ways as a means of challenging Canada's laws." The law was just made up to challenge the ways some Muslim women express their religious devotion.

Actually, a more accurate description of the practice would be to say that it is a way that some Muslim men express their religious devotion. They force it upon the women. It isn't a choice, for the most part.

[Guest Peeves]

Muslim women aren't "shoving their ways as a means of challenging Canada's laws." The law was just made up to challenge the ways some Muslim women express their religious devotion.

Plain and simple b/S. The wearing of the niqab or burka is not religiously ordained.

The law in countries that deny the right to were a concealment is to address the hiding of identities. You're totally wrong.

The reasons for restricting the total covering of the face has been clearly stated and is in no means or manner a challenges to a right, or a obligatory religious order.

That you personally defend the right of a guise in pushing the Islamic cause does not make it wrong to insist the face be open for viewing by the rest of society. Wearing a mask in most societies is wrong. You are wrong.

It is a family thing, cultural in some sects but not in the Koran. It is no more a religious tenet than is FGM, or the 'religious' smoking of hashish by some sects.

Source: Islam. There are umpteen references to support there is NO requirement to cover the entire face-body.

[Guest Peeves]

Muslim women aren't "shoving their ways as a means of challenging Canada's laws." The law was just made up to challenge the ways some Muslim women express their religious devotion.

The law against wearing a mask was imposed in many countries, including Muslim countries. Surely we have the same right!!!!

CANBERRA, Australia (AP) — Muslim women would have to remove veils and show their faces to police on request or risk a prison sentence under proposed new laws in Australia's most populous state that have drawn criticism as culturally insensitive.

Under the new law women who refused to show their face to the police would be fined 5,500 Australian dollars, and could be sentenced to one year in prison.

Western countries have moved to baning the full face covering. "First the French banned Muslim face veils, now the Dutch have decided to follow suit. With debates about outlawing burqas and niqabs spreading across Europe, a third ban — perhaps even more — may not be far behind."

Many Muslim countries differ in what is allowed .

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

[Scotty]

I am countering that the state does not mandate clothes.

It mandates no obscenity.

Is the human body, in and of itself, obscene?

[guyser]

Is the human body, in and of itself, obscene?

Some are .But thats an opinion.

Relevance?

[guyser]

The law against wearing a mask was imposed in many countries, including Muslim countries. Surely we have the same right!!!!

you have that backwards.They have laws that allow it, we likely do not, but that will be shown to be true or not later on.

Western countries have moved to baning the full face covering. "First the French banned Muslim face veils, now the Dutch have decided to follow suit. With debates about outlawing burqas and niqabs spreading across Europe, a third ban — perhaps even more — may not be far behind."

Many Muslim countries differ in what is allowed .

France has laws that can put you in jail for years without a trial , representation, never to be seen again.

There is a reason terrorists dont like France.

You want that here?

[Black Dog]

Plain and simple b/S. The wearing of the niqab or burka is not religiously ordained.

Again: irrelevant.

[jbg]

Plain and simple b/S. The wearing of the niqab or burka is not religiously ordained.

Source: Islam. There are umpteen references to support there is NO requirement to cover the entire face-body.

Again: irrelevant.

Why irrelevant? I believe that burqua-wearing in the West is a badge of their setting themselves apart from us; a badge of hostility. These are our countries. if they want to come here let them obey our laws.

It is a family thing, cultural in some sects but not in the Koran. It is no more a religious tenet than is FGM, or the 'religious' smoking of hashish by some sects.

The U.S., in a very famous Supreme Court case, declined to give "religious" protection to the Native American custom of smoking peyote.

[cybercoma]

Why irrelevant? I believe that burqua-wearing in the West is a badge of their setting themselves apart from us; a badge of hostility. These are our countries. if they want to come here let them obey our laws.

What's the dresscode for the West? You know, people set themselves apart from each other in the West by their dress whether they wear veils or not.

The U.S., in a very famous Supreme Court case, declined to give "religious" protection to the Native American custom of smoking peyote.

And the US Supreme Court was wrong. They claimed they were banning an activity generally and that it was fair to do so because it was not targeting their religion specifically activity. However, would it be fair if they banned wine, making Catholics criminals or banned unleaven bread making Jews criminals during Passover? Drugs are controlled substances, not banned outright. You may say that those things aren't dangerous and peyote is, but some Natives considered Peyote a medicine. Also, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if Christian mystics in their time were consuming psychoactive chemicals. So, sure, they made a general ban. It didn't pertain to the Natives particularly, but it also had a disparate impact on Natives. Peyote was used as medicine and to transcend into the spiritual world, so it's clear that it has important religious purposes for them. Moreover, the law about psychoactive drugs is rather hypocritical when the US government was running the mk ultra program in Montreal or when researchers in Saskatchewan (if I may mix in Canadian examples) were using LSD to try and cure alcoholism. The Constitution and our Charter are supposed to be there to protect people like the First Nations from having their religion come under attack due to the whim of politics. Forcing an entire group of people to change their religious practice because the government of the day wants to declare war on drugs (can drugs surrender?) is exactly the kind of thing the Constitution and Charter are supposed to protect.

[Black Dog]

Why irrelevant? I believe that burqua-wearing in the West is a badge of their setting themselves apart from us; a badge of hostility. These are our countries. if they want to come here let them obey our laws.

You know, the same argument has been used on the subject of Jews since time immemorial. Perhaps that's where you got it from?

As for obeying the laws: what laws are being violated here?

The U.S., in a very famous Supreme Court case, declined to give "religious" protection to the Native American custom of smoking peyote.

Also irrelevant. We are talking about Canada here.

Edited December 21, 2011 by Black Dog