Face veils banned for citizenship oaths

[olp1fan]

Its kept them relatively poor in comparison with the richer parts of Canada.

Well other provinces have more going for them in natural resources ..what does Quebec have? some coal mines?

[cybercoma]

Well other provinces have more going for them in natural resources ..what does Quebec have? some coal mines?

Enough hydro to power most of the East.

[olp1fan]

Enough hydro to power most of the East.

which I'm sure is powering some of the NE states too right?

[guyser]

which I'm sure is powering some of the NE states too right?

Some of it is sold ther I imagine.

But Quebec has mining, water to power anything they want, lumber, a huge and respected marine biology industry, pulp and paper, mines and mineral resources....shall I go on?

[olp1fan]

Some of it is sold ther I imagine.

But Quebec has mining, water to power anything they want, lumber, a huge and respected marine biology industry, pulp and paper, mines and mineral resources....shall I go on?

and your opinion is they could be doing a lot better if they let religious minorities come before Quebec citizens?

[cybercoma]

and your opinion is they could be doing a lot better if they let religious minorities come before Quebec citizens?

You see, this is the kind of bigoted undertone that your posts have, yet you get pissed when people call you on it.

First of all, there is no Quebec citizenship. You can be a resident of Quebec, but Quebec doesn't have its own citizenship.

Secondly, and this is where your bigotry shows, someone's religion tells you nothing of their citizenship. There are thousands of Muslim citizens, as well as many other "religious minorities" that have Canadian citizenship. However, you're such a bigot that you don't even conceive of them as citizens.

[guyser]

and your opinion is they could be doing a lot better if they let religious minorities come before Quebec citizens?

Huh? Where does that come from?

[olp1fan]

You see, this is the kind of bigoted undertone that your posts have, yet you get pissed when people call you on it.

First of all, there is no Quebec citizenship. You can be a resident of Quebec, but Quebec doesn't have its own citizenship.

Secondly, and this is where your bigotry shows, someone's religion tells you nothing of their citizenship. There are thousands of Muslim citizens, as well as many other "religious minorities" that have Canadian citizenship. However, you're such a bigot that you don't even conceive of them as citizens.

The world isn't black or white man, it is not possible to love everybody's religion and culture and if you say you do you are full of shit

so lets hear it cybercoma, are you real or are you full of shit?

[olp1fan]

Huh? Where does that come from?

I said

I will always admire Quebec for the protection of their culture..hopefully other provinces join suit with them in that regard

You said

Its kept them relatively poor in comparison with the richer parts of Canada.

So I concluded with the fact that Quebec's culture comes first before anyone else is what you were implying is the reason Quebec is poorer

[guyser]

I said

I will always admire Quebec for the protection of their culture..hopefully other provinces join suit with them in that regard

You said

Its kept them relatively poor in comparison with the richer parts of Canada.

So I concluded with the fact that Quebec's culture comes first before anyone else is what you were implying is the reason Quebec is poorer

Still not sure what you are implying or saying.

Quebec is 'poor' insofar as there attempts to block progress vis a vis their culture is keeping them down.

The culture comes before anything else, not anyone else.

[olp1fan]

Still not sure what you are implying or saying.

Quebec is 'poor' insofar as there attempts to block progress vis a vis their culture is keeping them down.

The culture comes before anything else, not anyone else.

so you're saying Quebec is poor because they are less tolerant of other religions and cultures?

[guyser]

so you're saying Quebec is poor because they are less tolerant of other religions and cultures?

nevermind.

[olp1fan]

nevermind.

you haven't explained what you meant by "progress" because what is progress to some is not progress to others

[Scotty]

Could you stop skipping over the notion of "reasonable accommodation" that has been key to this discussion since page 1. It's pretty annoying that you keep setting up these strawmen, such as the above. No one's saying religious freedom extends to sexually harassing people.

I guess I'm just not that interested in accommodating foreigners and their backward cultures and values any more.

[olp1fan]

I guess I'm just not that interested in accommodating foreigners and their backward cultures and values any more.

My best impression of cybercoma

RACIST! BIGOT! INTOLERANT! eh I think I've ran out of words to call you

[cybercoma]

I guess I'm just not that interested in accommodating foreigners and their backward cultures and values any more.

Canadian citizens are not foreigners and you don't get to pick and choose what races and ethnicities you will or will not accommodate. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms was designed so bigots like you don't get to make the rules.

[cybercoma]

My best impression of cybercoma

RACIST! BIGOT! INTOLERANT! eh I think I've ran out of words to call you

If you don't like being a bigot, then maybe you should stop.

[olp1fan]

If you don't like being a bigot, then maybe you should stop.

stop what? do you want me to be a fake like you and pretend to like everybody equally?

[cybercoma]

stop what? do you want me to be a fake like you and pretend to like everybody equally?

I certainly don't like everyone equally. In fact, I think you've been a dirtbag lately. However, I judge people on their ideas and what they do, not on their race, culture, or ethnicity, like you do.

[Black Dog]

Right. They just plan to assassinate the Prime Minister and bomb Parliament.

They all do? Holy shit, Shady: why don't you alert CISIS? I'm sure they would love to have an asset of your, uh, intelligence.

This is the problem with the practice. It's often very much the way men perceive religious devotion, not the women being forced into it perceive it. As I've pointed out, and unless I've missed it no one has commented on it, a 2003 poll in France showed 77% of the girls wearing the niqab doing so only because of threats, force, fear of violence. That's a pretty significant percentage.

I notice you didn't comment on the other poll I posted from this year or last that showed the majority of those surveyed who wore the niqab did so by choice. The truth, I expect, lies somewhere in the middle.

Canada has laws against speech that may incite violence, harm; why should clothing that can cause harm, the prevention of equality for women, be any different? Does the right to wear something overshadow the right to equality? Should that right supersede the rights of the women who are being oppressed? As I've pointed out, in spite of one's religious beliefs, polygamy is not legal. Religious beliefs in and of themselves do not have absolute protection.

Funny thing is, it's not the wearing of the niqab (though problematic in its own right) that's oppressive, but the culture of threats and coercion you say underpins it. Yet banning the niqab would only address the visible symptom and not the root of the problem, not to mention as a law it would be pretty much unenforceable without punishing the victims of the crime.

So. You ban the niqab. those women who choose to do so have their right to choose to dress as they wish according to their beliefs stripped away, while those who are coerced will likely be kept at home, or subjected to additional scrutiny from their oppressive communities. Meanwhile, you marginalize these groups further by singling them out, thus placing more barriers to integration.

[cybercoma]

Black Dog, she doesn't want to acknowledge that banning the niqab to stop the oppression of women is like banning black eyes in public to stop domestic violence.

[TimG]

Black Dog, she doesn't want to acknowledge that banning the niqab to stop the oppression of women is like banning black eyes in public to stop domestic violence.

Yet we have laws that allow police to law charges against an abusive spouse even if the woman objects. Why doesn't the same standard apply here?

[cybercoma]

Yet we have laws that allow police to law charges against an abusive spouse even if the woman objects. Why doesn't the same standard apply here?

No we don't. There are no domestic violence laws in Canada.

[TimG]

No we don't. There are no domestic violence laws in Canada.

So you are arguing that police should not concern themselves with a woman with a black eye if she insists that she does not mind getting beat up?

[cybercoma]

So you are arguing that police should not concern themselves with a woman with a black eye if she insists that she does not mind getting beat up?

If you're going to be a troll, at least put some more effort into it.

Nowhere did I say "police should not concern themselves with a woman with a black eye."

I said, we do not have domestic violence laws in Canada. Full stop. What you were describing are the domestic violence laws in some of the states in the US.

Do you know what law people are most often arrested under in Canada for domestic violence? Section 265 of the Criminal Code of Canada.