Face veils banned for citizenship oaths

[cybercoma]

Yeah. Real obvious.

Have fun reading about how equal women are in Canada:

http://www.fafia-afai.org/files/FAFIA_Canada_CEDAW_2008.pdf

Maybe the CPC should worry about these statistics before passing stupid laws about veils.

Edited December 13, 2011 by cybercoma

[wyly]

I don't know about being woman, but I know a hell of a lot about the way gender is handled in our society than you. This much is obvious.

i wouldn't be surprised if you knew more about being a women as well

[Evening Star]

I don't have a problem with requiring the veil to be removed in cases where someone's identity needs to be verified. And, unlike some posters here, I think the citizenship oath is of great significance. However, I'm a little confused as to why it's so important that the veil be removed in this case. Isn't the oath spoken aloud? I've never been to a citizenship ceremony but I administered oaths (not citizenship oaths) as a DRO at the last election. Each time, the person had to speak the oath out loud. Wouldn't you know if someone was reciting the oath regardless of whether their face was covered? What am I missing?

[dre]

Nooooooooo. The choice isn't off limits because I don't like it; it's off limits because it interferes with the citizenship oath requirements.

Maybe. We still dont have a ruling that wearing one of these things interferes with the oath. The government will be asked for a real tangible reason for banning the head covering. If identification is the reason they give, then the government will have to prove that theres no other reasonable way to deal with that problem without infringing on religious freedom.

Im not saying thats how I necessarily think it should work. But thats how it does work. For whatever reason we set the bar pretty high for government to infringe on religious freedoms. They cant even force a Sikh policeman to wear a helmet or ban them from carrying large daggers in schools!

[Evening Star]

(I am also curious why AW would have expected this issue to come up first in the US.)

Edited December 13, 2011 by Evening Star

[wyly]

Yeah, I'm sure most women hate being started at. I'm sure most women try their darnedest to look as unattractive as possible so as not to attract attention from men.

proof cyber knows more about being a women than you...

[olp1fan]

Have fun reading about how equal women are in Canada:

http://www.fafia-afai.org/files/FAFIA_Canada_CEDAW_2008.pdf

Maybe the CPC should worry about these statistics before passing stupid laws about veils.

which culture has more women equality ours or theirs?

[Guest American Woman]

(I am also curious why AW would have expected this issue to come up first in the US.)

Because I think it's a rather touchy PC issue, and I see Canada as much more PC than the U.S. - I see Canada as embracing it's PC as part of it's multiculturalism.

[Evening Star]

which culture has more women equality ours or theirs?

Don't think that's his point.

[olp1fan]

see Canada as embracing it's PC as part of it's multiculturalism.

I agree with Merkel, Sarkozy and Cameron in saying Multiculturalism has been a failure

[Guest American Woman]

I don't have a problem with requiring the veil to be removed in cases where someone's identity needs to be verified. And, unlike some posters here, I think the citizenship oath is of great significance. However, I'm a little confused as to why it's so important that the veil be removed in this case. Isn't the oath spoken aloud? I've never been to a citizenship ceremony but I administered oaths (not citizenship oaths) as a DRO at the last election. Each time, the person had to speak the oath out loud. Wouldn't you know if someone was reciting the oath regardless of whether their face was covered? What am I missing?

I think the oath is taken as a group - not recited individually.

[dre]

I don't have a problem with requiring the veil to be removed in cases where someone's identity needs to be verified. And, unlike some posters here, I think the citizenship oath is of great significance. However, I'm a little confused as to why it's so important that the veil be removed in this case. Isn't the oath spoken aloud? I've never been to a citizenship ceremony but I administered oaths (not citizenship oaths) as a DRO at the last election. Each time, the person had to speak the oath out loud. Wouldn't you know if someone was reciting the oath regardless of whether their face was covered? What am I missing?

I think the citizenship oath is of great significance.

Can you flesh this out a little bit? I dont think it makes any practical difference what-so-ever. Obviously nobody thats just spend years going through the immigration process is going to refuse to speak the oath. I think its completely unimportant and makes not one iota of difference.

I swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfill my duties as a Canadian citizen.

What the hell does that even mean, and does anyone really expect a new citizen will do anything different whether or not they deadpan that out in some ceremony or not?

[Jack Weber]

I think the oath is taken as a group - not recited individually.

It is....

[olp1fan]

Don't think that's his point.

hes been ignoring the culture of muslim human rights abuses and he expects me to look at his stats?

yeah okay sure

[Evening Star]

I think the oath is taken as a group - not recited individually.

Ah, OK, that makes sense now.

[dre]

Because I think it's a rather touchy PC issue, and I see Canada as much more PC than the U.S. - I see Canada as embracing it's PC as part of it's multiculturalism.

No as I already pointed out, Canada has dealt with numerous issues similar to this going back decades. Canada has to deal with the same issues integrating other cultures into our society as everyone else.

Edited December 13, 2011 by dre

[cybercoma]

which culture has more women equality ours or theirs?

Completely irrelavant that they're less equal there. They're not equal here, contrary to Kenney saying, "who feel obliged to have their faces covered in public often come from a cultural milieu that treats women as property rather than equal human beings." We're talking about the impetus to cover oneself in public. In their unequal system, women hide themselves. In our unequal system, women go through surgical procedures to alter their appearance because their value in our society is tied to their attractiveness. But it's a Catch-22 because if you're too attractive, you're not intelligent or you're a slut. I'm not going to get into a debate about which one is worse. They're both bad and Minister Kenney appears to be implying that our culture doesn't oblige women to do things that would be unconscionable in other cultures.

[wyly]

And, unlike some posters here, I think the citizenship oath is of great significance.

it's silly melodrama, do actually believe any criminals, spies, war criminals, terroists or other such undesirables have ever been dissuaded from becoming a citizen because they couldn't go through with the horror of being disingenuous in reciting an oath?

However, I'm a little confused as to why it's so important that the veil be removed in this case. Isn't the oath spoken aloud? I've never been to a citizenship ceremony but I administered oaths (not citizenship oaths) as a DRO at the last election. Each time, the person had to speak the oath out loud. Wouldn't you know if someone was reciting the oath regardless of whether their face was covered? What am I missing?

it's racist xenophobia..it's what many of us suspected lurked under the cpc's public skin, now we have it confirmed... Edited December 13, 2011 by wyly

[cybercoma]

hes been ignoring the culture of muslim human rights abuses and he expects me to look at his stats?

yeah okay sure

We don't control their culture. We control our culture. If you want to start a thread about human rights abuse in the Islamic world, we can have a grand discussion on the dangers of religious zealotry.

[Jack Weber]

it's silly melodrama, do actually believe any criminals, spies, war criminals, terroists or other such undesirables have ever been dissuaded from becoming a citizen because they couldn't go through with the horror of being disingenuous in reciting an oath?

it's racist xenophobia..it's what many of us suspected lurked under the cpc's public skin, now we have it confirmed...

And there it is...

One of the moral/cultural relativists has called anyone who has a problem with Islamic female face garb a "xenophobic racist"...

I'm surprised it took this long...

[olp1fan]

Completely irrelavant that they're less equal there. They're not equal here, contrary to Kenney saying, "who feel obliged to have their faces covered in public often come from a cultural milieu that treats women as property rather than equal human beings." We're talking about the impetus to cover oneself in public. In their unequal system, women hide themselves. In our unequal system, women go through surgical procedures to alter their appearance because their value in our society is tied to their attractiveness. But it's a Catch-22 because if you're too attractive, you're not intelligent or you're a slut. I'm not going to get into a debate about which one is worse. They're both bad and Minister Kenney appears to be implying that our culture doesn't oblige women to do things that would be unconscionable in other cultures.

Women aren't forced to wear suggestive clothing or get cosmetic / plastic surgery

however in muslim countries women are forced to wear only what is culturally acceptable

or they could be threatened, beat up, murdered by strangers or family members

these are the people who also move here

Edited December 13, 2011 by olp1fan

[Guest American Woman]

In their unequal system, women hide themselves. In our unequal system, women go through surgical procedures to alter their appearance because their value in our society is tied to their attractiveness.

You honestly think just as many women are having surgical procedures to alter their appearance as there are women wearing veils in Islamic societies?? Not even close.

But again. And this is the crux of the matter. One is law, one is choice. There is a huge difference.

Furthermore, MEN have surgery to alter their appearance too, and take steroids, and spend tons of money on trying to regrow their hair when they lose it. It's not just women, as you try to present it.

But it's a Catch-22 because if you're too attractive, you're not intelligent or you're a slut.

Bull.

I'm not going to get into a debate about which one is worse. They're both bad and Minister Kenney appears to be implying that our culture doesn't oblige women to do things that would be unconscionable in other cultures.

Again. LAW and CHOICE are the key words here. You don't seem to get that.

Edited December 13, 2011 by American Woman

[Jack Weber]

Women aren't forced to wear suggestive clothing or get cosmetic / plastic surgery

however in muslim countries women are forced to wear only what is culturally acceptable

or they could be threatened, beat up, murdered by strangers or family members

these are the people who also move here

Move here,ostensibly,to escape that very repression...Only to replicate it here under the guise of the "multicultural mosaic"...

[Evening Star]

it's silly melodrama, do actually believe any criminals, spies, war criminals, terroists or other such undesirables have ever been dissuaded from becoming a citizen because they couldn't go through with the horror of being disingenuous in reciting an oath?

But the point is that they recited the oath. Thus, it's a matter of record that they betrayed it. You could probably say the same thing about courtroom oaths too.

I mean, I place some value on procedure and ceremony. I would probably be in favour of requiring native-born citizens to recite the oath when they reach adulthood as well.

[Jack Weber]

But the point is that they recited the oath. Thus, it's a matter of record that they betrayed it. You could probably say the same thing about courtroom oaths too.

I mean, I place some value on procedure and ceremony. I would probably be in favour of requiring native-born citizens to recite the oath when they reach adulthood as well.

Not a bad idea,actually...