Face veils banned for citizenship oaths

[cybercoma]

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

Yeah. There is a difference. Women here are not forced to wear revealing and suggestive clothing or get cosmetic/plastic surgery, they're just made to feel less valued by society when they don't conform to the impossible ideal set out by Hollywood, fashion designers, and advertisers. Then they're harassed, beaten and raped by men who are taught by the same culture to objectify women and not to take no for an answer.

Do you know what the difference is between the way a rapist talks about women and men's magazines talk about them? Not a hell of a lot: http://jezebel.com/5866602/

If that's not disturbing to you, it should be.

[Guest American Woman]

I would probably be in favour of requiring native-born citizens to recite the oath when they reach adulthood as well.

Why? What if they refused?

[wyly]

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

political jiber jabber to placate the masses....europe has been multicultural for centuries this isn't anything new..., britain, france Italy in particular have populations that are culmination of 2,000 yrs of migration...

[cybercoma]

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.

Bull.

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

It's not even remotely close to being a choice. Beauty ideals are constructed and change over time. Women are undergoing surgery to conform to a constructed standard that is impossible to achieve in nature. There's not a hell of a lot of choice in that.

And it's not even remotely close to the same thing for men. They don't nearly as often have plastic/cosmetic surgery. Their value is also not tied to their appearance. They have the choice of being valued for their intelligence and in the case of bodybuilding it's typically for their strength. That's why women bodybuilders are seen as being "freakish." It's not a beauty ideal in the same way.

Edited December 13, 2011 by cybercoma

[Evening Star]

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.

Yeah, I was gonna say. I'm with you on some things here, cybercoma, but this line of reasoning seems a little fallacious to me. Any culture is going to have standards of attractiveness, which will privilege some people over others. And in ours, there are social expectations, concerning attractiveness as well as other things, of men as well as women. (I had real self-esteem issues over being a scrawny, unathletic bookish kid with thick glasses.) I don't think this is the equivalent of the customs you are comparing it to.

Edited December 13, 2011 by Evening Star

[Evening Star]

Why? What if they refused?

Ha, fair point. I was getting carried away there, probably.

[dre]

Heres the thing...

There seems to be two different lines of discussion here. One is whether or not there is a real tangible identification issue here. This could be a legitimate reason to force a muslim women to lift her face covering for a moment so that an ID could be made (or it could not be depending on the nature of the preceeding).

But the other thing in play here as is evidenced by this thread is just that muslims and muslim culture are just flat out UNPOPULAR with many Canadians. And this is EXACTLY WHY we have the charter. Popular expression and speech does not need protection. The whole point of the charter is to protect UNPOPULAR expression and speech.

So all the people ranting and making blanket statements about muslim culture have no real relevance. This is just another opportunity for them to shoot their mouths off, and when this law gets to court none of this will even be considered.

The ONLY real issue here is the possible need for identification judging by the history of rulings on such matters I find it very likely the courts would strike this down, because the need for identification can be handled pretty easily without banning face coverings for the entire outdated ceremony.

[Jack Weber]

political jiber jabber to placate the masses....europe has been multicultural for centuries this isn't anything new..., britain, france Italy in particular have populations that are culmination of 2,000 yrs of migration...

Yet France has banned the Hijab..

[wyly]

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 respect your view on it but disagree as to it's value, it means more to canadians watching then those taking the oath...

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.

that sounds fair to me...but I'd much rather have every canadian pass the citizenship test, I'm quite sure more immigrants would pass than canadians...

[Topaz]

First of all, let say, I rememeber seeing on the news when Iraq had their elections that the women had to show their faces.So seeing that, there's no reason they shouldn't here? Then on the other side of the isssue, why does the government require them to do this? To see who they are? Kenny said they can still stay in Canada if they don't, so if the government wants to see their faces and if its a issue of ID or trust, then why do they allow them to stay if they don't know who they are? I'm not sure which way to go in this one.

[cybercoma]

Yeah, I was gonna say. I'm with you on some things here, cybercoma, but this line of reasoning seems a little fallacious to me. Any culture is going to have standards of attractiveness, which will privilege some people over others. And in ours, there are social expectations, concerning attractiveness as well as other things, of men as well as women. (I had self-esteem issues over being a scrawny, unathletic bookish kid with thick glasses.) I don't think this is the equivalent of the customs you are comparing it to.

Your social worth is separable from your sexual attractiveness via intelligence or athletics. A woman's social worth is inseparable from her attractiveness, such that they're intelligence and athletic prowess are typically only valued if they're ALSO attractive.

Sarah Palin? Michelle Bachmann? Their sexual attractiveness is discussed in the news alongside their campaign points, while the same thing isn't done for male politicians. No one is criticizing how Obama dresses or making comments about his sexuality.

[Jack Weber]

Heres the thing...

There seems to be two different lines of discussion here. One is whether or not there is a real tangible identification issue here. This could be a legitimate reason to force a muslim women to lift her face covering for a moment so that an ID could be made (or it could not be depending on the nature of the preceeding).

But the other thing in play here as is evidenced by this thread is just that muslims and muslim culture are just flat out UNPOPULAR with many Canadians. And this is EXACTLY WHY we have the charter. Popular expression and speech does not need protection. The whole point of the charter is to protect UNPOPULAR expression and speech.

So all the people ranting and making blanket statements about muslim culture have no real relevance. This is just another opportunity for them to shoot their mouths off, and when this law gets to court none of this will even be considered.

The ONLY real issue here is the possible need for identification judging by the history of rulings on such matters I find it very likely the courts would strike this down, because the need for identification can be handled pretty easily without banning face coverings for the entire outdated ceremony.

Then this entire country needs to have a very frank discussion about reasonable accomodation....

Edited December 13, 2011 by Jack Weber

[Jack Weber]

Your social worth is separable from your sexual attractiveness via intelligence or athletics. A woman's social worth is inseparable from her attractiveness, such that they're intelligence and athletic prowess are typically only valued if they're ALSO attractive.

Sarah Palin? Michelle Bachmann? Their sexual attractiveness is discussed in the news alongside their campaign points, while the same thing isn't done for male politicians. No one is criticizing how Obama dresses or making comments about his sexuality.

So is both of their sanity/level of intelligence...

And considering some of what they have said,with good reason on both counts...

[cybercoma]

Heres the thing...

There seems to be two different lines of discussion here. One is whether or not there is a real tangible identification issue here. This could be a legitimate reason to force a muslim women to lift her face covering for a moment so that an ID could be made (or it could not be depending on the nature of the preceeding).

But the other thing in play here as is evidenced by this thread is just that muslims and muslim culture are just flat out UNPOPULAR with many Canadians. And this is EXACTLY WHY we have the charter. Popular expression and speech does not need protection. The whole point of the charter is to protect UNPOPULAR expression and speech.

So all the people ranting and making blanket statements about muslim culture have no real relevance. This is just another opportunity for them to shoot their mouths off, and when this law gets to court none of this will even be considered.

The ONLY real issue here is the possible need for identification judging by the history of rulings on such matters I find it very likely the courts would strike this down, because the need for identification can be handled pretty easily without banning face coverings for the entire outdated ceremony.

This is the perfect summary. I'm going to stop talking about gender equality because really it has nothing to do with the topic. Good post, dre.

[Guest American Woman]

It's not even remotely close to being a choice. Beauty ideals are constructed and change over time. Women are undergoing surgery to conform to a constructed standard that is impossible to achieve in nature. There's not a hell of a lot of choice in that.

There's a whole lot of choice in that. I know no one who has had surgery, which is a whole lot different from what it would be if it were required by law. And again. Men have surgery, take steroids, try to grow hair - try to alter their appearance too. You, I believe, are being sexist in your insistence that only women feel these pressures.

[dre]

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

Its one sentence that takes less than ten seconds to recite... An oath to an OUTSOURCED MONARCH :lol:

And Canadians will no doubt spend millions of dollars dragging this through the courts, and final appeal to the Supreme Court.

[cybercoma]

First of all, let say, I rememeber seeing on the news when Iraq had their elections that the women had to show their faces.So seeing that, there's no reason they shouldn't here? Then on the other side of the isssue, why does the government require them to do this? To see who they are? Kenny said they can still stay in Canada if they don't, so if the government wants to see their faces and if its a issue of ID or trust, then why do they allow them to stay if they don't know who they are? I'm not sure which way to go in this one.

In an election situation, it's necessary to prevent someone from voting more than once. For instance, I would be perfectly alright with the government saying the need to show their face to verify their identity for voting purposes. When someone's taking the citizenship oath, their identity would have already ahd to have been verified. There's a period between when they take the test, pass, then take the oath. If they're called to the oath, all of the verification that's necessary will have already taken place.

[cybercoma]

There's a whole lot of choice in that. I know no one who has had surgery, which is a whole lot different from what it would be if it were required by law. And again. Men have surgery, take steroids, try to grow hair - try to alter their appearance too. You, I believe, are being sexist in your insistence that only women feel these pressures.

I never said it was only women and you're getting off topic now.

[Battletoads]

To what end? It's completely unnecessary that they show their face in public for this reason, when it is forbidden by their religion. There's absolutely no reason that this is necessary, such that it would be worth violating their Charter Rights.

There's nothing in the Koran that in any way mandates that women are oppressed in this manner

[Guest American Woman]

I never said it was only women and you're getting off topic now.

This is what you said: ...it's not even remotely close to the same thing for men.

You then went on to say: Their value is also not tied to their appearance.

I say "bull." Men care very much about their appearance and women care about men's appearance just as men care about women's.

Then you really go off the wall with this: They have the choice of being valued for their intelligence

As if women don't have the choice of being valued for their intelligence! As I said, you are coming across as sexist, insinuating that women aren't valued for their intelligence.

and in the case of bodybuilding it's typically for their strength. That's why women bodybuilders are seen as being "freakish." It's not a beauty ideal in the same way.

So what's the difference between being admired for one's muscles or being admired for one's curves? There is no difference.

But here's the thing - since it's not just women, as you are now apparently acknowledging, then there's absolutely no comparison to women's treatment in Islamic nations where there are different standards for men and women. Which has been the issue.

Edited December 13, 2011 by American Woman

[Jack Weber]

There's nothing in the Koran that in any way mandates that women are oppressed in this manner

Correct!!

[Guest American Woman]

At any rate, it sounds as if there is quite the controversy brewing over this. It will be interesting to see how it all ends.

[dre]

Correct!!

Theres nothing in the bible that says christians have wear crucifix symbols either. But its still religious expression.

Heck... for that matter MOST religious customs, expressions, and rituals have very little to do with ancient holy books.

[cybercoma]

This is what you said: ...it's not even remotely close to the same thing for men.

You then went on to say: Their value is also not tied to their appearance.

I say "bull." Men care very much about their appearance and women care about men's appearance just as men care about women's.

Then you really go off the wall with this: They have the choice of being valued for their intelligence

As if women don't have the choice of being valued for their intelligence! As I said, you are coming across as sexist, insinuating that women aren't valued for their intelligence.

So what's the difference between being admired for one's muscles or being admired for one's curves? There is no difference.

But here's the thing - since it's not just women, as you are now apparently acknowledging, then there's absolutely no comparison to women's treatment in Islamic nations where there are different standards for men and women. Which has been the issue.

Here's the thing. Showing that men are also discriminated against does nothing to prove that women aren't.

Again, this is completely irrelevant to the topic, so we should stop discussing it here.

[wyly]

First of all, let say, I rememeber seeing on the news when Iraq had their elections that the women had to show their faces.So seeing that, there's no reason they shouldn't here?

so Iraq is a symbol of tolerance we should aspire to be like?...

Then on the other side of the isssue, why does the government require them to do this? To see who they are? Kenny said they can still stay in Canada if they don't, so if the government wants to see their faces and if its a issue of ID or trust, then why do they allow them to stay if they don't know who they are? I'm not sure which way to go in this one.

their id has already been established which why they were allowed in to the country and are allowed to remain as permanent residents even though they refuse to remove the veil...so insisting on removal of the veil is bullying and religious persecution...

Edited December 13, 2011 by wyly