Argus Posted October 18, 2014 Report Share Posted October 18, 2014 So a woman (most likely at her husband's orders) is suing the government because she wants to wear a black sack over her head as she takes her oath of citizenship to Canada. Jason Kenney forbid this a couple of years back, as some might recall. They were discussing this on the CBC yesterday, and the panelists basically couldn't figure out why she shouldn't be allowed to wear whatever she wants. My own response, as I suspect it is for most Canadians, is that if you want to habitually walk around with a black sack over your head we don't want you or your family here to begin with. Your attitudes are diametrically opposed to ours on almost all issues, and we want you to go home, not become a citizen. I find it interesting that whenever cases like this show up in the papers, the comments section, which in the Globe and Post, at least, are invariably EXTREMELY hostile to the conservatives and everything they do and say, wind up fully supporting them. I don't think there's much sympathy for people like this in Canada at all. Yes, we are intolerant of your intolerance, religious crazies. http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/10/17/jason-kenney-defends-decision-to-ban-wearing-of-niqabs-during-citizenship-oaths/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted October 18, 2014 Report Share Posted October 18, 2014 Well said. There's no reason she can't remove the head covering and take the oath in private in front of a female official. If that's not good enough, this country isn't the place for you. Move along. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted October 18, 2014 Report Share Posted October 18, 2014 Well said. There's no reason she can't remove the head covering and take the oath in private in front of a female official. If that's not good enough, this country isn't the place for you. Move along. I agree with you, but I wouldn't put it the same way. Some rights trump others. Freedom of religion doesn't trump taking an oath in my opinion. You have to show your face. What's the problem lady? Show your freekin face, take the oath, then go back to your religious habits as before. WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 18, 2014 Report Share Posted October 18, 2014 Is there a definitive answer somewhere to the question as to whether or not a burka is a religious requirement? I have heard that Islamic scholars insist it is not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 18, 2014 Report Share Posted October 18, 2014 It's not. It's a cultural one, but I still don't see why she shouldn't be allowed to wear whatever she wants for the oath. This isn't a case of getting government identification and needing to be able to identify her. She files her paperwork saying she affirms to the oath regardless. Getting bent out of shape about this is a pointless exercise in cultural intolerance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted October 18, 2014 Report Share Posted October 18, 2014 Getting bent out of shape over this is another example of an odd cultural peccadillo that's been carried a little too far over the top. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 18, 2014 Report Share Posted October 18, 2014 There's another way of looking at it. Her refusal to take off the hood for the ceremony could be also be considered cultural intolerance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted October 18, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 18, 2014 It's not. It's a cultural one, but I still don't see why she shouldn't be allowed to wear whatever she wants for the oath. This isn't a case of getting government identification and needing to be able to identify her. It's the symbolism of the thing, and what is taking an oath but symbolic? The niqab is a symbol of oppression and fanaticism, a symbol of ignorance and intolerance. In fact, I would just as soon amend the immigration act to forbid the immigration of anyone who believe women should wear the stupid things. Because so many attitudes come along with that which I don't want in Canada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 18, 2014 Report Share Posted October 18, 2014 (edited) As soon as you say it's symbolism, you, the viewer, are creating meaning in the act. The meaning that you create is different from the meaning created by another person. Edited October 18, 2014 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hal 9000 Posted October 18, 2014 Report Share Posted October 18, 2014 I sense that this is one of those awkward threads where people who hate everything Christian, will suddenly side with this muslim woman's religious choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 18, 2014 Report Share Posted October 18, 2014 I don't know anyone on this forum who "hates" Christians. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted October 18, 2014 Report Share Posted October 18, 2014 My grandparents came to Canada from a country where men like dto wear skirts. They call 'em kilts. And they played an instrument the soiund of which could peal the paint off the water tower. Should they have banned them too? And how about our First Nations who like to wear ceremonial headdress at certain times. Kinda hard to kick them out. I'm not a fan of burka's by any means, but I also think if someone meets the requirements as set out by Immigration, and wishes to become Canadian, then they should have equal rights. Part of the requirements of course is abiding by Canadian laws. If someone arrives and tries invoking Sharia laws then I do have a problem, and they will have a problem with our legal system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Macadoo Posted October 18, 2014 Report Share Posted October 18, 2014 (edited) There's another way of looking at it. Her refusal to take off the hood for the ceremony could be also be considered cultural intolerance. Maybe she should just wear her "Who Farted?" Or "Federal Boob Inspector" hat instead to avoid the whole cultural intolerance thing.....be like her new home and native land. Edited October 18, 2014 by Bob Macadoo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 18, 2014 Report Share Posted October 18, 2014 (edited) My grandparents came to Canada from a country where men like dto wear skirts. They call 'em kilts. And they played an instrument the soiund of which could peal the paint off the water tower. Should they have banned them too? And how about our First Nations who like to wear ceremonial headdress at certain times. Kinda hard to kick them out. I'm not a fan of burka's by any means, but I also think if someone meets the requirements as set out by Immigration, and wishes to become Canadian, then they should have equal rights. Part of the requirements of course is abiding by Canadian laws. If someone arrives and tries invoking Sharia laws then I do have a problem, and they will have a problem with our legal system. Some stuff is okay, some stuff isn't. Look at the Doukhobors. If she showed up with no clothes on at all they probably wouldn't let her take the oath. One of the reasons I was against laws banning head coverings, like the one they instituted in France, is that one never knows for sure whether or not it is actually being worn by choice. I imagine most women who wear them do so because they are afraid not to. I have to admit to being a bit ambivalent about this. No harm comes from allowing her to wear it. No harm comes from telling her to take it off. Edited October 18, 2014 by bcsapper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 18, 2014 Report Share Posted October 18, 2014 Maybe she should just where her "Who Farted?" Or "Federal Boob Inspector" hat instead to avoid the whole cultural intolerance thing.....be like her new home and native land. Well, of course, I'm British, and when I took the Oath of Citizenship I wore a blazer and dress pants. What you would have worn doesn't interest me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted October 18, 2014 Report Share Posted October 18, 2014 The cultural intolerance is coming from her. Not us. She's asking to be a citizen of our country. Not us to hers. It seemed like common sense to not have your face covered when taking an oath. But liberalism and political correctness is the antithesis of logic and common sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 19, 2014 Report Share Posted October 19, 2014 The cultural intolerance is coming from her. Not us. It takes a serious absence of critical thinking to actually believe this garbage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted October 19, 2014 Report Share Posted October 19, 2014 According to what I have read, she completed the forms, provided the proper identification and was viewed by a female government rep and then took the oath like every other person, wearing what she did. She has passed all of the requirements of the process to attain citizenship. The interesting part here is that it was a unilateral decision by Jason Kenney who felt, that as minister, he was allowed to impart his personal view on the oath ceremony. The decision is up to the courts to decide if this minister did, or did not, have the power to impose his personal views on other Canadians. I am looking forward to the arguments and decision in this case. This Harper government is now getting accustomed to being challenged and overturned by the Supreme Court of Canada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted October 19, 2014 Report Share Posted October 19, 2014 It's not. It's a cultural one, but I still don't see why she shouldn't be allowed to wear whatever she wants for the oath. This isn't a case of getting government identification and needing to be able to identify her. She files her paperwork saying she affirms to the oath regardless. Getting bent out of shape about this is a pointless exercise in cultural intolerance. Nope sorry but Canada has a cultural unique identity as well. Nobody is saying that anyone can't practice their religion or culture or whatever. But the conservatives in my opinion are enforcing western habits/style/culture for an oath and they are the elected government and it is well within their jurisdiction to do so. I think your debate is with whom defines what the Canadian culture is. WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted October 19, 2014 Report Share Posted October 19, 2014 I am looking forward to the arguments and decision in this case. This Harper government is now getting accustomed to being challenged and overturned by the Supreme Court of Canada. It's going to be a real tuff one for the supreme court to rule in favour of this woman. This head dress thing is a big issue in courtrooms and many judges don't like it when people wear hats during a trail. Sorry my friend, but I wouldn't be surprised if the supreme court held up the law on this one. But it could go the hajib way? I don't want to call this one! WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 19, 2014 Report Share Posted October 19, 2014 Nope sorry but Canada has a cultural unique identity as well. Nobody is saying that anyone can't practice their religion or culture or whatever. But the conservatives in my opinion are enforcing western habits/style/culture for an oath and they are the elected government and it is well within their jurisdiction to do so. I think your debate is with whom defines what the Canadian culture is. WWWTT figures the poster who denies China's human rights abuses would also be the one to stand up and cheer for the government's "enforced habits and culture." Come to Canada where the dept of habits and culture will tell you how to act. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted October 19, 2014 Report Share Posted October 19, 2014 It's going to be a real tuff one for the supreme court to rule in favour of this woman. This head dress thing is a big issue in courtrooms and many judges don't like it when people wear hats during a trail. Sorry my friend, but I wouldn't be surprised if the supreme court held up the law on this one. But it could go the hajib way? I don't want to call this one! WWWTT Has nothing to do with a trial. It's about taking an oath which is a ceremonial event. The SCC won't have a problem at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted October 19, 2014 Report Share Posted October 19, 2014 figures the poster who denies China's human rights abuses would also be the one to stand up and cheer for the government's "enforced habits and culture." Come to Canada where the dept of habits and culture will tell you how to act. Never denied anything. Never labelled other posters here either Not my fault that you have a different definition. You're also knowingly misleading what the government is doing! The government now requires you not cover your face when taking the oath WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted October 19, 2014 Report Share Posted October 19, 2014 (edited) Has nothing to do with a trial. It's about taking an oath which is a ceremonial event. The SCC won't have a problem at all. Sorry but I'm not as confident. I miss spoke. Instead of trial, I should have used the word "courtroom". A citizenship judge usually presides over the ceremony. And here's another one that should give some insight: Citizenship judges speak to new citizens about the rights and responsibilities of citizenship, but it is also at these ceremonies and at promotional events in the community for new and established Canadians that judges pass on their pride, enthusiasm and respect for the institution of Canadian citizenship. Taken from here http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCoQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cic.gc.ca%2Fenglish%2Fcitizenship%2Fcit-ceremony.asp&ei=hcpDVISWI8mwyASSxYLoCw&usg=AFQjCNF9y7WKjg2aMUp8N0X7UiF40WC7Kg&bvm=bv.77648437,d.aWw&cad=rja Ceremonial or not, it is still the final step and citizenship can not be achieved without attending. Also that last sentence that I pasted "respect for the institution of Canadian citizenship" reflects the arrogant nature that some judges have when they preside over a trial. True it's not a courtroom, but a judge still controls the proceedings. It can go either way and I'm not calling it. WWWTT Edited October 19, 2014 by WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted October 19, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 19, 2014 (edited) As soon as you say it's symbolism, you, the viewer, are creating meaning in the act. The meaning that you create is different from the meaning created by another person. I don't think so. This thing is culturally forced on women and young girls as a means of hiding temptation from men. Women are attractive, and this creates lust in men. Therefore, the shroud is designed to prevent women from making guys horny. As such it represents all the baser elements of Islam and its obsession with female sexuality and chastity and the need to control them at all costs. You're not even a person in these. You're a thing. An unidentified moving object, as some western troops call females in Afghanistan. You have no presence. You're faceless, with little ability to interact on a human level with your fellow humans. The garment isolates you from society, which is its intent. Isn't it a well-known fact that men who abuse their spouses like to isolate them too? This shroud does that in spades. Given a choice I believe most Canadians would prefer any men who thinks his wives and daughters should wear this thing be prevented from coming to Canada in the first place. Edited October 19, 2014 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.