On Baring your face in public

[Hudson Jones]

The cultural intolerance is coming from her. Not us. She's asking to be a citizen of our country.

Not wearing a "sack" on our head is not part of our culture.

[On Guard for Thee]

Yes, if that obstructed a legal process. It doesn't, so we don't.

You have to show your face for a few things in Canada for the sake of law and order, such as being identifiable to police and getting a driver's license, etc. End of issue. Can't do it? Nobody packed you in a shipping container against your will and forced you to come here.

....and if they did, I guess you didn't want to be here anyway.

What she wants to do is not obstructing a legal process either.

[Big Guy]

The major reason that people feel that faces should be exposed is for identification purposes. Why not create mandatory identification cards which have to be produced at any time that the authorities demand it?

[carepov]

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/

IMO, unless there is a good reason (eg. security or public safety) the government has no business telling people what they can or can`t wear.

Besides, what difference does it make if this person (or the potentially dozens like her) become citizens or remain permanent résidents?

[carepov]

I consider myself extremely lucky to have been born and raised in Canada, especially as a woman.

When I see women walking the streets, covering themselves with Burkas, I have extreme empathy for them. They are being oppressed from expressing their unique individualism. Let's remember that the Burka is not a dress code for Muslims. It is quite simply a medieval oppression dictated by extreme Islamic men to further alienate them from society and suppress their rights. These women have had strict conditioning (brain washing) to wear the Burkas so of course they will insist on wearing them.

Canada should be doing everything it can to protect, educate and promote these women's rights and that can be partly done by requirig them to remove their Burkas during this important ceremony. Removing the Burka may also offer them a tiny glimpse into Canada's stand for equality and civil liberties of all women in Canada.

Even the Muslim Canadian Congress has asked to expand the Burka Ban.

This is a good move by the MCC as it will gain favour by the vast majority of Canadians.

Yes Canada should do everything it can to protect human rights - IMO banning Burkas does not make any progress.

[carepov]

If you choose to wear this thing in Canada its simply because you've absorbed the religious repression and self hatred that Islam imposes on women. No one other than a religious fanatic who deliberately wants to exclude herself from the society around her would wear such an uncomfortable garment. It blocks your vision, is swelteringly hot in summer, and its main purpose is to mark you as "other" in the minds of everyone else in this society.

What choosing to shroud yourself says is that you reject our society and its culture and its people, and want nothing to do with any of them. Why on earth would we allow you to come here and be a citizen, given that?

This woman and her family should be put on a plane back to where they will be more comfortable.

Should we also deport anyone that has a tatoo of the «anarchist» symbol?

How about anyone over 5 piercings goes home?

Edited October 22, 2014 by carepov

[On Guard for Thee]

IMO, unless there is a good reason (eg. security or public safety) the government has no business telling people what they can or can`t wear.

Besides, what difference does it make if this person (or the potentially dozens like her) become citizens or remain permanent résidents?

IMO, and it

IMO, unless there is a good reason (eg. security or public safety) the government has no business telling people what they can or can`t wear.

Besides, what difference does it make if this person (or the potentially dozens like her) become citizens or remain permanent résidents?

IMO, and loosely based on my observations over the years, most of those people who have those red neck, isolationist attitudes tend to be those who have been "borned and raised" and never either bothered, or maybe had the opportunity, to venture much farther from home turf than beyond sight of the town hall. I'm not saying you can't be tolerant without traveling, but it sure helps.

[WestCoastRunner]

Yes Canada should do everything it can to protect human rights - IMO banning Burkas does not make any progress.

Banning burqas makes tremendous progress for womens rights. If you can't see that, no one is going to convince you otherwise.

[WestCoastRunner]

Should we also deport anyone that has a tatoo of the «anarchist» symbol?

How about anyone over 5 piercings goes home?

I can see you haven't give this topic much serious thought.

[Bonam]

Banning burqas makes tremendous progress for womens rights. If you can't see that, no one is going to convince you otherwise.

Indeed. As much as some people like to apologize for non-Western cultures, and even though some Muslim women want to defend the right to wear the burka, the reality is that these coverings are a form of oppression. They defend these things not because the things are worth defending but because they are products of their culture. Much like the fact that some Western women may have defended past injustices does not make those injustices any less real.

Now, I can certainly see the argument that people should be allowed to wear what they want and that a ban violates people's rights, and the libertarian in me agrees with that viewpoint. But, on the other hand, it's also hard to argue with the reasoning behind banning symbolism that is strongly associated with a highly destructive or oppressive ideology, at least until that ideology is extinguished sufficiently that there is no need to fear its spread or return, as for example with the swastika ban in Germany. The ideology that is associated with forcing women to cover themselves with burkas is the same one that says they should not be educated, must not drive or leave the house alone, must be punished for being victims of rape, and are essentially the property of one male or another for their entire lives, whether their father or husband or brother or son. This ideology needs to be erased from the world, or at least kept from taking root in Western nations, and banning some of its most overt physical manifestations is a decent place to start.

[roman law]

well done...I agree with you, but I wouldn't put it the same way.

...........................

Graduated from Soran University with First Class Degree with Honours in Political Science.

[hitops]

What she wants to do is not obstructing a legal process either.

Ya it is. It's legally required to show your face in this instance (you can cover up again after), just like it is for things like being in court, or getting a driver's license.

No you dont. Only when driving a car.

If they suspect you have committed an offence, or saw you do so then they can ask or arrest you.

Otherwise, nope.

Otherwise, yes. If you want a passport or driver's license, no face cover. If you are in court, you have the right to see the face of your accuser, or the face of witnesses. If you are swearing the oath, the subject of this thread, also required. A police officer can demand you remove any face covering if they cannot ID you based on your license, or even if they need to see your face for other reasons like assessing if you are impaired, etc. They can also ask anybody else in the car to do so if they feel they need to be identified, and that goes for anyone walking on the street as well. They need a cause of course, some degree of plausible suspicion just like anything. But the fact remains it is perfectly legal, totally reasonable for the normal functions of police work, and if you can't handle it you probably shouldn't be here.

Edited October 22, 2014 by hitops

[Big Guy]

Banning burqas makes tremendous progress for womens rights. If you can't see that, no one is going to convince you otherwise.

How would legislating what a woman can or cannot wear be "progress" for women's rights?

[cybercoma]

Now, I can certainly see the argument that people should be allowed to wear what they want and that a ban violates people's rights, and the libertarian in me agrees with that viewpoint.

That's the crux of the feminist Muslim argument. They face oppressive barriers for being women AND for being Muslim. Even the most well-meaning Western women who claim they want to liberate Muslim women sometimes ignore that their faith is a major part of their identities. Yousafzai, who just won the Nobel Peace Prize, said her faith is extremely important to her views and mission. She wears a hijab. Women of faith can observe their faiths freely and without oppression. Western women trying to be white knights to Muslim women and free them from their spiritual observances is not only patronizing, but is a form of Western imperialism and ethnocentrism. Oppression and violence against women should be aggressively denounced and fought against. Requiring women to stop doing things that they want to do, feel is a part of their identity, and makes them feel more connected to their God and culture, is oppressive.

[carepov]

Banning burqas makes tremendous progress for womens rights.

Do you also think that banning pornographgy and banning prostitution would make tremendous progress for women`s rights?

[Scared.In.Canada]

Those people scare me. I cannot see their face and sometimes not even their eyes. Why do they seek to scare everyday normal Canadians. It seems to me that they do not seek to fit into Canada at all but alienate themselves from the very fabric that is Canada. I'd like to see someone here sucessfully agrue how these women wearing full body sacks are seeking to include themselves with the majority of Canada in their mannerisms, speech and dress.

[carepov]

Indeed. As much as some people like to apologize for non-Western cultures, and even though some Muslim women want to defend the right to wear the burka, the reality is that these coverings are a form of oppression. They defend these things not because the things are worth defending but because they are products of their culture. Much like the fact that some Western women may have defended past injustices does not make those injustices any less real.

Now, I can certainly see the argument that people should be allowed to wear what they want and that a ban violates people's rights, and the libertarian in me agrees with that viewpoint. But, on the other hand, it's also hard to argue with the reasoning behind banning symbolism that is strongly associated with a highly destructive or oppressive ideology, at least until that ideology is extinguished sufficiently that there is no need to fear its spread or return, as for example with the swastika ban in Germany. The ideology that is associated with forcing women to cover themselves with burkas is the same one that says they should not be educated, must not drive or leave the house alone, must be punished for being victims of rape, and are essentially the property of one male or another for their entire lives, whether their father or husband or brother or son. This ideology needs to be erased from the world, or at least kept from taking root in Western nations, and banning some of its most overt physical manifestations is a decent place to start.

I agree with you, however this ideology is nowhere near «taking root» in any western country and therefore there is no justification for government intervention. I would probably be in favour of a complete ban on the burka in Saudia Arabia.

[Bryan]

The major reason that people feel that faces should be exposed is for identification purposes. Why not create mandatory identification cards which have to be produced at any time that the authorities demand it?

I've got no issue with mandatory ID, but the card doesn't mean much unless you can verify it to the uncovered face.

[Black Dog]

Those people scare me. I cannot see their face and sometimes not even their eyes. Why do they seek to scare everyday normal Canadians. It seems to me that they do not seek to fit into Canada at all but alienate themselves from the very fabric that is Canada. I'd like to see someone here sucessfully agrue how these women wearing full body sacks are seeking to include themselves with the majority of Canada in their mannerisms, speech and dress.

You seem easily terrified. May I suggest for your own sake that you stay home and lock the doors next Friday? Some real scary stuff will be out there then.

[hitops]

Do you also think that banning pornographgy and banning prostitution would make tremendous progress for women`s rights?

I guess the argument is that banning people from voluntary indentured servitude or perpetual abuse is like saving them from themselves. We do plenty of that, and the debate is where to draw the line. Most of the time we err on the side of letting them debase or harm themselves in the interest of freedom.

For example most women in prostitution did not directly choose it, but were forced into it or dealt with problems in there life, coersed etc, but it still is a choice.

Perhaps we should allow slavery, so long as the person voluntarily enters into the arrangement?

Edited October 22, 2014 by hitops

[Scared.In.Canada]

You seem easily terrified. May I suggest for your own sake that you stay home and lock the doors next Friday? Some real scary stuff will be out there then.

No one can argue you sucessfully that these people are trying to fit into Canada so why are we letting them live here in the first place? It's disgusting, they only seek to tear Canada apart not strengthen it. I am disabled and these people scare me. What is to stop them from doing something crazy to me?

[Bryan]

I am disabled and these people scare me.

Does this writing style sound familiar to anyone here?

[Black Dog]

No one can argue you sucessfully that these people are trying to fit into Canada so why are we letting them live here in the first place? It's disgusting, they only seek to tear Canada apart not strengthen it. I am disabled and these people scare me. What is to stop them from doing something crazy to me?

Given nothing has happened to you since the last time you posted these concerns in your previous incarnation as Mr.Canada, I think you'll be ok.

[Scared.In.Canada]

Given nothing has happened to you since the last time you posted these concerns in your previous incarnation as Mr.Canada, I think you'll be ok.

I have no idea who Mr. Canada(?) is.

So how do these people contribute to the fabric of society in a way that strengthens Canada?

[carepov]

Perhaps we should allow slavery, so long as the person voluntarily enters into the arrangement?

There is no such thing as ``voluntary slavery``, by definition slavery is not voluntary.

If you want to join a travelling circus and get paid room and board only, no one is stopping you. You can also join a variety of religions or cults where you are part of a commune.