.

[Argus]

Because they dont have the enlightened SC Justices we have , and they are deeper thinkers than the right who propose all these dumb things for something so minor. (afterall, there are only a handful of Niqab wearers in Canada)

I don't think many people are especially worried about 'a handful of Niqab wearers' in Canada. They see the Niqab as a symbol of what they dislike most about Muslims (aside from the terrorism), a symbol of repression and ancient misogynistic orthodoxy, of a deep, all-encompassing submission to old religious beliefs, some of which are considered barbaric, and a determination to live ones life by those beliefs. Most Canadians are fairly secular at this point in time. They don't like the thought of a growing number of people with deep religious beliefs, and especially not when those beliefs contain social beliefs which many would consider inimical to our current social beliefs and customs.

[Argus]

I didnt know there was a ban on either of those things.

Try wearing a KKK hood the next time you walk into a court room.

Edited March 14, 2015 by Argus

[Argus]

The point I am making is simply that because you or I might find something offensive isnt enough reason to go around banning things.

His point was relevent. If you saw a picture of a citizenship ceremony which featured a bunch of guys wearing KKK outfits you'd be appalled, and you'd ask why the hell we were bringing such people into Canada to become citizens given their well-known social beliefs.

[Argus]

Are the KKK and Nazis allowed to wear their garb? Are there any laws banning the practice?

During a citizenship ceremony? I would presume that if they were known to be Nazis or KKK supporters their application for citizenship would be rejected out of hand.

[guyser]

I don't think many people are especially worried about 'a handful of Niqab wearers' in Canada. They see the Niqab as a symbol of what they dislike most about Muslims (aside from the terrorism), a symbol of repression and ancient misogynistic orthodoxy, of a deep, all-encompassing submission to old religious beliefs, some of which are considered barbaric, and a determination to live ones life by those beliefs.

I am willing to bet the Burqa is the symbol you meant here, not the Niqab. I imagine some Canucks do have a problem with that symboil.

But so what?

Most Canadians are fairly secular at this point in time. They don't like the thought of a growing number of people with deep religious beliefs, and especially not when those beliefs contain social beliefs which many would consider inimical to our current social beliefs and customs.

I would bet that most Canucks when not seeing any of that deep seated religiousity become ingrained in policy or Govt they would shrug and say , well what can ya do?

Not to mention they said the same thing about the Italians decades ago

[guyser]

During a citizenship ceremony? I would presume that if they were known to be Nazis or KKK supporters their application for citizenship would be rejected out of hand.

So then his point was not relevant.

[Argus]

So then his point was not relevant.

I think it was doubly relevant in that we would reject such people - as we should -- because of their repugnant beliefs. Why, then, do people find it difficult to imagine a circumstance where we would reject a potential citizen applicant for their repugnant beliefs which are based on their religion?

[Argus]

I am willing to bet the Burqa is the symbol you meant here, not the Niqab. I imagine some Canucks do have a problem with that symboil.

But so what?

They are both symbols of the same mindset. And just as we wouldn't want to import Nazis or KKKluckers because of their mindset a lot of people find it passing strange that we'd be importing other people with repugnant beliefs

Edited March 14, 2015 by Argus

[The_Squid]

During a citizenship ceremony? I would presume that if they were known to be Nazis or KKK supporters their application for citizenship would be rejected out of hand.

exactly!! So it's clearly a red herring.

[Charles Anthony]

Guys,

Please avoid posting personal attacks.

I deleted a handful of posts that were nothing more than detractions.

Ch. A.

[Bob Macadoo]

Guys,Please avoid posting personal attacks.I deleted a handful of posts that were nothing more than detractions.Ch. A.

Were there any BC2004 posts in there?

[Big Guy]

I congratulate this current government of Stephen Harper. We have an election just around the corner and the jockeying has started to take place. During the last controversy in Quebec, it was estimated that about 10 to 15 women in all of Quebec wear a niqab and the total for all of Canada was in the 100 range.

Meanwhile, we have already suffered our first casualty in the latest war that this government has us involved, our debt to income ratio is inching up, the economy is still very fragile, the Canadian dollar is under the 80 cent value, the price of oil is on its way to $40 a barrel and the court cases of Duffy and Wallin are beginning - and we are arguing about what a woman (one of about a hundred) wears during symbolic services.

We are focussing on a crack between two boards on a barn while behind us the barn door is wide open.

Great politics!

[TimG]

exactly!! So it's clearly a red herring.

No - its not. IN the case of swastikas and KKK hoods we have simple pieces of a clothing which are symbols of ideas which are repugnant to Canadians values. The niqab is another on of those symbols and women who insist on wearing one at a citizenship ceremony don't have any business becoming Canadian.

I realize that you will argue that you don't agree with my assessment of the niqab but since you have already expressed the opinion that some pieces of clothing are unacceptable you now no longer can argue a libertarian moral high ground. You are simply arguing that your opinion on what is offensive should determine rule.

[GostHacked]

No - its not. IN the case of swastikas and KKK hoods we have simple pieces of a clothing which are symbols of ideas which are repugnant to Canadians values. The niqab is another on of those symbols and women who insist on wearing one at a citizenship ceremony don't have any business becoming Canadian.

I realize that you will argue that you don't agree with my assessment of the niqab but since you have already expressed the opinion that some pieces of clothing are unacceptable you now no longer can argue a libertarian moral high ground. You are simply arguing that your opinion on what is offensive should determine rule.

You know what I hate ... turbans.

[TimG]

You know what I hate ... turbans.

So what do they symbolize which is not consistent with Canadian values?

[Bob Macadoo]

So what do they symbolize which is not consistent with Canadian values?

.....a caste society?

[GostHacked]

So what do they symbolize which is not consistent with Canadian values?

Forgot the /sarcasm tag.

[GostHacked]

.....a caste society?

Not a bad point when you think about it. But even let's say something like Saudi Arabia and their form of attire. Head coverings for everyone.

[TimG]

.....a caste society?

Sikhism rejects the Hindu cast system. http://www.realsikhism.com/index.php?subaction=showfull&id=1248369635&ucat=7

[Bob Macadoo]

Sikhism rejects the Hindu cast system. http://www.realsikhism.com/index.php?subaction=showfull&id=1248369635&ucat=7

.....you didn't ask what Sikh's believe just as you didn't ask what Muslim's believe.....you asked what do personal attire represent. Just as you believe niqab's represent female oppression b/c a percentage represent that idea......I can believe turbans represent a caste society as I have observed a percentage of turban wearers display that idea.

.....what? That's not the same thing you say......sure sure.....

[guyser]

I think it was doubly relevant in that we would reject such people - as we should -- because of their repugnant beliefs.

I would think should one voice those repugnant beleifs that perhspd Immigration officers reject them as candidates. I imagine it happens with some regularity.

Why, then, do people find it difficult to imagine a circumstance where we would reject a potential citizen applicant for their repugnant beliefs which are based on their religion?

Define repugnant?

Some find the defined roles OF MAN VS WOMAN defined long ago yet still in application repugnant.

I find that a girl not allowed to be an alter girl/Priest shameful and repugnant (insofar as we still do this??)

I find that orthodox Synagogues separating the sexes repugnant.

I find the Burqa but not the Niqab repugnant.

Yet, in all of them, I am non-plussed . Not one of them affects me in any way, none of them show any signs of becoming anything of merit as respects our governance and way of life.

Now an immigration officer who does the interviews in the far away land may very well reject Dad and his wife and 3 daughters who show up in Burqa outfits. We do not know but suspect they likely do. Some, perhaps a majority of the ones we have here wearing that garb could have come under refugee status as per our humanitarian obligations.

There are so few , and it does not look like its growing at any rate to worry about that I find it rather humerous that our govt wastes time on something so minor.

Edited March 14, 2015 by Guyser2

[TimG]

I can believe turbans represent a caste society as I have observed a percentage of turban wearers display that idea.

Except opinions on swastikas, KKK hoods or niqabs have a basis in fact and history. You are proposing something that is just made up. In any case, if you want to make the libertarian case you need to state unequivocally that you have no problems with people wearing KKK hoods and swastikas during the swearing the citizenship oath. And even if say that you would be among a tiny minority of Canadians because the vast majority of people believe that lines can and should be drawn and the only question is the exact position of the line.

[guyser]

Except opinions on swastikas, KKK hoods or niqabs have a basis in fact and history.

What basis would that be?

[Argus]

.....you didn't ask what Sikh's believe just as you didn't ask what Muslim's believe.....you asked what do personal attire represent. Just as you believe niqab's represent female oppression b/c a percentage represent that idea......I can believe turbans represent a caste society as I have observed a percentage of turban wearers display that idea.

.....what? That's not the same thing you say......sure sure.....

Except almost no one in Canada even knows much about India's caste system, and this isn't about what 'you' believe or 'I' believe but what a reasonable person would come to associate with this attire. Your statement that 'a percentage' of niqab wearers represent female oppression is also disingenuous since the percentage is 100.

We live in a place where women are allowed to breast feed in public, or even go topless on a hot day. How can we NOT believe women having to enshroud themselves are being oppressed by this religion? You don't see Muslim men shrouding themselves.They wear whatever they feel like wearing, including shorts and T-shirts. Have you ever read some of the reports of how hot it is in these outfits, how they restrict your vision?

[Argus]

What basis would that be?

Reality?