Rue Posted March 27, 2015 Report Share Posted March 27, 2015 (edited) You liberal moralists slew moi.You just don't want to talk about the actual issue of cultural conflict between those who want to advocate cultural values that repress sexuality.Of course Jacee you don't want to talk about excretions. That is precisely the point.The word excretion or ejaculation does not bother moi. I would hope one day gets way past the giggles over the word ejaculation precisely so that any young woman does not have to cover her face for any man and we do not have to live in a society where people cover their faces over ridiculously repressed concepts of sexuality. That is the point. Some of us are tired of having to bend over backwords for people dragging us back to the stone age. Edited March 27, 2015 by Rue Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted March 27, 2015 Report Share Posted March 27, 2015 Talking about sexual repression. Give me some of that Christian Side Hug, so our naughty bits don't touch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted March 28, 2015 Report Share Posted March 28, 2015 It subjugates women's hair......second class coif. Nice logic. Why do you even post stupidity like this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted March 28, 2015 Report Share Posted March 28, 2015 (edited) I don't think you can reasonably say that. Individual posters are not "this site" and the debate around Islam here revolves around criticizing individuals versus groups based on attributes. I don't think you can say what is reasonable on this issue. Any site which is entirely anonymous, and which is obviously extreme in its ideological slant is unreliable as a cite, even if you happen to agree with them. Edited March 28, 2015 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted March 28, 2015 Report Share Posted March 28, 2015 Talking about sexual repression. Give me some of that Christian Side Hug, so our naughty bits don't touch. Yeah, that's every bit as bad as the state executing a teenage girl who becomes pregnant after being raped by her uncle, or cutting off little girls clitorises or burying women to the neck and smashing their heads with stones. Every bit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jazzer Posted March 28, 2015 Report Share Posted March 28, 2015 Ill give you a hint though. It has to do with the integration of, and learning respect for, various cultures other than the one you might be used to. You dont have to take up wearing a kilt, a turban, a niqab, or eagle feathers. But you need to respect the rights of others to follow their traditions. Doing so has a lot to do with what makes Canada such a respected country. And its part of why I am proud of it and so happy I live here. To me this is such a non issue. I've waded through the entire 81 pages and find the above to be the best quote of the entire thread. Thank you On Guard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted March 28, 2015 Report Share Posted March 28, 2015 To me this is such a non issue. I've waded through the entire 81 pages and find the above to be the best quote of the entire thread. Thank you On Guard. I have been very lucky to have travelled quite a lot through my job, and to some really out of the way places. It was sort of like going back to school only with the photos in those old books actually coming to life. Not always easy, but always educational one way or other. And when the wheels of the plane touched back down on Canadian soil, I could stroll through the terminal at Pearson for instance, and feel a stronger connection to those other folks there not as pasty white as me. Thank you for your comment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ron Young Posted March 28, 2015 Report Share Posted March 28, 2015 Well I guess the efforts of a very few who desire to demonize anything Muslim have born fruit. We are officially afraid of a woman with her face covered. What's next? I'll tell you these teenagers wearing different colored socks are looking pretty scary these days and lets not even mention the amount of actual butt crack being paraded around our society today. Can we ban that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted March 28, 2015 Report Share Posted March 28, 2015 I don't think you can say what is reasonable on this issue. Any site which is entirely anonymous, and which is obviously extreme in its ideological slant is unreliable as a cite, even if you happen to agree with them. So you're saying what I can and can't say ? And following that, you are saying this is an extreme site ? That's pretty far-fetched. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Macadoo Posted March 28, 2015 Report Share Posted March 28, 2015 Why do you even post stupidity like this? I just mirror the logical disconnect you display so that no one individual here takes your view seriously.....just for the entertainment it provides. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overthere Posted March 28, 2015 Report Share Posted March 28, 2015 That is the point. Some of us are tired of having to bend over backwords for people dragging us back to the stone age. No, the point is that there are no degrees of equality in a free, tolerant and democratic society. . This woman has equally as much right to cover her face as does another person to expose theirs. You can disagree with that right overall, but you cannot deny it to one while granting it to another. The motives of those that deny her the right to act according to her beliefs- beliefs and actions that cause no actual harm to others- have nothing to do with identification at a ceremony, that has been exhaustively dismissed. What the haters of this woman are doing is exactly what they claim she/her traditions are doing: exercising control and power over her person. It is shameful and ignorant behaviour and unworthy of the heart of our nation, and I am not referring to her. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted March 28, 2015 Report Share Posted March 28, 2015 Free and equal societies have limits. Those limits are set by societal standards. To suggest otherwise is disingenuous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overthere Posted March 28, 2015 Report Share Posted March 28, 2015 Free and equal societies have limits. Those limits are set by societal standards. To suggest otherwise is disingenuous. Yes, there are limits, though 'societal standards' are not the only or main protocol. The law , starting with freedom of expression and freedom of religion have a much stronger influence and rightly so. The 'societal standard' regarding an issue like same sex marriage for example would have it outside 'societal standards' , considered unlawful and unseemly as recently as a decade ago. Many people still think it so, but their standards don't apply to us any more. This is not an example where they apply. Genital mutilation would be an example of where they do apply. Our societal standards are that we are officially multicultural and do very often permit persons to do anything they wish within the law. There is no reason to deny this woman what she specifically asks. Not her husband, her imam, her lawyer or anybody else- what she has articulated. She has been thoroughly identified. End of. The govt will lose their appeals. and they know it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted March 28, 2015 Report Share Posted March 28, 2015 (edited) There is no reason to deny this woman what she specifically asks.If this is true then there is no reason to deny anyone the right wear anything at all citizenship ceremony, including nazi regalia, KKK hoods or any other offensive clothing you can imagine. If you agree with the premise that *some* clothing can be justifiably banned because of community standards then you can't really argue that the bans on this particular piece of clothing is unreasonable if the majority in the "community" disagrees with you. Edited March 28, 2015 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overthere Posted March 28, 2015 Report Share Posted March 28, 2015 The court agrees with me. She is not asking to wear Nazi clothing. Many, many people wear their best and traditional clothing to the citzenship ceremony. That in itself is a Canadian tradition. Or would you have all immigrants, sorry new citizens, dress up as lumberjacks or in fake Indian clothing? Are you threatened by a Sikh with turban and knife? There is no immigrant group that wears KKK hoods as traditional clothing, so you'll have to try again,but harder. The arguments against this are based in bigotry, racism and xenophobia. She is not a threat. There is no direct link between this woman and everybody in Canada being forced to wear a niqab. No, you don;'t get to conflate everything.Those that howl against this are the threat, not her. Of course their voices are increasingly and thankfully a minority. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted March 28, 2015 Report Share Posted March 28, 2015 Yeah, that's every bit as bad as the state executing a teenage girl who becomes pregnant after being raped by her uncle, or cutting off little girls clitorises or burying women to the neck and smashing their heads with stones. Every bit. The hate is strong with you. Very strong. But those practices are not restricted to Muslims. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted March 28, 2015 Report Share Posted March 28, 2015 (edited) The court agrees with me.So? All that means is a judge was asked to apply his "community standards". She is not asking to wear Nazi clothing. Many, many people wear their best and traditional clothing to the citizenship ceremony. You refute your own argument. If niqabs are acceptable then so is Nazi clothing. You either argue that anything goes or accept the arbitrary nature of a "community standards" even if your "standards" disagree on this particular point. Your argument about allowing "traditional dress" vs "non-traditional" dress is just another arbitrary post-hoc rationalization for your particular standards and it has no inherent logical merit over the argument that niqab should be banned because it symbolizes the subjugation of women. Edited March 28, 2015 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted March 28, 2015 Report Share Posted March 28, 2015 So? All that means is a judge was asked to apply his "community standards". You refute your own argument. If niqabs are acceptable then so is Nazi clothing. You either argue that anything goes or accept the arbitrary nature of a "community standards" even if your "standards" disagree on this particular point. Your argument about allowing "traditional dress" vs "non-traditional" dress is just another arbitrary post-hoc rationalization for your particular standards and it has no inherent logical merit over the argument that niqab should be banned because it symbolizes the subjugation of women. No, it had naught to do with the judges community standards. It had to do with the judges finding that the ban broke the governments own law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted March 28, 2015 Author Report Share Posted March 28, 2015 Free and equal societies have limits. Those limits are set by societal standards. To suggest otherwise is disingenuous. What are "societal standards"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted March 28, 2015 Author Report Share Posted March 28, 2015 Smallc, do you remember when anti-miscegenation was a societal standard? You would have been shunned and possibly assaulted for getting involved with an "Indian." Who gives a flying fig what the vagueries of "societal standards" means. People have the right to follow their cultures and traditions, as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. The women we're talking about in this thread are free to practice their cultural and religious tradition, as long as they verify their identities in private while signing the legal documentation. If you want to talk about women being oppressed and abused, then address the abuse. Clearly, a woman who's going to fight for her right to express her cultural and religious identity in a manner that does not infringe upon the rights of anyone else is not being abused or oppressed. The only oppression here are from people who want to strip her of her heritage because it hurts their fragile sensibilities or uglier still, they're just simply intolerant bigots. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted March 28, 2015 Report Share Posted March 28, 2015 So? All that means is a judge was asked to apply his "community standards".Probably best to write "community standards" out as Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but I suspect you wont.You refute your own argument. If niqabs are acceptable then so is Nazi clothing.Yup. Knock youself out. I think youve tried this angle of reasoning a half dozen times, no one has said they cant. inherent logical merit over the argument that niqab should be banned because it symbolizes the subjugation of women.Subjugation...something you determined on your own I see. Good thing 'your values' are pretty much worthless in the scheme of things huh> The court spoke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted March 28, 2015 Report Share Posted March 28, 2015 (edited) I think youve tried this angle of reasoning a half dozen times, no one has said they cant.What is interesting is no one has actually come out and explicitly said that people should be able to wear whatever the please even if it is nazi regalia or KKK hoods. The responses suggest to me that everyone arguing against the ban is inherently a hypocrite that thinks clothing should only be banned when it offends them personally and not when it offends others. If people think that people should be allowed to wear KKK hoods at the citizenship ceremony they should be willing to say it explicitly and justify as a constitutionally protected right. Edited March 28, 2015 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted March 28, 2015 Report Share Posted March 28, 2015 What is interesting is no one has actually come out and explicitly said that people should be able to wear whatever the please even if it is nazi regalia or KKK hoods.You mean this entire thread where folks have debated that the govt cannot ban an article of clothing? The responses suggest to me that everyone arguing against the ban is inherently a hypocrite that thinks clothing should only be banned when it offends them personally and not when it offends others.No tim, you Argus and a couple of others have been arguing that this womans covering be banned when it offends them personally , not to mention the article in question has nothing to do with you me nor anyone else, doesnt impact our way of life, doesnt hurt us in the slightest and so on. If people think that people should be allowed to wear KKK hoods at the citizenship ceremony they should be willing to say it explicitly and justify as a constitutionally protected right.They have, its just you who has some weird hang up on trying to input some value to the swastika/KKK hoods . And you seem to ignore when that is pointed out. Id laugh pretty loud if some guy walked by me with a KKK hood or swastika adorned jacket. Id actually shake his hand and congratulate him or her on their outfit with a complimentary 'you are proud to display your ignorance and I salute that' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted March 28, 2015 Report Share Posted March 28, 2015 I just mirror the logical disconnect you display so that no one individual here takes your view seriously.....just for the entertainment it provides. The logical disconnect is when you can't deal with logic, have no coherent argument, don't know anything about the topic at hand, so resort to snotty one-liners which, come to think of it, is pretty much all you ever post... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted March 28, 2015 Report Share Posted March 28, 2015 (edited) The hate is strong with you. Very strong. But those practices are not restricted to Muslims. You're right. Only about 99.99% of the time. Edited March 28, 2015 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.