.

[BC_chick]

We don't accept consensual sex between an underage person because we believe they lack to capacity to make an informed decision. I really don't see the difference with religion as it shrouds the capacity to make informed decisions.

It's misogynist cultural dogma with no actual basis in religion so the charter's freedom of religion shouldn't even apply.

[dialamah]

She's been brainwashed.

noun brain·wash·ing \ˈbrān-ˌwȯ-shiŋ, -ˌwä-\

Definition of BRAINWASHING

1

: a forcible indoctrination to induce someone to give up basic political, social, or religious beliefs and attitudes and to accept contrasting regimented ideas

2

: persuasion by propaganda or salesmanship

— brain·wash transitive verb

— brainwash noun

— brain·wash·er noun

I agree with you that religious people are brainwashed. Doesn't make their choice any less valid. Canada will allow people who are brainwashed to believe that taking blood transfusions is wrong, to die. Why should we hesitate to allow women to be brainwashed into wearing the niqab, as long as it's their choice?

Edited October 14, 2015 by dialamah

[dialamah]

We don't accept consensual sex between an underage person because we believe they lack to capacity to make an informed decision. I really don't see the difference with religion as it shrouds the capacity to make informed decisions.

It's misogynist cultural dogma with no actual basis in religion so the charter's freedom of religion shouldn't even apply.

Christianity is pretty misogynistic, and depending on the sect, you can find some pretty subjugated women. You are less aware of them because they don't wear a niqab.

But to claim that someone who is a religious person should be denied their rights because they're 'brainwashed' is ludicrous. That's like 60% of Canada, if I recall correctly.

[TimG]

Which, even if true, couldn't possibly justify banning the niqab. A free society even has to tolerate intolerant people.

Except no one is talking about banning them. What we are talking about is whether we should be discarding the long established understanding that people are expected to show their face when swearing an oath before a judge. The nature of the niqab means it is not something that we should be expected to accommodate in these circumstances. Edited October 14, 2015 by TimG

[ToadBrother]

Except no one is talking about banning them. What we are talking about is whether we should be discarding the long established understanding that people are expected to show their face when swearing an oath before a judge. The nature of the niqab means it is not something that we should be expected to accommodate in these circumstances.

We're talking about such a small number of women as to be statistically insignificant.

[BC_chick]

Except no one is talking about banning them. What we are talking about is whether we should be discarding the long established understanding that people are expected to show their face when swearing an oath before a judge. The nature of the niqab means it is not something that we should be expected to accommodate in these circumstances.

Well, no. I think it's ridiculous to ban them a ceremony where the person has gone through several steps proving their identity and also removed their niqab in front of another woman at the ceremony.

I think it's idiocy at its finest to just ban it at ceremonies. I think the agenda is to start there and slowly move toward banning together, but if that's the case, they should have the guts to just come out with it from the start.

Banning at a citizenship ceremony but allowing it to go on thereafter makes no sense.

[BC_chick]

Christianity is pretty misogynistic, and depending on the sect, you can find some pretty subjugated women. You are less aware of them because they don't wear a niqab.

But to claim that someone who is a religious person should be denied their rights because they're 'brainwashed' is ludicrous. That's like 60% of Canada, if I recall correctly.

We don't allow public nudity either. Freedom does have limits.

[ToadBrother]

We don't allow public nudity either. Freedom does have limits.

But those limits are necessarily very narrow in focus, and have to be based on something more concrete than "I don't like it."

I cannot think of a single way that I am materially harmed by someone in a veil. It may make me uncomfortable, but to declare that enough to invoke public decency is rather dubious, in my view.

[dialamah]

We don't allow public nudity either. Freedom does have limits.

Your arguments are definitely getting weaker.

Has anyone really challenged this in court to see if it would stand up? Didn't a woman challenge the "women cannot go topless" law -- and win? Don't we have nude beaches/nude communities? Are they illegal?

I'd say its a grey area, and that most people don't have enough interest in going nude everywhere to challenge it.

But, I could be wrong. Maybe you could find out and let me know.

[BC_chick]

Tell me one way you are harmed by a nude person?

eta - that was for Toadbrother.

Edited October 14, 2015 by BC_chick

[TimG]

Well, no. I think it's ridiculous to ban them a ceremony where the person has gone through several steps proving their identity and also removed their niqab in front of another woman at the ceremony.

They are swearing a public oath. It is ridiculous to suggest that swearing a public oath can be done with a covered face. It has nothing to do with verifying one's identity. Of course, if one thinks that oaths are jokes then what is the point of the ceremony? Edited October 14, 2015 by TimG

[ToadBrother]

Tell me one way you are harmed by a nude person?

eta - that was for Toadbrother.

Depending on the person in question, I might drive off the road. But more to the point, I'm not harmed, and to some extent I question the legitimacy of many nudity laws.

[ToadBrother]

They are swearing a public oath. It is ridiculous to suggest that swearing a public oath can be done with a covered face. It has nothing to do with verifying one's identity. Of course, if one thinks that oaths are jokes then what is the point of the ceremony?

Why can't a public oath be taken with a face covering? Is there some sort of magic in a public oath that requires the mouth be visible?

[BC_chick]

Your arguments are definitely getting weaker.

Has anyone really challenged this in court to see if it would stand up? Didn't a woman challenge the "women cannot go topless" law -- and win? Don't we have nude beaches/nude communities? Are they illegal?

I'd say its a grey area, and that most people don't have enough interest in going nude everywhere to challenge it.

But, I could be wrong. Maybe you could find out and let me know.

You said it's a 'right' to dress as someone wishes and I pointed out that it's not. How's that a weak argument?

It's a fact.

Edited October 14, 2015 by BC_chick

[BC_chick]

Depending on the person in question, I might drive off the road. But more to the point, I'm not harmed, and to some extent I question the legitimacy of many nudity laws.

*You* may question them but they exist. This is no different.

[BC_chick]

Fact is, we certainly DON'T have to right to wear whatever we want in this country.

[ToadBrother]

*You* may question them but they exist. This is no different.

Yes, they exist, and some arguments for them may be legitimate, but as the breast exposing case in Ontario in the 1990s revealed, in some cases it's an unjustifiable tattoo.

But let's look at this the other way. If it's okay to ban face veils, then why not ban other clothing as well? Where is that YOU would draw the line.

For me, an individual's liberties, particularly in life choices, should trump even the discomfort of the wider population. We allow people to pierce and tattoo themselves from head to toe, we allow people to be sexual submissives, we allow sado-masochism, at least to a point.

Is the face veil truly so awful that it requires the state to impose bans? And if it is that awful, what other garb do you feel should be outlawed?

[Smallc]

It may not be individually oppressive, but it's definitely culturally oppressive. A Canadian woman in a niqab is going to have a heck of a time making friends, getting a job, driving, or sitting on a park bench to enjoy her lunch. Just because she's been brainwashed to believe it's good for her, it doens't make the custom ok.

For sure, I just don't know if there's an easy way to tread this thin line.

[TimG]

Why can't a public oath be taken with a face covering? Is there some sort of magic in a public oath that requires the mouth be visible?

One is supposed to demonstrate sincerity when swearing a public oath. This is not possible with a covered face because the face key to judging sincerity.

[dialamah]

You said it's a 'right' to dress as someone wishes and I pointed out that it's not. How's that a weak argument?

It's a fact.

Well, since you couldn't be bothered to go find out if what you were claiming was true, I did it for you. Basically, nudity is not specifically illegal.

From Wikipedia (you are welcome to search out sources that contradict this):

In Canada, s.173 of the Criminal Code^[6] prohibits "indecent acts". There is no statutory definition in the Code of what constitutes an indecent act (other than that the exposure of the genitals for a sexual purpose to anyone under 14 years of age),^[7] so that the decision of what state of undress is "indecent", and thereby unlawful, is left to judges to decide. Judges have held, for example, that nude sunbathing is not indecent.^[8] Also, streaking is similarly not regarded as indecent.^[9][10] Section 174 prohibits nudity if it offends "against public decency or order" and in view of the public. The courts have found that nude swimming is not offensive under this definition.^[11]

Toplessness is also not an indecent act under s.173. In 1991, Gwen Jacob was arrested for walking in a street in Guelph, Ontario while topless. She was acquitted in 1996 by the Ontario Court of Appeal on the basis that the act of being topless is not in itself a sexual act or indecent.^[12] The case has been referred to in subsequent cases for the proposition that the mere act of public nudity is not sexual or indecent or an offense.^[13] Since then, the court ruling has been tested and upheld several times.

[BC_chick]

Well, since you couldn't be bothered to go find out if what you were claiming was true, I did it for you. Basically, nudity is not specifically illegal.

From Wikipedia (you are welcome to search out sources that contradict this):

Thanks, I did research and yes, it seems the government of Canada and wikipedia are at odds:

Nudity

• 174. (1) Every one who, without lawful excuse,

  • (a) is nude in a public place, or

  • (b) is nude and exposed to public view while on private property, whether or not the property is his own,

  is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

• Marginal note:Nude

  (2) For the purposes of this section, a person is nude who is so clad as to offend against public decency or order.

• Marginal note:Consent of Attorney General

  (3) No proceedings shall be commenced under this section without the consent of the Attorney General.

• R.S., c. C-34, s. 170.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-174.html

BTW, section 173 that you quoted in the preceding page and it's specifically regarding indecent acts. Section 174 is specific regarding public nudity.

So, to recap, dressing as one wishes is NOT a right as you suggested, my argument is NOT weak given that I stated facts and the comical part in all this was where you were so condescending about doing proper research as you quoted the wrong law.

I'll wait to see what you say next about the "right" to wear what one wants.

Edited October 14, 2015 by BC_chick

[ToadBrother]

One is supposed to demonstrate sincerity when swearing a public oath. This is not possible with a covered face because the face key to judging sincerity.

So your claim is that an oath is a magic lie detector, but it only works if you can see their mouth. Is that your position?

[BC_chick]

BTW, dialmah, I have yet to insult you or your intelligence while making my points. If you make your argument personal one more time I will no longer respond to you.

[TimG]

So your claim is that an oath is a magic lie detector, but it only works if you can see their mouth. Is that your position?

No - that is not my claim. My claim is public oath swearing is long established tradition and part of this tradition requires evidence of sincerity on the part of the swearer. This requires that the face be visible because the facial cues are what humans use to judge sincerity. There is absolutely no point to oath sworn with a hidden face. If the courts force governments to allow hidden faces then the passport should be just mailed to the person and the entire ceremony should be skipped. Edited October 14, 2015 by TimG

[ToadBrother]

No - that is not my claim. My claim is public oath swearing is long established tradition and part of this tradition requires evidence of sincerity on the part of the swearer. This requires that the face be visible because the facial cues are what humans use to judge sincerity. There is absolutely no point to oath sworn with a hidden face. If the courts force governments to allow hidden faces then the passport should be just mailed to the person and the entire ceremony should be skipped.

So it's a ritual that cannot, even with an exposed face, actual provide evidence of sincerity. There's no actual factual evidence for your claim that a citizenship oath is compromised by a covered face. In fact, it's obvious that it wasn't an issue because the law itself makes no provision for it.