.

Argus · October 14, 2015

I wonder if there should be a version of Godwin's Law for Wynne.

Beyond that, it's apples and oranges. A pension scheme is hardly an issue of civil liberties.

Government does all kinds of things, and makes us do all kinds of things 'for our own good'. Wynne was simply a handy reference.

And forcing you to contribute to a 'pension' scheme which will quite likely give you nothing back is stealing your money, which ought to be a more important civil liberties issue than a piece of clothe.

Edited October 14, 2015 by Argus

ToadBrother · October 14, 2015

Government does all kinds of things, and makes us do all kinds of things 'for our own good'. Wynne was simply a handy reference.

And again, it's not a civil liberties issue. Public pension plans are the sort of things that Parliament and Provincial legislatures should be dealing with. They shouldn't be pondering tell people what kinds of clothes to not wear.

cybercoma · October 14, 2015

So why do people need to be physically present at the citizenship ceremony? According to you that is an unnecessary requirement and the should be able to email their oath.

This reminds me of the people who didn't want same-sex couples to get married, but argued they should be entitled to "civil unions" or some other such thing. It's complete nonsense with the sole purpose of re-affirming your ethnocentric biases.

cybercoma · October 14, 2015

I'm for an all-out ban because it's a practice which limits a woman's ability to function and work and be independent.

The niqab limits their ability or people's impressions of the niqab and their subsequent treatment of women who choose to wear it limits their ability to function, work and be independent?

cybercoma · October 14, 2015

To claim that the oath is invalid because we didn't see her lips move (which is/was the precise requirement of the Harper Government policy) is ridiculous.

Can d/Deaf people become citizens if they sign the oath? :rolleyes:

Canada_First · October 14, 2015

Can d/Deaf people become citizens if they sign the oath?

This niqab wearer didn't sign and isn't deaf. So what you've said is irrelevant as it pertains to this topic.

cybercoma · October 14, 2015

Peter F said you have to see the person's lips move. Someone using sign language wouldn't be moving their lips (grammatically they would, but that's a different thing).

Canada_First · October 14, 2015

Peter F said you have to see the person's lips move. Someone using sign language wouldn't be moving their lips (grammatically they would, but that's a different thing).

I sign ASL and yes ASL people move their lips and use facial expressions when signing. In fact it's much harder to get your point across without using facial expression and mouthing words. I'm not trying to attack you personally at all please don't take it that way. Just a fact.

cybercoma · October 14, 2015

Like I said, grammatically they would, but that's a different thing.

cybercoma · October 14, 2015

The citizenship is frozen text in ASL, as I'm sure you're aware if you do actually sign.

TimG · October 15, 2015

This reminds me of the people who didn't want same-sex couples to get married, but argued they should be entitled to "civil unions" or some other such thing. It's complete nonsense with the sole purpose of re-affirming your ethnocentric biases.

Noting that seeing a face is very important to human communication is not an 'ethnocentric bias' - it is a well established scientific fact. The question comes down to: what is the point of the oath? Desite your insults and innuendo you refuse to answer that question. Why do we bother with an antiquated ritual that has no tangible purpose?

cybercoma · October 15, 2015

Having one person speak at a time is important for communication too.

On Guard for Thee · October 15, 2015

Noting that seeing a face is very important to human communication is not an 'ethnocentric bias' - it is a well established scientific fact. The question comes down to: what is the point of the oath? Desite your insults and innuendo you refuse to answer that question. Why do we bother with an antiquated ritual that has no tangible purpose?

Good question. Maybe because we like our little ceremonies, even if they have no tangible purpose. So what's wrong with modifying it a little bit?

kimmy · October 15, 2015

Noting that seeing a face is very important to human communication is not an 'ethnocentric bias' - it is a well established scientific fact. The question comes down to: what is the point of the oath? Desite your insults and innuendo you refuse to answer that question. Why do we bother with an antiquated ritual that has no tangible purpose?

And? What's going to happen? The judge, carefully studying someones face while they swear the oath, is going to say "I'm not convinced you really mean it! CITIZENSHIP REVOKED!!" I highly doubt it.

I am 100% in support of the principle that someone's face should be visible while they are giving testimony and being cross-examined, because the right to a fair trial trumps all else. But at a citizenship ceremony? What's the point?

-k

ReeferMadness · October 15, 2015

Exactly. The ceremony is just that. Ceremony.

TimG · October 15, 2015

I am 100% in support of the principle that someone's face should be visible while they are giving testimony and being cross-examined, because the right to a fair trial trumps all else. But at a citizenship ceremony? What's the point?

The citizenship oath is supposed to have as much significance as giving testimony in court. That is why it is requirement. Now people want to ignore its original intent and turn it into a meaningless ritual then it should not be mandatory.

cybercoma · October 15, 2015

The citizenship oath is supposed to have as much significance as giving testimony in court.

You do know they give the actual legal oath in private when they fill out their paperwork, right? The ceremonial oath is not the same as giving testimony in court. Edited October 15, 2015 by cybercoma

TimG · October 15, 2015

You do know they give the actual legal oath in private when they fill out their paperwork, right? The ceremonial oath is not the same as giving testimony in court.

Then why is it mandatory?

cybercoma · October 15, 2015

You tell me.

TimG · October 15, 2015

You tell me.

I am saying it is mandatory because it intended to have a much significance as testifying in court. You are the one arguing otherwise.

ToadBrother · October 15, 2015

I am saying it is mandatory because it intended to have a much significance as testifying in court. You are the one arguing otherwise.

Does testifying in court require a niqab to be removed?

BC_chick · October 15, 2015

So even if a woman could demonstrate she does it of her own free will, you feel you have a right to determine what she wears more than she does? It sounds to me like you've simply replaced misogyny with another form of authoritarianism."We're doing this for your own good" has a pretty dubious history.

We're not anarchists, we have many laws that interfere with personal freedoms. Several were mentioned on this thread and whether or not you personally agree with them, the fact remains that freedom does have limits.

kimmy · October 15, 2015

The citizenship oath is supposed to have as much significance as giving testimony in court. That is why it is requirement. Now people want to ignore its original intent and turn it into a meaningless ritual then it should not be mandatory.

And will somebody be cross-examining people during the oath to determine if they're telling the truth?

-k

ToadBrother · October 15, 2015

We're not anarchists, we have many laws that interfere with personal freedoms. Several were mentioned on this thread and whether or not you personally agree with them, the fact remains that freedom does have limits.

Some of those laws are reasonable, some probably wouldn't stand a hope in hell in court. I can't imagine a niqab ban surviving even a lower court ruling, and it would be a waste of money to push it all the way up the chain so the Supreme Court could toss it out.

If you want to get rid of niqabs, use the tools of a free society, and quit viewing the State as your hammer to pound anyone who doesn't buy into your particular views into the ground.