.

[ReeferMadness]

FWIW, I do not support outright bans but it should be ok to require removal in any situation where communication is important. i.e. a workplace where the job requires collaboration with other team members or with customers.

Edited October 15, 2015 by ReeferMadness

[On Guard for Thee]

FWIW, I do not support outright bans but it should be ok to require removal in any situation where communication is important. i.e. a workplace where the job requires collaboration with other team members or with customers.

As has already been pointed out, communication can occur quite readily without being able to see a face.

[BC_chick]

At any rate, I think we can all agree that despite current nominal disdain for the niqab, that it's unlikely we will even see a ban in the Federal public service, and no one is seriously arguing for a total ban. That wasn't even considered in Quebec. I would imagine the next government, Tory or otherwise, is going to be interested in picking fights with the Supreme Court based on shaky public decency rationales and assertions of Islamic orthodoxy versus cultural traditions. The niqab issue will die away, a small wedge issue writ large.

I wouldn't be so sure on it 'dying' away. Going to sleep for a while, for sure, but this is a worldwide phenomenon. Many African countries banned it for security reasons. France banned it for secular reasons.

It's just a matter of time before it's back on the table. Especially if a niqab-wearing man 'detonates' in public place (eta - as was the reason for African bannings).

Edited October 15, 2015 by BC_chick

[TimG]

As has already been pointed out, communication can occur quite readily without being able to see a face.

You can communicate with by knocking on walls with morse code but that does not mean is is efficient or desirable. Faces matter to communication. It is silly to deny it. Edited October 15, 2015 by TimG

[BC_chick]

Side note on this thread, I'm so happy Squid and WCR were with me on this. I'd feel very sad if I found myself arguing alongside Tim and Argus all by my lonesome.

[BC_chick]

You can communicate with by knocking on walls with morse code but that does not mean is is efficient or desirable. Faces matter to communication. It is silly to deny it.

Agreed.

[ToadBrother]

You can communicate with by knocking on walls with morse code but that does not mean is is efficient or desirable. Faces matter to communication. It is silly to deny it.

So you don't talk on the phone?

[On Guard for Thee]

Side note on this thread, I'm so happy Squid and WCR were with me on this. I'd feel very sad if I found myself arguing alongside Tim and Argus all by my lonesome.

You can communicate with by knocking on walls with morse code but that does not mean is is efficient or desirable. Faces matter to communication. It is silly to deny it.

A pilot talks to air traffic control, other aircraft, etc. by radio all the time. Very important communication occurs without anybody seeing anybody.

[BC_chick]

Tim didn't say voice alone is not a valid form of communication, he just said it's face is more desirable efficient and on those points, I agree. We do convey a lot of emotion through facial expressions and that's the reason Facetime is better than a phone call.

(see even that emoticon serves the same purpose)

Edited October 15, 2015 by BC_chick

[Peter F]

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.

It is a legally meaningless ritual. The documents that are signed, however, are very meaningful things.

Should someones citizenship come into question do you suppose that the powers that be will rely on functionaries remembering whether that specific person was there on the day he said they were? Many years later perhaps?

The only thing that matters is the signed document and the confirmation by the functionaries that the person who signed the document was indeed the person they claim to be.

The actual ceremony itself is very nice and people taking the oath certainly appreciate it and will hopefully have warm memories everlasting of the event.

I certainly do not want to end the ceremony. But one must admit that the government could conceivably forgo the ceremony entirely and have potential

citizens come on down to the local courthouse, or just some Notary somewhere, have their ID checked, swear the oath and sign the papers. Done deal.

[eyeball]

Why do we bother with an antiquated ritual that has no tangible purpose?

Conservatism. Good olde fashioned unchanging, cuz it's served so well for so long, conservatism.

Blech.

[eyeball]

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.

They say it because the magic words mean that if you're lying you go to hell. Is the same reason politicians swear up and down about honesty.

It's the foundation of accountability. And people still fall for it to this day.

[TimG]

I certainly do not want to end the ceremony.

Then make it optional like a high school grad (i.e. you don't need to show up to your grad to get a diploma). As long as it is mandatory it implies a significance beyond a ceremony. Edited October 15, 2015 by TimG

[Peter F]

Ok, I'll do that.

[Argus]

I still can't get at how you feel that was a personal attack. It was an assessment of your motives.

Why do you feel it necessary to inflict your assessment of other posters motives on readers rather than simply dealing with the subject at hand?

Edited October 15, 2015 by Argus

[WestCoastRunner]

Side note on this thread, I'm so happy Squid and WCR were with me on this. I'd feel very sad if I found myself arguing alongside Tim and Argus all by my lonesome.

I'm still with you on this issue!

[BC_chick]

I know WCR, this is a pretty indefensible issue. Everyone here seems to agree that it's abhorrent but they throw around freedom as though it's end all be all when it's not. We overlook the right of people to die but defend the rights to practice degrading misogyny??

And people say in all seriousness that I act like I know better. There is a moral equivalence between women covering their face from public view and not doing so? Really? This is a question that needs to be asked?

[WestCoastRunner]

I know WCR, this is a pretty indefensible issue. Everyone here seems to agree that it's abhorrent but they throw around freedom as though it's end all be all when it's not. We overlook the right of people to die but defend the rights to practice degrading misogyny??

And people say in all seriousness that I act like I know better. There is a moral equivalence between women covering their face from public view and not doing so? Really? This is a question that needs to be asked?

This decision sets a dangerous precedent that any custom that is introduced into Canada and is based on religious practices should be protected. This would include polygamy, child marriage, fgm and so on. First of all, the Niqab is not mandated by the religion. It is a custom that has been turned into a religious mandate by certain sects and individuals.

"This ruling of the Indian Supreme Court is instructive. India shares with Canada the system of government and democratic traditions handed down from Britain. India is also the world’s third-largest Muslim country after Indonesia and Pakistan. In ruling that bigamy and polygamy are in violation of India’s laws, the courts have defended the rights of women, especially Muslim women, in terms of equality rights, and against Muslim Shariah-based laws that discriminate against them in favour of men."

"Canadian courts would be well advised to make a similar and appropriate distinction between religious beliefs and customary practices, and whether any or all customs should be protected under the Charter provision of religious freedom."

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/salim-mansur-defending-the-niqab-ban

[BC_chick]

I know, I touched on bigamy earlier in the thread too and the answer was meh, let's legalize that too....

[Michael Hardner]

I know quite a few polygamists and they would take exception to you forcing your lifestyle upon them.

[BC_chick]

There was a time beating your wife was allowed too. Things change.

[BC_chick]

And the right to vote.

I mean, nobody ever got 'harmed' by not voting, right...?

Edited October 15, 2015 by BC_chick

[ReeferMadness]

I know, I touched on bigamy earlier in the thread too and the answer was meh, let's legalize that too....

I know someone, married and with kids. Her husband has an ongoing relationship with another woman, also with kids. They're all aware and even do things together. So, it's basically bigamy. It seems to work for everyone.

#whoamItojudge

[ReeferMadness]

There was a time beating your wife was allowed too. Things change.

You would equate wife beating to consensual bigamy?

[BC_chick]

I know someone, married and with kids. Her husband has an ongoing relationship with another woman, also with kids. They're all aware and even do things together. So, it's basically bigamy. It seems to work for everyone.

#whoamItojudge

Fine, but by law we don't allow it and the reason is history's patriarchal past.

You would equate wife beating to consensual bigamy?

No, I was talking about attitudes changing and laws changing toward egalitarianism.