.

[overthere]

I was buck-ass naked the moment I became a citizen.

I spent years squalling screaming and demanding attention-including lots of free health care

I did not speak a word of English for the first couple of years in Canada and did not pay a cent in taxes for 14 years.

[Argus]

I don't give a shit what people think or believe.

A preposterous and clearly dishonest claim.

I do care about how they act. It is grotesque to assess people by their affiliations, and through some thoughtful intervention called the Constitution there is barely a lick of law in this country to support you.

Really? To support me? To support what? What exactly have I advocated that you believe is unsupported in law?

[On Guard for Thee]

Why not? But it wasn't all anecdote. As I pointed out a number of terrorists had no problems with drinking and womanizing.

Oh, I thought you had it that all terrorists are rigidly Muslim.

[Argus]

Oh, I thought you had it that all terrorists are rigidly Muslim.

So you're not actually interested in any real discussion, right?

[Boges]

Oh, I thought you had it that all terrorists are rigidly Muslim.

As opposed to flaccidly Muslim?

[overthere]

What exactly have I advocated that you believe is unsupported in law?

Your frequently stated assertion that association with a group implies extremism, or a group of strong beliefs. Stuff like " If I see a bedsheet moving down the sidewalk,"(273 above), which is not supported by anything other than bigotry. Never mind law, there just is no sense other than rage to what you write. The case in point is not at all about what the woman believes other than the extant example: should she be permitted or not permitted to wear a veil at a ceremony? No, you don't get to pretend otherwise.

You can wank on and on about extremism being automatic when a person is a member of a religion, but this is much more about an appeal to bigotry than an appeal to logic and the law.

Harper knows he will lose this appeal, but the time it winds through he'll have mined a few votes from the bigots, and not lost many en route. This is about poliutics. I hope you're not heartbroken when the obvious is revealed in due course.

[hitops]

"There is a difference of opinion amongst scholars in Islam as to whether or not covering the face is obligatory (fard). The niqab has continued to arouse debate between Muslim scholars and jurists both past and present concerning whether it is fard (obligatory), mustahabb (recommended/preferable), or cultural.[12]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niqāb#Views_among_Muslim_scholars

There's a difference of opinion among everyone, about nearly everything. Is there a point here?

As long as I find a group of people who debate the religious merits of wearing a bedsheet (with eyes cut out) with the middle finger ironed on, I guess I'm good?

For any ruling to make sense, it needs to be clear and unambiguous. Either religious reasons (which means any religion I could make up tomorrow) are good enough, or they are not. Can't have it both ways. And if we are then going to decide what is a valid belief vs what is not (the truly idiotic statement from the court about "sincerity of belief") then we need some kind of verifiable benchmark for that.

So maybe we need a new position in the courtroom - religious belief sincerity confirmation agents. They stare at you for a bit and by divine edict your solemn sincerity shall be approved!

Edited February 18, 2015 by hitops

[guyser]

I was buck-ass naked the moment I became a citizen.

Best...and succinct ...post of the day.

Nae...Week !

[overthere]

here is a difference of opinion amongst scholars in Islam as to whether or not covering the face is obligatory

Not relevant. The dispute is not about Islamic dogma. It is about a single persons right to wear a veil during the oath. Or it should be about that. It is actually about something much darker and uglier, which is conveniently revealed in this thread.

[hitops]

Not relevant. The dispute is not about Islamic dogma. It is about a single persons right to wear a veil during the oath. Or it should be about that. It is actually about something much darker and uglier, which is conveniently revealed in this thread.

Again this then brings us back to the point, that if you don't have to reference religious dogma, then no more than a claim of religious reasoning is good enough. Ergo the guy who wears a goalie mask and claims religion, is good to go.

Edited February 18, 2015 by hitops

[guyser]

I wonder how many people, or rather women, actually wear one of these?

A quick look found 10-15 in all of Quebec wear one. I kind of doubt that number , Im thinking it has to be at least 20.

And in Toronto, where majority of Muslims live, I dont see it often, and in fact rarely. Can we extrapolate from the Que experience and apply it to TO ? In that case....woah hold the fort, there must be at least a hundred.

Stop the presses, wake Harper up, this....this in light of all thats going on, is a gd emergency !

Do I like it? Not really , find it weird, same as I find Orthodox Jews weird w the long curls, black hats and strict dress code on the men women and children. Weird that woman go to a Catholic Church but cant be Alter boys nor can they be preists. Weird that Ortho men have to be separate from women in a synagogue

Yup weird. But who cares? I dont go to either a synagogue nor any other worship joint (except the ACC) so go ahead folks, knock your socks off with sortof weird things . Not my concern.

Live and let live, or spill tears over this....the one in 250,000 that might want to wear one.

Yikes.

[guyser]

Not relevant. The dispute is not about Islamic dogma. It is about a single persons right to wear a veil during the oath. Or it should be about that. It is actually about something much darker and uglier, which is conveniently revealed in this thread.

I like your thinking in this thread. Well done.

[hitops]

I wonder how many people, or rather women, actually wear one of these?

I wonder how many people want to do the ceremony buck naked? or by reciting the oath while pouring a barrel of toxic waste over their head?

It doesn't matter. What matters is standing up for universally consistently enforced legal procedures, not trying to appease every special interest because they complain loudly.

Edited February 18, 2015 by hitops

[guyser]

I wonder how many people want to do the ceremony buck naked?

Thats against the law. Topless might be ok.

or by reciting the oath while pouring a barrel of toxic waste over their head?

Evironmental issue and laws against that, pollution , soiling the carpet etc.

It doesn't matter.

Doing something illegal doesnbt matter ? I thought you guys were all about law and order and here you are thumbing it.

Shucks, it be bad yo!

What matters is standing up for universally consistently enforced legal procedures, not trying to appease every special interest because they complain loudly.

Correct, and wearing a Niqab is not against the law.

Thanks for making the point.

[guyser]

Does anyone recall where some (most?) of this started?

In the Que election, burqa wearing voters were being treated the same as folks showing up without any ID. They had someone vouch for them .

And here we are.

Pretty funny huh?

[hitops]

Correct, and wearing a Niqab is not against the law.

That is up for appeal.

[PIK]

Let all make jokes about our laws and maybe we should also have newcomers rewrite our laws to make them feel better and that whats coming. They know we have enough weak, political correct people that will not stand up to anyone of different culture. These people are stupid camel drivers ,they know whats going on.

[On Guard for Thee]

Let all make jokes about our laws and maybe we should also have newcomers rewrite our laws to make them feel better and that whats coming. They know we have enough weak, political correct people that will not stand up to anyone of different culture. These people are stupid camel drivers ,they know whats going on.

Camel driving is an art.

[Argus]

Your frequently stated assertion that association with a group implies extremism, or a group of strong beliefs.

I make all due allowances for ignorant people to make self-righteous statements on the internet, but honestly, you're going to suggest it's bigoted to believe an orthodox Muslim has certain beliefs -- which are mandatory in orthodox Muslims?

, which is not supported by anything other than bigotry.

Again, this is staggeringly stupid. Are you suggesting an orthodox Muslim doesn't believe in Sharia law, for example?

Once again, this is a woman so orthodox she won't show her face to the world. This is not simply 'a muslim'. Few Muslims wear the niquab.

You can wank on and on about extremism being automatic when a person is a member of a religion, but this is much more about an appeal to bigotry than an appeal to logic and the law.

Another thing about the internet is that blowhards who feel the need to take part in a discussion, yet recognize how ignorant they are of the topic, substitute attacks on the person making statements and opinions they dislike, rather than dealing with their statements and opinions.

And you failed to deal with my question. What exactly have I advocated that you believe is unsupported in law? Maybe you could put your stupendous intellect to work on addressing that before you snivel about how evil I am.

[Argus]

Not relevant. The dispute is not about Islamic dogma. It is about a single persons right to wear a veil during the oath. Or it should be about that. It is actually about something much darker and uglier, which is conveniently revealed in this thread.

Would that be the self-righteous indignation of politically correct thought police?

[guyser]

... ignorant people to make self-righteous statements

Again, this is staggeringly stupid. .

...internet is that blowhards who feel ...how ignorant they are of the topic,

I come here fresh from your post about me being snarky (in the total absence of snarkiness I must add) and find this.

Oh my.

And then ....

substitute attacks on the person making statements and opinions they dislike, rather than dealing with their statements and opinions.

Are you speaking about yourself here? It would appear so.

But putting all that aside for the moment, remind us what the discussion is about because I find this from your post to be spot on, but for some reason you keep on keeping on when you admit that the number is small, and by small I mean...not a thing to worry about.

Few Muslims wear the niquab

[Michael Hardner]

There's a difference of opinion among everyone, about nearly everything. Is there a point here?

Yes. It's religious clothing, despite what some on here may say.

As for the rest of your post - I don't believe that new religions should be protected in the same way as older ones but others may disagree.

[overthere]

I make all due allowances for ignorant people to make self-righteous statements on the internet, but honestly, you're going to suggest it's bigoted to believe an orthodox Muslim has certain beliefs -- which are mandatory in orthodox Muslims?

You make no such allowances, so let's drop that bit of self serving nonsense.

Again, this is staggeringly stupid. Are you suggesting an orthodox Muslim doesn't believe in Sharia law, for example?

Once again, this is a woman so orthodox she won't show her face to the world. This is not simply 'a muslim'. Few Muslims wear the niquab.

You are projecting your bigotry onto actions that have SFA to do with the question at hand now with this individual. What she believes or does not believe about sharia has nothing to do with this case. I'd suggest it is you that it is staggeringly stupid to continually insist that entire cultures are defined by the beliefs of others. Do think all Africans have rythym? All Jews have big noses and are good with money? All Irish are drunks leprechauns?

Looks like acceptable Muslims to you are those that do what you say and think. try again.

yet recognize how ignorant they are of the topic,

the topic is not Muslims, the Muslim faith or sharia law. The topic is: should this woman - not all Muslims or only your 'good Muslims'- be forced to uncover her face during the citizenshop oath?. Note that she was not wearing a suicide vest or trying to invoke sharia.

[overthere]

Would that be the self-righteous indignation of politically correct thought police?

No, it would be a shot at you.

[Argus]

I come here fresh from your post about me being snarky (in the total absence of snarkiness I must add) and find this.

Oh my.

And then ....

Are you speaking about yourself here? It would appear so.

The thing I keep noticing is that you fringe lefties never actually discuss the topic. You far prefer to insult the people who take a position on the topic you don't like. So one is left to either ignore you, which I often do, or respond in kind.