.

[overthere]

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.

So you feel all religious clothing must be excluded from the citizenship oath ceremony?

Snatch off turbans? Yarmulkes forcibly removed? Strip search for forbidden crosses?

[Argus]

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

You are projecting your bigotry onto actions that have SFA to do with the question at hand now with this individual.

Oh, how am I doing that?

What she believes or does not believe about sharia has nothing to do with this case.

It has to do with my opinions. Do you know what my opinions are? Did you even read them?

I'd suggest it is you that it is staggeringly stupid to continually insist that entire cultures are defined by the beliefs of others.

So you're saying orthodox Muslims don't believe in orthodox Muslim beliefs? I'd like you to own up to that, please.

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.

I'm not sure where you think you got the right to decide what the topic is, perhaps the same place you think gave you the right to dicate to other people what their opinions should be, but in any event you have once again scurried away from addressing my question. I'll pose it a third time.

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

Either address it or have the balls to admit you really don't have a clue what my opinion is and are just breaking wind on the internet.

Edited February 18, 2015 by Argus

[guyser]

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.

Not sure what the hell kind of reply that is.

You made a point, I countered it, you call it snarky. See a pattern here? I didnt insult you in any manner.

Would it be fair to say that if you get a reply, a reply that counters yours in plain language and not mocking, then you deem it snarky? Appears so.

And Fringe lefty? I couldnt be more dead centre if I tried. Got some love for the left, some love for the right...ok maybe a tick to the left. But no NDP fan here and there is little to distinguish betw Cons and Libs.

Edited February 18, 2015 by Guyser2

[Michael Hardner]

So you feel all religious clothing must be excluded from the citizenship oath ceremony?

Snatch off turbans? Yarmulkes forcibly removed? Strip search for forbidden crosses?

No.

[TimG]

My question is: why bother even having these swearing in ceremonies if someone believes one can meaningfully participate without showing their face?

Perhaps we should get rid of the entire ritual because it is a euro-christian ceremony that is insulting to non-christians/non-europeans.

Edited February 19, 2015 by TimG

[guyser]

My question is: why bother even having these swearing in ceremonies if someone believes one can meaningfully participate without showing their face?

Because they have been vetted beforehand and showing her face in public is wrong......according the tenets she believes in.

What about a huge bushy bearded guy? You wouldnt recognize him tomorrow if he shaved.

[TimG]

Because they have been vetted beforehand and showing her face in public is wrong......according the tenets she believes in.

It really makes no difference that she has been brainwashed to believe that women are inferior and don't deserve to be seen. The issue is whether swearing a public oath with your face covered means anything. I don't think so which I why I suggested we just get rid of the entire ritual since so many people here think oath swearing is a joke. Edited February 19, 2015 by TimG

[overthere]

It really makes no difference that she has been brainwashed to believe that women are inferior and don't deserve to be seen. The issue is whether swearing a public oath with your face covered means anything. I don't think so which I why I suggested we just get rid of the entire ritual since so many people here think oath swearing is a joke.

FFS, she wears the veil because it is her belief that to reveal her face to strangers is immodest. It is simply your bigoted assumption that THIS PERSON believes she in inferior. Perhaps it is you who considers her inferior. Some Muslim women cover their hair with a scarf because they think to leave it bare is immodest.

So you're saying orthodox Muslims don't believe in orthodox Muslim beliefs? I'd like you to own up to that, please.

I have to keep repeating things to penetrate the dense fog that seems to surround you on the subject of your pigeonholing and forcing individuals into little boxes where people you do not like live. I understand that it makes sweeping generaliztions about people and groups of people much easier. But no, you cannot factually state that somebody who wears a veil is a hardcore extremist and wholly orthodox Muslim.

How do you know that about this person? Even it it were true, what difference does it make in the subject at hand, which is wearing a veil at the very end of a process already essentially consumnated?

[overthere]

overthere, on 18 Feb 2015 - 4:08 PM, said:

So you feel all religious clothing must be excluded from the citizenship oath ceremony?

Snatch off turbans? Yarmulkes forcibly removed? Strip search for forbidden crosses?

No.

Which items of clothing other than the veil do you feel are inappropriate at the citizenship oath ceremony?

[hitops]

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.

Well then maybe I'll take a strict interpretation of some old ones. As a Mormon I don't want to take the oath in the presence of a black person, since they have been cursed. As a Hindu I don't want to have to touch or interact with someone of a lower caste while taking the oath. As a Muslim man I don't want to have to speak to a woman during the oath.

So we're good to accommodate all my requests eh? Freedom of religion and such....

Edited February 19, 2015 by hitops

[Argus]

I have to keep repeating things to penetrate the dense fog that seems to surround you on the subject of your pigeonholing and forcing individuals into little boxes where people you do not like live. I understand that it makes sweeping generaliztions about people and groups of people much easier. But no, you cannot factually state that somebody who wears a veil is a hardcore extremist and wholly orthodox Muslim.

Your hysterical protests are born of your own political correctness, and have no logic or fact behind them. People who willingly embrace fundamentalist Islam have a fairly standard set of beliefs and only purposeful ignorance blinds you to it.

[Michael Hardner]

Well then maybe I'll take a strict interpretation of some old ones.

So we're good to accommodate all my requests eh? Freedom of religion and such....

It's ok with me. Some of those are your own personal interpretations though, in which case in falls under your own personal hitops religion...

[hitops]

It's ok with me. Some of those are your own personal interpretations though, in which case in falls under your own personal hitops religion...

Um nope each of those beliefs have traditionally been held by a majority of that religions adherents. Less so today, but certainly millions would still believe it.

Have to say I'm surprised you are ok with accommodating a person's belief they should not have to be around black people. Can I also refuse service to them at a restaurant, in your world?

Edited February 19, 2015 by hitops

[guyser]

It really makes no difference that she has been brainwashed to believe that women are inferior and don't deserve to be seen.

Unnecessary hyperbole. Well done !

The issue is whether swearing a public oath with your face covered means anything.

Sure it means, once finished, they are as Canadian as you and I .

I don't think so which I why I suggested we just get rid of the entire ritual since so many people here think oath swearing is a joke.

Oh, you think wrongly then. Because, the minute she is done, she has a Cert in hand confirming it.

Well, when anyone comes on here and makes a joke about it, let me know and we will have that conversation then.

[overthere]

Your hysterical protests are born of your own political correctness, and have no logic or fact behind them. People who willingly embrace fundamentalist Islam have a fairly standard set of beliefs and only purposeful ignorance blinds you to it.

It's you that keeps asserting that if a person wear a veil, they must be hardcore extremist Muslims.

So prove it.

Prove that this woman is somehow evil or a criminal and unworthy.

Islam is not at issue here. It is not illegal in Canada to worship or to wear a headcover or to wear a veil.

Who else do you hate Argus? What other groups offend you by association?

Actually, I thoroughly enjoy how this riles the bigots.

You're also going to lose in court on this one, again. Better stock up on the blood pressure meds, an aneurysm awaits.

[overthere]

Sure it means, once finished, they are as Canadian as you and I .

Yep, and that is what ticks people off. A brown person with an accent and different clothes has exactly the same rights in Canada as everybody else. The horror.

[cybercoma]

They can wear what ever they want, but no to face coverings.

Then they can't wear whatever they want.

[kungfuthug]

In Islam a woman is equal to a man. In some countries with Muslim majorities the culture of the country is responsible for the hardships on women. Not Islam. Educate yourself. I have. Some Muslim countries have women leaders. USA has never had a woman President.

[cybercoma]

FFS, she wears the veil because it is her belief that to reveal her face to strangers is immodest. It is simply your bigoted assumption that THIS PERSON believes she in inferior. Perhaps it is you who considers her inferior. Some Muslim women cover their hair with a scarf because they think to leave it bare is immodest.

There are evangelical Christians in the Maritimes who wear scarves over their hair, refuse to cut it, and wear skirts to their ankles as well. I've not seen a single one of these people who are all about women's rights and freeing them from oppressive religious dress codes condemning the pentacostal christians out here. Maybe they just don't know about them. Maybe they do. Who knows. I'm sure they know about the Amish and their rigorous dress codes, but I've never heard anyone here condemning that or calling for the government to ban them from wearing what they want. The bias is staggering and those who suffer from it do so completely ignorant of how irrational their arguments are, all while dancing around like peacocks thinking they're dominating the discussion with reason and logic.

[TimG]

Sure it means, once finished, they are as Canadian as you and I.

If that was the objective they could just send the citizenship card in the mail after receiving her signed application. There clearly is no point to the oath swearing process according to people here so we should just get rid of it.

Why should we have the ceremony? What is the point?

Edited February 19, 2015 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

I've not seen a single one of these people who are all about women's rights and freeing them from oppressive religious dress codes condemning the pentacostal christians out here.

The Grey Nuns ? Nuns in Quebec wear habits that cover the entire face. It's kind of a bygone tradition, but I saw one as a child and it was terrifying.

[TimG]

I've not seen a single one of these people who are all about women's rights and freeing them from oppressive religious dress codes condemning the pentacostal christians out here.

It is not about freeing women from oppressive codes. It about setting standards for what is acceptable in Canadian society. We really don't care if some culture permits wife beatings if someone engages in such activities they will be thrown in jail. It makes no difference is the victim protests and claims that their religion requires that they submit to the beatings. In fact I am pretty sure that you would berate anyone who suggested that charges be dropped because the victim claimed it was part of their religion.

So it is shamelessly hypocritical for you to argue that this is a question of religious tolerance because no sane person believes that religion justifies anything. This is purely a question about drawing the arbitrary line between the acceptable and the unacceptable. I happen to think that covering ones face in public because one is female denies that person the opportunity to be an individual in our society and because of this it crosses the line. I have no issue with the hijab, beards, turbans or even the kirpan. It is the face covering, like wife beating, that crosses the line.

Edited February 19, 2015 by TimG

[guyser]

If that was the objective they could just send the citizenship card in the mail after receiving her signed application. There clearly is no point to the oath swearing process according to people here so we should just get rid of it.

I suppose we could just mail them out, but I think they would want to vet the fine folks who applied, and they did that to all of these folks.

Why should we have the ceremony? What is the point?

So the Govt can keep Citizenship Judges employed.

So Ministers can get a glass of free wine afterward.

To instill some pride and recognition that they have accomlished something.

To get a free paper flag to wave.

[On Guard for Thee]

It is not about freeing women from oppressive codes. It about setting standards for what is acceptable in Canadian society. We really don't care if some culture permits wife beatings if someone engages in such activities they will be thrown in jail. It makes no difference is the victim protests and claims that their religion requires that they submit to the beatings. In fact I am pretty sure that you would berate anyone who suggested that charges be dropped because the victim claimed it was part of their religion.

So it is shamelessly hypocritical for you to argue that this is a question of religious tolerance because no sane person believes that religion justifies anything. This is purely a question about drawing the arbitrary line between the acceptable and the unacceptable. I happen to think that covering ones face in public because one is female denies that person the opportunity to be an individual in our society and because of this it crosses the line. I have no issue with the hijab, beards, turbans or even the kirpan. It is the face covering, like wife beating, that crosses the line.

And just how many cases do you know of were someone was beaten and then says, Oh thats OK, just my religion. And are you suggesting we should jail someone for wearing a niqab the same as we would with an assaulter.

[guyser]

It is not about freeing women from oppressive codes. It about setting standards for what is acceptable in Canadian society.

The standards have been set.

Ya wanna cover your face...?...have at it. A million or more Canadians do that everyday all day long. A standard means just that....the same for all.

So it is shamelessly hypocritical for you to argue that this is a question of religious tolerance because no sane person believes that religion justifies anything.

Lots of sane people do believe that religion does justify what they do. Nothing wrong with that in and of itself as pertains to THAT individual.

So , not hypocritical at all.

This is purely a question about drawing the arbitrary line between the acceptable and the unacceptable. I happen to think that covering ones face in public because one is female denies that person the opportunity to be an individual in our society and because of this it crosses the line. I have no issue with the hijab, beards, turbans or even the kirpan. It is the face covering, like wife beating, that crosses the line.

Wow...beating up your wife is the same line crossing as wearing a veil.

Um...Im out. That is such an incredibly foolish argument that I have nothing more.