.

[Argus]

Hijab comes right out of the Quran. Niqab is part of the Hijab. Pretty strong connection.

You have a cite for that?

[WWWTT]

And religious oppression is positive in your view?

This is an argument to change the Canadian charter?

Ok if you say so.

I wonder if Harper is going to use it in their appeal?

WWWTT

[eyeball]

“It is offensive that someone would hide their identity at the very moment where they are committing to join the Canadian family,” says Stephen Harper.

Why should it be offensive for a person to wear the garb of the culture they come from when swearing fealty to a country that celebrates it's multi-culturalism? Don't new Canadians do this all the time or am I to believe everyone shows up in a business suit and blue tie? Stephen Harper says the niqab is offensive to Canadians because it hides a woman's identity when in fact all it hides is her face. Her identity was well established by who knows how many bureaucrats months if not years before the final ceremony - some so-called moment where they are committing which has been elevated to something almost akin to rapture.

If it's not cultural or religious outrage against the niqab and women who choose to wear one the outrage is framed around sexual oppression. I can only imagine how pedestrian the citizenship ceremony is reduced to in the mind of a woman who is told that in Canada its also offensive that she should be told what to wear by a man...and then be ordered to take her veil off by a guy...named Stephen.

Welcome to Canada? If you say so.

Edited February 15, 2015 by eyeball

[Smallc]

This is an argument to change the Canadian charter?

Certain rights override others. Even constitutionally guaranteed rights have limits.

[On Guard for Thee]

You have a cite for that?

Ive lost track of it at the moment however it stated the hijab is mentioned 7 times in the Quran although it didnt mean literally the exact thing we speak of now. It translates to a barrier which is to be in place to prevent inappropriate thoughts.

[WWWTT]

Certain rights override others. Even constitutionally guaranteed rights have limits.

Ok then, Harper should win his appeal no problem.

Then reinstate the law in question.

I'm not going to argue something the federal court of Canada has already passed judgement on.

WWWTT

Edited February 15, 2015 by WWWTT

[kungfuthug]

Why should it be offensive for a person to wear the garb of the culture they come from when swearing fealty to a country that celebrates it's multi-culturalism? Don't new Canadians do this all the time or am I to believe everyone shows up in a business suit and blue tie? Stephen Harper says the niqab is offensive to Canadians because it hides a woman's identity when in fact all it hides is her face. Her identity was well established by who knows how many bureaucrats months if not years before the final ceremony - some so-called moment where they are committing which has been elevated to something almost akin to rapture.

If it's not cultural or religious outrage against the niqab and women who choose to wear one the outrage is framed around sexual oppression. I can only imagine how pedestrian the citizenship ceremony is reduced to in the mind of a woman who is told that in Canada its also offensive that she should be told what to wear by a man...and then be ordered to take her veil off by a guy...named Stephen.

Welcome to Canada? If you say so.

Well said

[TimG]

What I find ironic are the people who think TWU should not be allowed to train lawyers because they have a code of conduct which treats married gays like unmarried heterosexuals are also the people saying that we should blindly accept a cultural tradition which was created as a tool to oppress women.

Edited February 15, 2015 by TimG

[overthere]

Because of what the niqab stands for - cultural apartheid. Do you believe that in today's Canada - or any Canada - a woman should be kept completely apart from other men - to not let their faces be seen in public? It's not only inequality between men and women, it enables subjugation of women by their husbands. Do you believe those are values that Canadians want to accommodate? Is that what you want to accommodate? If not, then you should be able to see the issue that Kenney was trying to address.

I reluctantly have to tell you that what you think or what I think are not relevant.

The woman has stated clearly and unequivocally that it is her choice and strong religious belief to hide her face in public.

and yes, her personal right and freedom to choose that in Canada for herself is most definitely a value I wish to accomodate in Canada.

I also think that if there is a legal or security reason to be certain of identity, she must expose her face on demand and satisfy that requirement.

But the citizenship oath is not a circumstance that requires that- she has already been identified with certainty and speaking the oath is no more than a pointless protocol.

[TimG]

But the citizenship oath is not a circumstance that requires that- she has already been identified with certainty and speaking the oath is no more than a pointless protocol.

What is the "oath"? A pointless ritual? Should people be allowed to say the oath in the nude?

[WWWTT]

What is the "oath"? A pointless ritual? Should people be allowed to say the oath in the nude?

Do you have an example where someone did this?

I don't think a made up scenario is going to have the same merit as an actual case.

If it did, then the imagination would be the only limit as to what kind of standards that you can manufacture using creative scenarios.

WWWTT

Edited February 15, 2015 by WWWTT

[overthere]

What is the "oath"? A pointless ritual? Should people be allowed to say the oath in the nude?

Probablyn ot, since public nudity in this case probably violates Section 174 of the criminal code.

But you are just scrambling to find an easy way out of admitting that covering her face in this circumstance does not really matter. It does matter very much that she be identified as being the person granted citizenship, and she has done that.

She has agreed to recite the oath as required.

What she does not want to do is, counter to her religious beliefs,is remove her veil while reciting the oath.

People wear turbans, yarmulkes and every conceivable manner of traditional dress while at the citizenship ceremony. This is no different.

[TimG]

Probablyn ot, since public nudity in this case probably violates Section 174 of the criminal code.

Because some people find it offensive. No reason other than that. So why should nudity be banned but niqabs be allowed? Both are offensive to some people.

But you are just scrambling to find an easy way out of admitting that covering her face in this circumstance does not really matter.

I am not scrambling. You seem to have missed to the point. The oath is a ritual, much like swearing to tell the truth in court. Participating in this ritual is meaningless if your face in covered because the point of the ritual is convey to others that you mean what you say. With a covered face others cannot see if you are serious or smirking as if it is a big joke.

Now you could argue that such rituals are pointless in which case we should get rid of them. But it is wrong to claim that one can say the oath with a covered face. A covered face defeats the purpose of the ritual.

[Big Guy]

Perhaps not in the nude but certainly topless. It is within the law to do so.

You feel that a face should be covered during a meaningless oath. I assume then that you would not cover your face while taking an oath. But what right do you have to impose your personal standards on other people. If you have the right to a standard why do you deny it to others?

I have no problem with people setting standards for themselves but I do have problems with people attempting to impose their standards on others. What makes you think that you are right and they are wrong?

[TimG]

But what right do you have to impose your personal standards on other people. If you have the right to a standard why do you deny it to others?

Oath swearing is a euro-centric tradition. If you want to complain about "imposing values" you should be complaining about the entire oath swearing process and just say that people should just get their papers in the mail. All I am saying is if we are going to have the oath swearing process there is nothing inconsistent about saying faces must be uncovered. Covered faces while swearing an oath turns it into a joke.

[Big Guy]

I understand that it is a joke for you but why are you imposing your views and standards on others? Why do you feel you are right and they are wrong?

[WWWTT]

edit out

WWWTT

Edited February 16, 2015 by WWWTT

[TimG]

I understand that it is a joke for you but why are you imposing your views and standards on others? Why do you feel you are right and they are wrong?

You seem to miss the point: we are imposing our values on others by asking them to swear an oath.

Why is that imposition acceptable but not others?

BTW: The court has ruled that swearing an oath to the queen an acceptable requirement even though it offends some people: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/appeal-court-upholds-oath-to-queen-in-citizenship-case/article20032155/

I see no difference between swearing an oath to the queen and having a face uncovered.

They are both parts of a symbolic ritual based on Canadian history.

If you think the ritual means nothing then argue we should get rid of it.

Edited February 16, 2015 by TimG

[jacee]

Oath swearing is a euro-centric tradition. If you want to complain about "imposing values" you should be complaining about the entire oath swearing process and just say that people should just get their papers in the mail. All I am saying is if we are going to have the oath swearing process there is nothing inconsistent about saying faces must be uncovered. Covered faces while swearing an oath turns it into a joke.

Oh get a grip.

It's swearing allegiance to the Monarch.

You don't think a lot of us would have to cross our fingers to do that?

Lighten up.

.

[Guest]

I really don't think anyone means it anyway.

I can't remember what I swore when I became a citizen.

I can't remember what I swore when I went to work for the BC government either. I remember the bible was involved, which was a bit of a joke as I'm an atheist and the two guys who were with me were Buddhists. But we swore anyway, because we wanted the jobs.

[jacee]

I really don't think anyone means it anyway.

I can't remember what I swore when I became a citizen.

I can't remember what I swore when I went to work for the BC government either. I remember the bible was involved, which was a bit of a joke as I'm an atheist and the two guys who were with me were Buddhists. But we swore anyway, because we wanted the jobs.

Do you remember what you wore?

Does it matter?

No.

.

[Guest]

I wore a suit. But then, I'm traditional like that.

I'm not in this thread arguing for the banning of a niqab. I agree with Harper that it's offensive, but hell, didn't we just get through loads of threads defending the right to be offensive?

[cybercoma]

The purpose is to make the woman unhuman, to turn her into a thing.

So we should take your word, as opposed to the word of the defendant and other Muslim women who wear the Niqab of their own free will?

The US troops in Afghanistan took to referring to the women they saw as "unidentified moving objects'. They're just sacks of cloth moving around.

That says more about the troops than the women.

I really don't understand why we would let such people come here, let alone gain citizenship. There are probably millions of Europeans who would be delighted to come here, given the economic situation in many countries there. Instead we bring in faceless sacks of cloth?

Because not all of us are closed-minded bigots like you. As a matter of fact, you're apparently lacking the intelligence to know the difference between the Niqab and a Burqa. Edited February 16, 2015 by cybercoma

[On Guard for Thee]

So we should take your word, as opposed to the word of the defendant and other Muslim women who wear the Niqab of their own free will?

That says more about the troops than the women.

Because not all of us are closed-minded bigots like you. As a matter of fact, you're apparently lacking the intelligence to know the difference between the Niqab and a Burqa.

He does seem be unaware of the difference, but I suppose bigots dont really care. Just faceless sacks of cloth anyway apparently.

Edited February 16, 2015 by On Guard for Thee

[Keepitsimple]

I reluctantly have to tell you that what you think or what I think are not relevant.

The woman has stated clearly and unequivocally that it is her choice and strong religious belief to hide her face in public.

and yes, her personal right and freedom to choose that in Canada for herself is most definitely a value I wish to accomodate in Canada.

I also think that if there is a legal or security reason to be certain of identity, she must expose her face on demand and satisfy that requirement.

But the citizenship oath is not a circumstance that requires that- she has already been identified with certainty and speaking the oath is no more than a pointless protocol.

You're entitled to that thought - and I respect it. It's not the easiest subject for everyone to agree with. But hey - respect for other people's well-thought-out opinions is what makes Canada such a wonderful country to live in.