Argus Posted March 23, 2015 Report Posted March 23, 2015 (edited) So we reject women as immigrants if they choose to wear a face covering? Absolutely, and their husbands too. Because that face covering is a very, very strong indication the individuals concerned have a large load of social and religious/ideological views which are antithetical to our secular representative democracy. Do you really want to bring in hundreds of thousands of people who think you should be beaten if you don't obey your husband/father/brother? Edited March 23, 2015 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
jacee Posted March 23, 2015 Report Posted March 23, 2015 That's your answer? Could you elaborate a bit? Here's the question again..... There are many, many for potential immigrants than Canada is able to take in. For every immigrant we accept, we have to turn other people away. Given that, what should Canada's position be if you have two women from Syria - one indicates she must always wear a niqab in public, the other does not. Should that be a factor in Canada's decision? I'm waiting for your answer. . Quote
jacee Posted March 23, 2015 Report Posted March 23, 2015 Absolutely, and their husbands too. Because that face covering is a very, very strong indication the individuals concerned have a large load of social and religious/ideological views which are antithetical to our secular representative democracy. Do you really want to bring in hundreds of thousands of people who think you should be beaten if you don't obey your husband/father/brother? We don't have a secular democracy. We have a democracy that recognizes 'the supremaxy of god' and freedom of religion. Discriminating against people based on religious dress is ridiculous. . Quote
TimG Posted March 23, 2015 Report Posted March 23, 2015 (edited) Discriminating against people based on religious dress is ridiculous.Two points: the niqab is a cultural tradition, not a religious one. Second, if you support the niqab at citizenship oaths based on the premise of personal freedom you must give up the opportunity to complain about anyone's choice of clothing - even KKK hoods or swastika armbands. So please state for the record that you are fine with people wearing KKK hoods and swastika armbands during their citizenship oath because freedom of choice is paramount and social mores are not important. Edited March 23, 2015 by TimG Quote
Keepitsimple Posted March 23, 2015 Report Posted March 23, 2015 I'm waiting for your answer. . You didn't ask the question - I did. I'm responding to your question that said "So we reject women as immigrants if they choose to wear a face covering?". Could you at least show the courtesy of an answer? There are many, many for potential immigrants than Canada is able to take in. For every immigrant we accept, we have to turn other people away. Given that, what should Canada's position be if you have two women from Syria - one indicates she must always wear a niqab in public, the other does not. Should that be a factor in Canada's decision? Quote Back to Basics
Guest Posted March 23, 2015 Report Posted March 23, 2015 Apparently not. Apparently caring starts when they wear the clothes that represent their particular brand of "sky muppet." Then we need to disrobe them and put them into jeans and flannel so they can assimilate into our "culture." I don't agree. I'm sure there are people who just don't want "different", but I think the great majority of those opposed in this situation are that way because they do not want to see a symbol of the oppression of women being given general acceptance. I differ slightly, in that I believe in the freedom to make such a choice, regardless of how I feel about it. That's not just on this issue, but generally. (so long as there are no overt signs of coercion, of course) Quote
Argus Posted March 23, 2015 Report Posted March 23, 2015 We don't have a secular democracy. We have a democracy that recognizes 'the supremaxy of god' and freedom of religion. Discriminating against people based on religious dress is ridiculous. . You don't actually read the posts you reply to, do you? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
poochy Posted March 23, 2015 Report Posted March 23, 2015 You don't actually read the posts you reply to, do you? Her posts are reflexive and most people here don't understand what they stand for. Quote
overthere Posted March 23, 2015 Report Posted March 23, 2015 If Trudeau Jr was Prime Minister women would not want to cover their faces in Canada. Quote Science too hard for you? Try religion!
Moonlight Graham Posted March 23, 2015 Report Posted March 23, 2015 Two points: the niqab is a cultural tradition, not a religious one. I'd disagree, i think it's both. It's partly religious because it fulfills the requirement of Islam for need for sexual modesty (like the hihab): “O Prophet! Tell your wives & your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks all over their bodies. That will be better, that they should be known as (respectable woman), so as not to be annoyed. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” Second, if you support the niqab at citizenship oaths based on the premise of personal freedom you must give up the opportunity to complain about anyone's choice of clothing - even KKK hoods or swastika armbands. So please state for the record that you are fine with people wearing KKK hoods and swastika armbands during their citizenship oath because freedom of choice is paramount and social mores are not important. Those items could be considered "hate speech", especially the swastika. Such freedom of speech/expression is illegal in Canada. Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
TimG Posted March 24, 2015 Report Posted March 24, 2015 (edited) Those items could be considered "hate speech", especially the swastika. Such freedom of speech/expression is illegal in Canada.Special pleading. You either argue that community standards don't matter or you reduce your argument to saying that your particular opinion on community standards should trump the opinion of others. IOW: this is not a freedom of expression or a religious tolerance question this is simply a discussion of what is acceptable and not acceptable to the majority of Canadians. The polls support my position on the niqab. Edited March 24, 2015 by TimG Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted March 24, 2015 Report Posted March 24, 2015 Special pleading. You either argue that community standards don't matter or you reduce your argument to saying that your particular opinion on community standards should trump the opinion of others. IOW: this is not a freedom of expression or a religious tolerance question this is simply a discussion of what is acceptable and not acceptable to the majority of Canadians. The polls support my position on the niqab. We dont, nor should we, establish our charter rights based on polls. That would make us no more than a bunch of flakes like are falling on the east coast currently. Quote
TimG Posted March 24, 2015 Report Posted March 24, 2015 We dont, nor should we, establish our charter rights based on polls.Then why do hate speech laws exist? If your position had any merit there would be no hate speech laws. Whether you want to admit it or not community standards matter. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted March 24, 2015 Report Posted March 24, 2015 Then why do hate speech laws exist? If your position had any merit there would be no hate speech laws. Whether you want to admit it or not community standards matter. Community standards are exactly what the charter was built on, and what protects this womans right to wear what she wants. Quote
eyeball Posted March 24, 2015 Report Posted March 24, 2015 Special pleading. You either argue that community standards don't matter or you reduce your argument to saying that your particular opinion on community standards should trump the opinion of others.Put up or shut up and start arguing that public attitudes toward minorities should trump the Charter and the SCC.IOW: this is not a freedom of expression or a religious tolerance question this is simply a discussion of what is acceptable and not acceptable to the majority of Canadians. The polls support my position on the niqab.Bullshit, this is all about Harper rolling everything that's Muslim into a campaign based on little more than whipped up fear and loathing.You're also implying the majority support you on your insistence that Swastikas and KKK hoods be part of any deal that allows niqabs. Harper should put up or shut up too and come all the way out of the closet regarding his hatred for the Charter and the power of the SCC. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
On Guard for Thee Posted March 24, 2015 Report Posted March 24, 2015 Harper keeps trying that and he keeps on getting smacked down. I bet there have been some wicked temper tantrums in the PMO those days. Quote
Moonlight Graham Posted March 24, 2015 Report Posted March 24, 2015 Special pleading. You either argue that community standards don't matter or you reduce your argument to saying that your particular opinion on community standards should trump the opinion of others. IOW: this is not a freedom of expression or a religious tolerance question this is simply a discussion of what is acceptable and not acceptable to the majority of Canadians. The polls support my position on the niqab. There needs to be a compelling argument to limit the religious and expression rights of those wearing the niqab during the oath. Do you have one? Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
TimG Posted March 24, 2015 Report Posted March 24, 2015 (edited) There needs to be a compelling argument to limit the religious and expression rights of those wearing the niqab during the oath. Do you have one?Hiding the face is an institution designed to prevent women from participating as equals in society. This is inconsistent with Canadian values. They are many other cases where we expect people to park their values at home. For example, if a group of men refused to swear the oath to a female judge they would be told to shove off. Accommodation is not an absolute right. Edited March 24, 2015 by TimG Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted March 24, 2015 Report Posted March 24, 2015 Hiding the face is an institution designed to prevent women from participating as equals in society. This is inconsistent with Canadian values. They are many other cases where we expect people to park their values at home. For example, if a group of men refused to swear the oath to a female judge they would be told to shove off. Accommodation is not an absolute right. You dont swear the oath to the judge, female or otherwise. Quote
eyeball Posted March 24, 2015 Report Posted March 24, 2015 Hiding the face is an institution designed to prevent women from participating as equals in society. This is inconsistent with Canadian values. Men ogling women to the point of discomfort and to the extent women feel compelled to completely cover themselves is also pretty damned un-Canadian. Put blinders on the men who are giving Canada such a bad name. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
TimG Posted March 24, 2015 Report Posted March 24, 2015 (edited) Men ogling women to the point of discomfort and to the extent women feel compelled to completely cover themselves is also pretty damned un-Canadian.You are just repeating the myths used to brainwash women into believing they cannot fully participate in public life as unique individuals. If any oogling happens is not because of a woman shows her face. Edited March 24, 2015 by TimG Quote
eyeball Posted March 24, 2015 Report Posted March 24, 2015 No it happens when men can't control themselves. You think it's just a myth that men do that? Do you have a daughter by any chance? Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
jbg Posted March 24, 2015 Report Posted March 24, 2015 This is a seriously cocked up argument. Great argument on your part. I'm convinced. </sarcasm> Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
jbg Posted March 24, 2015 Report Posted March 24, 2015 No it happens when men can't control themselves. You think it's just a myth that men do that? Do you have a daughter by any chance? Assuming that Muslim men have more trouble than Christian or Jewish men is base racism. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 24, 2015 Report Posted March 24, 2015 No it happens when men can't control themselves. You think it's just a myth that men do that? Do you have a daughter by any chance? Is this women, protesting Bill C-51 with her exposed girls.... somebody's daughter ? Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.