.

[guyser]

She said she was not seeking it. That doesn't mean she wouldn't be happy to see it happen.

Its possible she would, as much its possible she wont.

If she believed in it in Pakistan she'd believe in it here. That hasn't changed. We know what the belief system is of extremely religious Muslims. There's not a lot of mystery there.

Im glad to hear she isnt an 'extremely religious Muslim' , as are you no doubt.

[Keepitsimple]

We know what the belief system is of extremely religious Muslims. There's not a lot of mystery there.

The Religion of Peace: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/Opinion-Polls.htm

[jacee]

No, as you know full well.

What I'm saying is that we implement standards in immigration which do their best to keep undesirable elements out. And one of those undesirable elements would certainly be religious fanatics.

We have plenty of those of all varieties. I assume you mean religious fanatics who might commit violence?

And how would you screen immigrants for that, beyond current screening processes?

How would you decide who to let in?

.

[guyser]

The Religion of Peace: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/Opinion-Polls.htm

Oh my gosh, what a funny website.

Didnt you love the part where they state "we respect all religions" , "we do not support harm against Muslims".....and then ten pages of atrocities that somehow are connected to Muslims/Islam .

Next up after the break...." We love all people of colour and respect them" brought to you by Stormfront.

[On Guard for Thee]

The Religion of Peace: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/Opinion-Polls.htm

http://www.loonwatch.com/2012/07/thereligionofpeace-com-working-to-streamline-the-american-empires-war-on-terror/

[Moonlight Graham]

Do you imagine anyone who wears a niqab does not support Sharia law? Really?!

Do you imagine anyone who wears a hijab doesn't support Sharia law?

[Moonlight Graham]

Yes, that's what I think generally. There's a double standard about allowing people to leave a country, or enter a country. Money, or people with money can come and go as they please ... jobs can go but the people who do them can't follow the jobs if they do. I think people should be allowed to live and travel wherever they want. Of course there are practical problems around free immigration that would have to be addressed.

There's massive security/crime risks with that thinking, among other problems. Most of the global population also lives in poverty within developing countries (and those are the ones that want to come here the most)...so you want them to be able to come here at their own whim for the price of a boat/plane ticket?...by the hundreds of millions? No thanks.

[Moonlight Graham]

Personally, I can't really make up my mind on this niqab issue because it's a sticky issue and I'm not an expert on the niqab or Islam or the people who wear niqabs and their reasons for doing so. I also know that the vast majority of people posting here on this thread aren't either given the arguments people are pulling out of their asses, so I'm wondering how some of you can have such a strong opinion on people's right to wearing the niqab when I'm sure most of you here have never even had a conversion with a person who wears a niqab. I'll admit I haven't.

Stats show elderly Canadians are most against the niqab during the oath, and I'm that the majority of elderly haven't had a conversation with or know next to nothing about people who wear niqabs...or even hijabs for that matter. Interesting that the people who know least about the niqab/Islam are most against the niqab. Sounds like a lot of uninformed opinions based on fear and bigotry/xenophobia. I'm guessing these white upper class Christian western-Canadians who make up a lot of the Harper gov are part of this trend.

Edited March 26, 2015 by Moonlight Graham

[TimG]

I'm wondering how some of you can have such a strong opinion on people's right to wearing the niqab when I'm sure most of you here have never even had a conversion with a person who wears a niqab. I'll admit I haven't.

A red herring. The issue is what the niqab symbolizes in the wider society. Not what the individual claims to think. Case in point: the swastika is an ancient Buddhist symbol (you see it on maps in Japan) but no one in Canada can ignore the association it has with the nazis even if that is not what they intend it to mean.

From my perspective the niqab is objectionable because it 1) hinders communication (science has shown that seeing facial expressions is a huge part of human communication) 2) exists as a means to turn women into second class citizens that have no role in public life (as shown by the state of women in societies that use the niqab).

The fact that some individuals think it "brings them closer to god" is as irrelevant as a Buddhist wearing a swastika armband and claiming it is a symbol of his faith. i.e. it may be true but the symbolism to the rest of society matters more.

Edited March 26, 2015 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

A red herring. The issue is what the niqab symbolizes in the wider society. Not what the individual claims to think. Case in point: the swastika is an ancient Buddhist symbol (you see it on maps in Japan) but no one in Canada can ignore the association it has with the nazis even if that is not what they intend it to mean.

From my perspective the niqab is objectionable because it 1) hinders communication (science has shown that seeing facial expressions is a huge part of human communication) 2) exists as a means to turn women into second class citizens that have no role in public life (as shown by the state of women in societies that use the niqab).

The fact that some individuals think it "brings them closer to god" is as irrelevant as a Buddhist wearing a swastika armband and claiming it is a symbol of his faith. i.e. it may be true but the symbolism to the rest of society matters more.

And 79 pages later you are still quite free to keep your perspective. However I think and I hope the charter will continue to support a persons right to wear what they choose to wear.

[Bob Macadoo]

A red herring. .

Yeah knowing people of a minority group only gets in the way of discriminating against a monolith.

[guyser]

A red herring. The issue is what the niqab symbolizes in the wider society. Not what the individual claims to think.

Yup...ignore what the person wearing it says...hides a scar, likes anonomity , any number of excuses.

We really should be cracking down on m/c jackets since anyone wearing it likes to beat up, coerce, strongarm others, sells strippers and drugs .

Case in point: the swastika is an ancient Buddhist symbol (you see it on maps in Japan) but no one in Canada can ignore the association it has with the nazis even if that is not what they intend it to mean.

What a horrible if not laughable 'case in point'.

Ill tell you what, I will swing on over to your side the day that whacko Islamists paint the burqa/niqab on every street corner, flag at violent outbreaks, hold rallies waving bueqa's and denouncing the western ideas and peoples , paint it on every uniform and so on.

I promise I will switch.

In the meantime....there has never been one case of that happening, so much for ...'case in point'

From my perspective the niqab is objectionable because it 1) hinders communication (science has shown that seeing facial expressions is a huge part of human communication) 2) exists as a means to turn women into second class citizens that have no role in public life (as shown by the state of women in societies that use the niqab).

Heres a tip, 'sorry Lady, speak up a bit' ....you seriously want us to think you want it banned for communication reasons?

Please....next time spend some time thinking up less lame excuses than that.

Hmm....second class citizens,you mean the lady in the niqab ahead of me in the line getting groceries with her well behaved kids? You mean that beotch should have let me go first?

The outrage...dammit man, the outrage. I will find her and tell her she's second class and next time remember that.

The fact that some individuals think it "brings them closer to god" is as irrelevant as a Buddhist wearing a swastika armband and claiming it is a symbol of his faith. i.e. it may be true but the symbolism to the rest of society matters more.

Ok. Who cares, its legal to do so and all the power to them.

PS-Symbolism does not mean more than the law .

[Michael Hardner]

There's massive security/crime risks with that thinking, among other problems. Most of the global population also lives in poverty within developing countries (and those are the ones that want to come here the most)...so you want them to be able to come here at their own whim for the price of a boat/plane ticket?...by the hundreds of millions? No thanks.

I don't think that changing the system would mean dropping borders overnight, allowing mass migration... that's just a stupid plan. I do think that people should be able to live where they like if they can otherwise manage it - legal restrictions aside.

We used to pride ourselves on the fact that the Soviet Union didn't let people leave, well this isn't much different to me. I could move from Canada but it's very difficult to. It's getting easier, and borders are going away as they should.

[Michael Hardner]

Sorry... I'm contributing to thread drift... bad me.

[jacee]

The issue is what the niqab symbolizes in the wider society. Not what the individual claims to think.

Uh ... no ... that wasn't the issue before the court.

And she won.

.

[Argus]

Its possible she would, as much its possible she wont.

Im glad to hear she isnt an 'extremely religious Muslim' , as are you no doubt.

She's not wearing the niqab because it's fashionable.

[Argus]

We have plenty of those of all varieties.

We have plenty of criminals too. Do you want more?

[Argus]

http://www.loonwatch.com/2012/07/thereligionofpeace-com-working-to-streamline-the-american-empires-war-on-terror/

This site, which is entirely anonymous, appears to be a far left wing apologist site for Islam, possibly run by Muslims, given its wide focus on defending Islam around the world.

Since it terms Bill Maher a 'Likud loving Zionist who hates Muslims and Arabs" I don't think we can accept much of anything from them as having much thought behind it.

[Argus]

Do you imagine anyone who wears a hijab doesn't support Sharia law?

She's not wearing a hijab.

[Bob Macadoo]

She's not wearing a hijab.

It subjugates women's hair......second class coif. Nice logic.

[Rue]

Two things.

Covering one's entire face is not a religious decision, its a cultural choice.

Covering one's hair but not their face is not the same issue.

This thread is about showing one's face and whether its appropriate to show one's face at a ceremony pledging allegiance to Canada.

Secondly, this is not a legal matter nor should it be. In a democratic society if someone wants to cover their face, its their choice that is a different issue then whether one agrees with that choice or not. The two are not the same issue and so I agree with those who divide the two and keep the two issues distinct. One can detest the practice but argue it should not be a legal matter. I personally believe it must be decided by each of us as individuals.

Jacee commented that people cover their face in Canada when it is cold. I have no idea what that had to do with this thread. Is she suggesting it snows when one provides their oath. Is she suggesting one gets frostbite and needs to cover their face when stating the oath? What a ridiculous thing for her to have said.

As for the sanctimonious moral holy then thou contributors on this board calling it racist to express disagreement with this archaic sexually repressive cultural practice, it would be nice just once, if such accusers would know the difference between race and culture.

A decision to cover one's face is cultural not religious and not based on race.

Now this notion a citizenship ceremony is a joke I do not share. The person who stated that simply states they believe Canada is a joke by saying that.

Since when is it a joke to stand for things we believe How is it a joke people died so we could enjoy the rights we have in this country,

Someone tell the person who considers citizenship ceremonies a joke that he shows his ignorance, contempt and spoiled,self entitled, molly coddled approach to life and contempt for this country by saying that and if he thinks Canada is a joke, go find a country where he does not have to take his citizenship as a privilege but a given. it does not exist. Only a spoiled brat would spit on his country and call it a joke. That citizenship ceremony symbolizes our country. You want to urinate on it, then why stay?Oh I get it, citizenship ceremonies are a joke, but if you need OHIP or medical care, or all the other things that come with this country you won't abandon that now will you? Tee hee its a joke.

It is too easy to call the symbols of this nation a joke when you are born with the luxury of a silver spoon in your mouth.

People died for this country. I am damn proud of them, respect them and that citizenship stands for what they sacrificed and if you want to live in this country yes it means something and it does not mean we believe a female face must b covered because its sexually provocative which is the reason behind this cultural practice of covering the face up.

If you want to defendor retain the cultural belief that a female face has to be covered up because its sexually provocative which is the reason for this decision to cover the face, then don't expect me and many others to agree and do not get in my face and claim I am not allowed to have that opinion.

No I do not get a erection looking at a woman's face. Thank you. I can handle her cheeks and nostrils thank you.

You want to testify in court off goes that face cover.

You want to drive a car, off goes that face cover if the police need to identify you.

Culture is a two way street. This crap where anyone can be whatever you want and to hell with everyone else is not what this country is about. You come here, show you are willing to respect our cultural values. No covering our face is not a cultural value in Canada.

There comes a time when you decide, are you Canadian or are you Saudi, etc. Make up your damn mind.

No you don't come to this country and refuse to adjust. No this is not Saudi Arabia.

My daughters were not taught to not cover their faces and no I do not agree with people who follow such practices. I will also say this directly to Jacee and any young woman-do not defend this practice. Have the courage and self respect to denounce it just asMuslim women across the world have.

Finally which one of you moral saints wants to condone:

circumcision of women

polygamy

sex with first cousins

Hey its done in many cultures and it has nothing to do with religion.

What then do we have to welcome that here as well?

Canadians have to decide, are we going to have an identity, or continue to refuse one. This trait of refusing to state what we really feel and act smug and sanctimonious and try be all things to all people, I suppose that is a Canadian cultural trait, but I don't buy it any more then I believe you can play hockey without physical contact.

In fact I fear too many people are having sex with their first cousins and giving birth to children who become federal court judges, but then that is just a theory. The webbed feet may be coincidence.

Edited March 27, 2015 by Rue

[On Guard for Thee]

This site, which is entirely anonymous, appears to be a far left wing apologist site for Islam, possibly run by Muslims, given its wide focus on defending Islam around the world.

Since it terms Bill Maher a 'Likud loving Zionist who hates Muslims and Arabs" I don't think we can accept much of anything from them as having much thought behind it.

And certainly no less distorted than the religion of peace nonsense. Fight fire with fire.

[jacee]

But I will defend their right to cover their face if that is what they want.

Well you really didn't need to say any of the rest, Rue ...

especially the sex and bodily secretions parts. :/

Edited March 27, 2015 by jacee

[On Guard for Thee]

But I will defend their right to cover their face if that is what they want.

Well you really didn't need to say any of the rest, Rue ...

especially the sex and bodily secretions parts. :/

Agreed. You parsed the only sentence from yet another endless nonsensical drone on that actually addresses the point. Kudos for taking the time. I suspect most just slide down the page, understandably.

[Michael Hardner]

This site, which is entirely anonymous, appears to be a far left wing apologist site for Islam, possibly run by Muslims, given its wide focus on defending Islam around the world.

Since it terms Bill Maher a 'Likud loving Zionist who hates Muslims and Arabs" I don't think we can accept much of anything from them as having much thought behind it.

I don't think you can reasonably say that. Individual posters are not "this site" and the debate around Islam here revolves around criticizing individuals versus groups based on attributes.