.

[TimG]

Id laugh pretty loud if some guy walked by me with a KKK hood or swastika adorned jacket. Id actually shake his hand and congratulate him or her on their outfit with a complimentary 'you are proud to display your ignorance and I salute that'

Great. You are the first one to unambiguously defend the right to be offensive. Now if the rest of the politically correct crowd could get the message we could start down the road to real free speech instead of "free speech unless it offends the politically correct progressives" nonsense we have today. Edited March 28, 2015 by TimG

[guyser]

Great. You are the first one to unambiguously defend the right to be offensive. Now if the rest of the politically correct crowd could get the message we could start down the road to real free speech instead of "free speech unless it offends the politically correct progressives" nonsense we have today.

Um tim....you are projecting your own version here. No one has said the hood or swastika is forbiden nor do they want it to be,

Politcally Correct is merely a buzzword for righties who dont get their way.

Congrats to you, youve earned it.

[eyeball]

Free and equal societies have limits. Those limits are set by societal standards. To suggest otherwise is disingenuous.

Screw society. It's a brainless idiot...more to the point though, it has no principles.

Standards are less than nothing without principles.

Edited March 28, 2015 by eyeball

[TimG]

No one has said the hood or swastika is forbiden nor do they want it to be,

Yet no one says explicitly that they are fine it with despite my repeated prompting . You have. Congrads, you at least are supporting the niqab for the right reasons.

Politcally Correct is merely a buzzword for righties who dont get their way.

The fact is the biggest threat to free speech in our society today comes from "progressives" who seek to silence any ideas that offend them. It is the height of irony that this same easily offended group argues in favour of clothing that is offensive to some. Free speech means people have the right to say or do offensive things. Edited March 28, 2015 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

Yet no one says explicitly that they are fine it with despite my repeated prompting . You have. Congrads, you at least are supporting the niqab for the right reasons.

The fact is the biggest threat to free speech in our society today comes from "progressives" who seek to silence any ideas that offend them. It is the height of irony that this same easily offended group argues in favour of clothing that is offensive to some. Free speech means people have the right to say or do offensive things.

No, the height of irony is someone apparently lauding free speech whilst wishing to oppress peoples religious traditions.

[TimG]

No, the height of irony is someone apparently lauding free speech whilst wishing to oppress peoples religious traditions.

Why don't you make the right argument instead of hiding behind the "cultural sensitivity" BS. e.g. free speech means people should be able to say and do things that offend you personally. If you are not willing to make that argument you are part of the problem and you are no defender of free speech. You are just a hypocrite that does not really care about free speech unless it supports something you already agree with. Edited March 28, 2015 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

Why don't you make the right argument instead of hiding behind the "cultural sensitivity" BS. e.g. free speech means people should be able to say and do things that offend you personally. If you are not willing to make that argument you are part of the problem and you are no defender of free speech. You are just a hypocrite that does not really care about free speech unless it supports something you already agree with.

Um, already stated many times. I agree with the courts. They have upheld the charter FREEDOMS. I dont plan to start wearing a niqab any time soon, but those that choose to have my blessing.

[guyser]

Yet no one says explicitly that they are fine it with despite my repeated prompting . You have. Congrads, you at least are supporting the niqab for the right reasons.

Yes they have, by saying that the Govt is trying to make clothing illegal, the posters here have consistently said thats dumb.

The fact is the biggest threat to free speech in our society today comes from "progressives" who seek to silence any ideas that offend them.

What like the way some (cough cough) have open disregard for scientists and academics who want to discuss global warming, or is it the ones who get mocked for protesting against big oil? Those progressives?

Free speech means people have the right to say or do offensive things.

Take another gander at the Charter will youre at it, you may find something of value as respects trying to ban a piece of clothing.

[TimG]

Um, already stated many times. I agree with the courts. They have upheld the charter FREEDOMS. I dont plan to start wearing a niqab any time soon, but those that choose to have my blessing.

You are evading again: do you favour free speech even if it offends you (i.e. speech that is racist. sexist, homophobic, whatever). Support free speech only when you are not offended is no defense of free speech.

[Rue]

Thank you TimG. You speak for me as well.

[guyser]

Why don't you make the right argument instead of hiding behind the "cultural sensitivity" BS. e.g. free speech means people should be able to say and do things that offend you personally. If you are not willing to make that argument you are part of the problem and you are no defender of free speech.

Why don't you make the right argument instead of hiding behind the made up oppression BS. e.g. freedom from clothing means people should be able to wear things that offend you personally

Hmm.....best ponder that.

[TimG]

Yes they have, by saying that the Govt is trying to make clothing illegal, the posters here have consistently said thats dumb.

No they have not. They hedged. Squirmed and evaded. You were the first to state explicitly your support for free speech.

Take another gander at the Charter will youre at it, you may find something of value as respects trying to ban a piece of clothing.

The Charter has a huge loop hole that basically says "anything goes unless society is against it". It does not really tell us how to decide when the loop hole applies.

[guyser]

Thank you TimG. You speak for me as well.

Suppression of rights is something you agree with.

Not surprised but expect this to come back and bite you.

I guess if suppresion of clothing, religious and the not so religious , you will attend synagogue tonight and request a ban on yarmulke's and the seperation of women from men in the orthodox synagogue?

What?

You wont?

Why am, I not surprised?

Let me leave you with your buddy tim's quote, only slightly modified.....You Support free from religion only when you are not offended is no defense of freedom.

[On Guard for Thee]

You are evading again: do you favour free speech even if it offends you (i.e. speech that is racist. sexist, homophobic, whatever). Support free speech only when you are not offended is no defense of free speech.

Im not evading anything. I hear and see offensive things often. Dont really care. I just move on.

[guyser]

No they have not. They hedged. Squirmed and evaded. You were the first to state explicitly your support for free speech.

You can attempt to squirn all you want but the basic premise throughout this thread was banning clothing is ridiculous and against our Charter , as evidenced by the SCC .

The Charter has a huge loop hole that basically says "anything goes unless society is against it". It does not really tell us how to decide when the loop hole applies.

Good lord, how disconnected can one be in their immediate arguments?

You quote the Charter in a post = good

You slam the Charter in this post = not good.

[Rue]

Gusyer your misrepresentations and false assumptions as to what TimG stated and I 100% applaud, are par for the course.I would not expect you to grap his points and I did expect you to turn this into a personal pissing match where you label those you disagree with as bigots and intolerant, etc. What would a debate be without claiming the moral imperative.

Lol you are something. Here let me try break things down to make it simple for you:

1-the decision to wear a niqab is a cultural one, nowhere in the Koran is it stated as a religious belief. Zip over your head.

2-yamulke's do not cover the face and they are a culturalchoice not a religious one. Zip over your head.

;

3-if you choose to embrace a belief that is intolerant, in public, in a public display, it may be a problem. ZIp over your head.

4- embracing and displaying sexually repressive beliefs during a citizenship ceremony is problematic in that it shows you tell Canadians you have no respect for values other than your own-yep that's a way to build a country.

Your selectivity as to who you support and embrace to make yourself feel all gushy and liberal inside speaks

for itself.

Edited March 28, 2015 by Rue

[TimG]

You can attempt to squirn all you want but the basic premise throughout this thread was banning clothing is ridiculous and against our Charter , as evidenced by the SCC.

You seem to be missing the nuance in my argument which:

1) I find the niqab offensive;

2) Speech which is offensive is often banned (or at least suppressed) in this country.

3) Therefore it is reasonable to ban the niqab.

Now the argument against this is to say that is it wrong to ban any offensive speech. This is the argument you have made and I agree with it. The trouble you are first person in this thread to actually concede that it is wrong to ban speech because it is offensive. The majority of people arguing against the ban in this thread refuse to make such a declaration because, I suspect, they want to reserve the right to argue against free speech when it offends them. This is what is not acceptable to me.

Edited March 28, 2015 by TimG

[Guest]

I would argue against any ban on offensive speech. I would also argue against any ban on offensive clothing. I have argued against a niqab ban in this thread, even though I find them offensive.

I don't think anyone has the right to not be offended.

[On Guard for Thee]

Gusyer your misrepresentations and false assumptions as to what TimG stated and I 100% applaud, are par for the course.I would not expect you to grap his points and I did expect you to turn this into a personal pissing match where you label those you disagree with as bigots and intolerant, etc. What would a debate be without claiming the moral imperative.

Lol you are something. Here let me try break things down to make it simple for you:

1-the decision to wear a niqab is a cultural one, nowhere in the Koran is it stated as a religious belief. Zip over your head.

2-yamulke's do not cover the face and they are a culturalchoice not a religious one. Zip over your head.

;

3-if you choose to embrace a belief that is intolerant, in public, in a public display, it may be a problem. ZIp over your head.

4- embracing and displaying sexually repressive beliefs during a citizenship ceremony is problematic in that it shows you tell Canadians you have no respect for values other than your own-yep that's a way to build a country.

Your selectivity as to who you support and embrace to make yourself feel all gushy and liberal inside speaks

for itself.

You obviously know nothing of Islam if you think the niqab has nothing to do with religion. Looks like most of the discussion in this thread zipped over your head.

[Bob Macadoo]

1) I find the niqab offensive;

Yes you do.

2) Speech which is offensive is often banned (or at least suppressed) in this country.

Offensive speech is "reasonably accommodated" until it reasonably believed it can directly influence the production of criminal activity (ie. Hate Speech.....like Kill Whitey). No one reasonably believes a niqab directly influences that.

3) Therefore it is reasonable to ban the niqab.

No it is not. Now if this was Derek 2.0 and his religion said to him he needed to have hand grenades strapped to him at the ceremony.....that would be "unreasonable" and to some offensive. See the difference?

[guyser]

You seem to be missing the nuance in my argument which:

1) I find the niqab offensive;

2) Speech which is offensive is often banned (or at least suppressed) in this country.

3) Therefore it is reasonable to ban the niqab.

LOL.

You stand by that one .

Lets recap this shall we?

You decided (for yourself) your offended by what a single womna puts on her head.

You decided that words are offensive (they arent of course , only if direct harm can or does to come )

Therefore , the bad words being banned means someones headdress should be banned.

Oh my.....the single worst comparison in MLW history.

I find TV shows about little kids beauty pageants offensive.(not criminally tho)

I find people calling other folks bad names offensive .(not criminally tho)

Therefore guns should be banned.

Have I got it right?

[guyser]

Gusyer your misrepresentations and false assumptions

Yawn blah blah blah...more spouting nonsense. Show me back it up...but you wont.

as to what TimG stated and I 100% applaud, are par for the course.

It was idiotic, join him, leave him I dont care, but it is what it is.

Idiotic

Lol you are something. Here let me try break things down to make it simple for you:

Ok you can try but I suspect epic fail...

1-the decision to wear a niqab is a cultural one, nowhere in the Koran is it stated as a religious belief. Zip over your head.

2-yamulke's do not cover the face and they are a culturalchoice not a religious one. Zip over your head.

;

Woo hoo...so far youve told us water is wet. Thanks teach !

3-if you choose to embrace a belief that is intolerant, in public, in a public display, it may be a problem. ZIp over your head.

What intolerance? Yours and tims who cannot tolerate what someone wears?

I find yarmulke intolerant? Now what? Remove them?

Naw, let em wear them, after all, no skin of my back. Gosh, how easy is that?

Pretty hard for some blowhard who want to tell woman what to wear. I do hear it is a jewish thing too, orthodox of course but there ya go.

4- embracing and displaying sexually repressive beliefs during a citizenship ceremony is problematic in that it shows you tell Canadians you have no respect for values other than your own-yep that's a way to build a country.

Your selectivity as to who you support and embrace to make yourself feel all gushy and liberal inside speaks

for itself.

sexually repressive?

WTF are you on about and when did YOU decide this for these women?

Wow, talk about missing the point

[Rue]

Guyser without a doubt one of your most immature responses to me to date and that is saying a lot.

The very point of covering one's face up comes from the cultural belief that a female face is sexually provocative and therefore must be covered. Zip zap and another zippity zap over your head. Is that so hard for your brain to grasp?

If you think that is a progressive belief and its the way to build Canadian society embrace it. I find such beliefs counter-productive. Go on turn off the lights when you have sex. Lol.

Lol. You can't even grasp the very value you defend.

Your Jew baiting in your response though was right on cue and it shows your real agenda-the need to switch the topic to Jew bait me and try suggest this is a debate about Muslim religion.

Covering the face has nothing to do with the Muslim religion-its a cultural choice.

You want to Jew bait knock yourself out. You want to throw being a Jew at me lol it shows just where you are at and quite frankly it shows me that you can use a vanilla name like Gusyer but your true culture can be seen through your face cover or in this case forum name.

I criticize any culture that defines women's faces as sexually provocative and in need of a cover. Its why I criticize fellow Jews who embrace ultraorthodox and fundamentalist views on sexuality, yes. Your attempt to suggest I don't is par for the course. Your attempt to compare a skull cap to a face covering is also brilliant.

Go on Mr. Tolerance, go walk with the KKK and tell them how you adore those hoods.

Lol.

Edited March 29, 2015 by Rue

[Argus]

You obviously know nothing of Islam if you think the niqab has nothing to do with religion. Looks like most of the discussion in this thread zipped over your head.

The niqab has nothing to do with traditional Islam. All the scholars have said as much. What it is related to is the new extreme interpretation of Islam embraced by what you might call the far, far right of Islam. The niqab is both a religious imperative to them, given that women are evil in their view, and an upright middle finger to non-Muslim society, a proclamation of the self-assumed moral and spiritual superiority of those who wear it.

[Argus]

LOL.

You stand by that one .

Lets recap this shall we?

You decided (for yourself) your offended by what a single womna puts on her head.

I think he's stated on numerous occasions that this is not about a single woman, but about a symbol.

You decided that words are offensive (they arent of course , only if direct harm can or does to come )

Really? Words aren't offensive? So if someone started spewing the N word around and calling gays various pejorative terms you wouldn't take offense?