.

[On Guard for Thee]

ok so no limits at all on any and all cultural practices?

As log as they are legal.

[On Guard for Thee]

you're the one championing this. Stand behind it. Own it. Or do you change your mind?

You are the one who seems to want to get into pornography for some reason. I suggest you get by yourself for that.

[LemonPureLeaf]

You are the one who seems to want to get into pornography for some reason. I suggest you get by yourself for that.

you said that only old people want limits on public nudity. Limits that you dont agree with. You explain it. You said it.

[On Guard for Thee]

you said that only old people want limits on public nudity. Limits that you dont agree with. You explain it. You said it.

And where did I say that...

[eyeball]

The niqab is cultural, not religious. It stands for everything you progressives claim to hate. I cannot understand how you can support such a symbol of oppression. It's crazy.

Speaking for myself, it's the use of the state's force to suppress the symbol that I cannot support - it's a far more hateful thing.

[LemonPureLeaf]

Anyone should wear what ever they want, pretty much. We do have some rules about public nudity, but once again, IMO thats only some uptight BS from your type of folks.

And where did I say that...

This is the quote. Seems like you're ok with full public nudity all the time, anywhere. If I'm misunderstanding then please let me know.

[jbg]

It's nobody's business how they choose to dress.

In this thread we are discussing a woman who chose to go to court to defend her right to wear a niqab during the citizenship oath.

.

There is nothing wrong with requiring dignified attire at a citizenship ceremony. That bespeaks pride in the country to which you're matriculating. Acquired citizenship is a privilege and not a right. Why should not Canada or any country demand a modicum of respect and yes, conformity in order to gain the hallowed status of citizen?

[jbg]

The niqab is cultural, not religious. It stands for everything you progressives claim to hate. I cannot understand how you can support such a symbol of oppression. It's crazy.

They support anything that is damaging to the West.

[On Guard for Thee]

This is the quote. Seems like you're ok with full public nudity all the time, anywhere. If I'm misunderstanding then please let me know.

Ad where is the old folks part of what you think I said...

[On Guard for Thee]

There is nothing wrong with requiring dignified attire at a citizenship ceremony. That bespeaks pride in the country to which you're matriculating. Acquired citizenship is a privilege and not a right. Why should not Canada or any country demand a modicum of respect and yes, conformity in order to gain the hallowed status of citizen?

I will borrow a statement that someone already pointed out here, I like that person became a citizen of Canada while I was naked as a jaybird and wailing at the pitch of my lungs. More seriously, your assumption is that someone not dressed in a way which conforms to your particular idea is somehow disrespectful. You are entitled to your opinion for sure, our charter and our courts, (and myself) disagree.

[LemonPureLeaf]

Ad where is the old folks part of what you think I said...

you said " your type of folks". What were you refering to then? What type of folks?

[On Guard for Thee]

you said " your type of folks". What were you refering to then? What type of folks?

Folks who tend to be anally retentive about something as natural as the human body lets say.

[jacee]

They support anything that is damaging to the West.

I support freedom of religion. So did the court.

How is that "damaging to the west"?

Edited April 14, 2015 by jacee

[Michael Hardner]

They support anything that is damaging to the West.

Binary thinking is lazy thinking. There's a spectrum of ideas that we (left & right) support here. Nobody is a Boris Badanov spy, trying to sink Democracy.

[carepov]

Irrelevant semantics. Chances are a suburban "rebel without a cause" never committed mass human rights violations either. The are only wearing it to provoke people which is the argument used by some women wearing the niqab. Yet you would see the swastika banned not because of the person who wears it but because of the symbol it represents. The only differences between a niqab and a swastika is the group of people offended by the symbol differs. If you want to argue that giving offense to a large number of people is sufficient justification for a ban then you cannot argue against a niqab ban if the majority of Canadians are offended by it.

You keep repeating this - but it is not true, it is not a case of "all or nothing". I gave two important differences earlier:

Religious vs. non-religious: If the word "religious" is "irrelevant semantics" then why bother freedom of religion into the Charter and UDHR?

The swastika and KKK hoods are hateful symbols that represent violence and the deaths of millions. People that wore these symbols committed some of the worst crimes against humanity. The Nazis and KKK were organizations whose stated goals and actions were violent and hateful. The symbols are more than offensive, they are hateful and perhaps even psychologically harmful. We must have limits on freedom of expression, don't you think?

[Michael Hardner]

The only differences between a niqab and a swastika is the group of people offended by the symbol differs. If you want to argue that giving offense to a large number of people is sufficient justification for a ban then you cannot argue against a niqab ban if the majority of Canadians are offended by it.

I would argue that numbers matter. It's hard to rationalize legal bans on nudity using anything other than a 'community standards' defense, and that's perfectly valid. I would challenge the idea that people are as offended by the niqab as by the swastika but to be honest I haven't considered that. Do you have some idea of numbers there ?

If there was some religion (say an Indian religion, as I understand the swastika comes from that region as a symbol) that revered the symbol in some way, I would probably still consider it religious expression. Of course, this is all theoretical as it's not a religious symbol and it isn't even banned in Canada as far as I know.

[Big Guy]

If you are offended by a niqab, that tells more about you than the person wearing the niqab.

What any symbol "means" depends on the individual. Since by definition a symbol is something representing something else then the "something else" will depend on the person deciding just what it represents.

For example; A man wears an earring in one ear. Is this a gay/straight issue? Is this a fashion statement? What about both ears? Does that mean he is bisexual?

Is this only a fashion statement?

I suggest that it may mean one thing to the wearer and another to the observer.

[TimG]

I would challenge the idea that people are as offended by the niqab as by the swastika but to be honest I haven't considered that. Do you have some idea of numbers there ?

I don't have any numbers but given the time since WW2 I would say the number of people offended by a swastika is declining while the number of people offended by a niqab (which includes many Muslims BTW) is rising. It is possible that the swastika would still beat out the niqab in absolute terms today but that does not mean it will be that way forever. But numbers don't change my main point: as long as some clothing bans are acceptable then community standards (i.e. polls) are a valid way to determine what should be or should not be allowed.

If one wants to make the argument that anything goes and no bans are acceptable then the argument is logically consistent, however, it also means the person making the argument thinks the citizenship ceremony is a joke. This makes me question why we even have it. Send the people the passports by mail if there are no standards for decorum that we are willing to enforce.

Edited April 14, 2015 by TimG

[TimG]

If you are offended by a niqab, that tells more about you than the person wearing the niqab.

It means the person cares about symbols and sees the niqab as a symbol of oppression. It is no different from a swastika which is a symbol of racism even if the person wearing it does not see it that way. Edited April 14, 2015 by TimG

[Big Guy]

You see the niqab and see it as symbol of oppression. I see the niqab and see it as a religious expression like the nuns habit or a Kippah.

So who is to say which one of us is seeing reality?

The courts, which are the most objective arbitrators of perception, see it the same way as I do.

[TimG]

You see the niqab and see it as symbol of oppression. I see the niqab and see it as a religious expression like the nuns habit or a Kippah.

So? The question is what do the majority of people see? Community standards are what matters. No the standards of the individual choosing the garb.

The courts, which are the most objective arbitrators of perception, see it the same way as I do.

That is TBD. The court cases to date did not rule on whether it is reasonable to ban the niqab - just that the ban violated the law as currently written.

[Michael Hardner]

...community standards (i.e. polls) are a valid way to determine what should be or should not be allowed.

Yes, absolutely that has to be taken into consideration. We are not robots, we are human being and can't be expected to be 100% consistent in our values.

If one wants to make the argument that anything goes and no bans are acceptable then the argument is logically consistent, however...

Well, sure. If the court had banned it, I imagine that I would probably support that idea honestly even if I felt that there was an opportunity missed there. The reason is: this is a very grey area. I would assume that some kind of accommodation could be reached, though.

[Argus]

It certainly is when you represent it as such. You're as phoney as a three dollar bill on this issue no matter which way you approach it.

How so? My opposition to violent people, to violent, socially regressive values and beliefs, has been quite consistent for many years.

If this womans cultural practice is as backward and humiliating as you say then you can count on it only taking a generation, or two at most, before her kids and grandkids leave it behind them.

You have no evidence to support such a hope. Surveys suggest younger Muslims born in Canada are often MORE religious than their parents, not less. Why, then, do you wish to encourage these communities to retain their socially regressive and repressive values?

[Argus]

Well ... coming from a misogynist, that statement is highly suspect.

(Reference ... Any thread on rape or sexual harassment.)

.

My participation in such threads are based on reasonableness, and you are hardly a person to evaluate such a thing. Your position on such issues tends resemble that of a frothing-at-the-mouth madwoman with a violent hatred of all men.

Edited April 14, 2015 by Argus

[Argus]

If you are offended by a niqab, that tells more about you than the person wearing the niqab.

That's a moronic statement. We know full well what the wearers of the niquab are like since we know full well what tenets of Islam the ultra orthodox believe in. And we also know that if you're a religious extremist you don't believe in just some of those tenets but all of them.

The only thing you know about those who don't like the niquab is that, unlike some, they're not too gutless to judge something as being not in keeping with Canada's value systems.