.

[Rue]

Its interesting how someone who is not a Muslim, Big Guy, defines the niqab which is not a Muslim religious symbol as one. If he can't see the irony in that zip over his head.

A kippah or a nun's habit were not designed to cover the face. They are head coverings that started because of worshipping in the sun. It was a necessity to cover one's head from getting a sun burn. It was a cultural response to the climate. It has nothing to do with the Bible.

Someone have Big Guy produce the religious doctrine defining the nun's head covering or the kipah as religious imperatives based on the concept that a women's face is sexuallly provocative.

Clearly Big Buy's comment is illogical. It compares concepts that are not the same or even remotely similiar and he openly shows he has no clue the very meanings he creates are based on false assumptions about religious beliefs. But hey, what a fanatstic way to establish one's point of view then explaining its based on false stereotypes of religions. Yep that makes it credible, playing the religion expression card for something that is not a religious expression.

Michael Harder I will now address. He again engages in stereotypes. He throws out the couched negative reference, that a person who finds the niqab oppressive says a lot about themselves. Well Michael Harder finish it. Stop couching your allegations. Finish your stereotype. What does it say?

Stop being upfront in your insults. Finish the sentence. You suggest something then think if you avoid completing the suggestion it prevents it from getting the point acros? What does IT as you refer to it, what does IT say if a person opines the niqab as sexually repressive?

Next, the court is bound to interpret the Charter of Rights as widely as possible and so it allows the Niqab and using that reasoning it now makes it possible for others to demand their rights including wearing a swastika or KKK hood.

Zip over Big Guy's head again.

[Argus]

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.

The best accommodation would be to stop bringing religious fanatics into Canada.

[Rue]

No matter how hard some of you try, this is not an issue of banning people, its about asking when and where is the right place to express certain views.

Edited April 14, 2015 by Rue

[On Guard for Thee]

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.

And the rest of us are not too gutless to support Canadian values and discard the prejudice when we see it..

[Michael Hardner]

A kippah or a nun's habit were not designed to cover the face.

Indeed there were some that did.

a person who finds the niqab oppressive says a lot about themselves. Well Michael Harder finish it. Stop couching your allegations. Finish your stereotype. What does it say?

I already asked you to move on from discussing this with me. And if you'd care to catch up, I also find it represents oppression of women so I'm not sure where you are with this.

Next, the court is bound to interpret the Charter of Rights as widely as possible

That's crazy. Why is the court 'bound' to do that ? They haven't interpreted these things as widely as possible in at least two cases I can think of: blood transfusions, and quoting scripture without any qualification.

[cybercoma]

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.

The reason TimG's simile falls apart is that a person wearing a swastika necklace as a symbol of their Eastern religion would not be asked to remove it. Someone wearing a Nazi uniform on the other hand probably would. It's complete nonsense to equivocate the two.

Edited April 14, 2015 by cybercoma

[jbg]

The reason TimG's simile falls apart is that a person wearing a swastika necklace as a symbol of their Eastern religion would not be asked to remove it. Someone wearing a Nazi uniform on the other hand probably would. It's complete nonsense to equivocate the two.

Beyond the obvious malapropism in your use of the word "equivocate" they are not that different. The person could well be asked to remove the swastika since one of its meanings is highly offensive. Again, gaining citizenship is a privilege. Rights don't come in here.

[dre]

Wow... 98 pages on what people where at the retarded citizenship pledge!

[Argus]

And the rest of us are not too gutless to support Canadian values and discard the prejudice when we see it..

Ah, so it's wrong to decide what are Canadian values -- unless you're a far left progressive, in which case you decide what are Canadian values, and to you they include basically any foreign value that comes with a quaint costume and ethnic restaurantss.

[Argus]

Wow... 98 pages on what people where at the retarded citizenship pledge!

Some of us feel Canada is a pretty good place to live, and our attention is drawn when the government invites foreigners to join us and those foreigners give us all a big middle finger while reaching for the welfare pot.

[TimG]

Someone wearing a Nazi uniform on the other hand probably would. It's complete nonsense to equivocate the two.

Why should someone wearing a Nazi uniform be rejected? The position being advanced in this thread is no one has any right to judge another's choice of clothing and that includes the choice of a Nazi uniform. If you are offended by the Nazi uniform then that is your problem.

The choices are basically:

1) People have no right to judge other's clothing then niqabs and Nazi uniforms must be OK.

2) People have a right to judge clothing then it is reasonable to prohibit both niqabs and Nazi uniforms and the only question is whether enough people want the niqab ban.

It is one or the other. Trying conflate the two is self serving hypocrisy.

Edited April 14, 2015 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

Ah, so it's wrong to decide what are Canadian values -- unless you're a far left progressive, in which case you decide what are Canadian values, and to you they include basically any foreign value that comes with a quaint costume and ethnic restaurantss.

Canadians have already decided what are Canadian values, and wrote them down in a thing called the constitution and charter.

[dre]

Ah, so it's wrong to decide what are Canadian values -- unless you're a far left progressive, in which case you decide what are Canadian values, and to you they include basically any foreign value that comes with a quaint costume and ethnic restaurantss.

People decide for themselves what they value, as long as they obey Canadian laws. Nobody cares what you think.

[jbg]

Wow... 98 pages on what people where at the retarded citizenship pledge!

Sounds like responses to the fashion pages.

[On Guard for Thee]

Wow... 98 pages on what people where at the retarded citizenship pledge!

I know, but boy did it flush out the bigotry from some within this forum.

[LemonPureLeaf]

If people really dont want the niqab then tbey need to make niqab wearers unwelcome In our society. If the SC won't help them then they need to ban them in a defacto manner from our society. If those people who don't think they belong push them out they'd be gone. If they can't buy anyrhing they can't live.

[dre]

Why should someone wearing a Nazi uniform be rejected? The position being advanced in this thread is no one has any right to judge another's choice of clothing and that includes the choice of a Nazi uniform. If you are offended by the Nazi uniform then that is your problem.

The choices are basically:

1) People have no right to judge other's clothing then niqabs and Nazi uniforms must be OK.

2) People have a right to judge clothing then it is reasonable to prohibit both niqabs and Nazi uniforms and the only question is whether enough people want the niqab ban.

It is one or the other. Trying conflate the two is self serving hypocrisy.

Are you accidentally posting in the wrong thread or something? This isnt about peoples right to judge each others clothing. Its about about what limits the government can place on religious expression and when.

[TimG]

Are you accidentally posting in the wrong thread or something? This isnt about peoples right to judge each others clothing. Its about about what limits the government can place on religious expression and when.

So you are arguing for option 1) then. That is fine but if enough people think the citizenship ceremony is a joke then it is not worth having. Just mail people their papers and be done with it.

[dre]

If people really dont want the niqab then tbey need to make niqab wearers unwelcome In our society. If the SC won't help them then they need to ban them in a defacto manner from our society. If those people who don't think they belong push them out they'd be gone. If they can't buy anyrhing they can't live.

Good luck with that. Nobody but a handful of scumbags will participate.

[dre]

So you are arguing for option 1) then. That is fine but if enough people think the citizenship ceremony is a joke then it is not worth having. Just mail people their papers and be done with it.

No im not arguing for option 1. I was explaining how completely off-base your characterization of the issue is. Nazi uniforms are not a religious symbol. Your whole meme is completely devoid of logic, and you dont appear to even have a cursory grasp of the issues in play. Either that... or youre accidentally posting in the wrong thread.

[GostHacked]

Can I attend the ceremony in my birthday suit?

[guyser]

Can I attend the ceremony in my birthday suit?

Sorry...that against the law.

And hey.....not even subject to review by the SCC .............yet.

[TimG]

Nazi uniforms are not a religious symbol.

So what? Neither are niqabs according to Muslim scholars. And even if you accept the premise that niqabs have religious (as opposed to cultural) significance then why should "religious" garb get special treatment?

The only person who does not have a clue is you who seems to think that you have the exclusive right to determine what is acceptable or not based on your personal prejudices.

[Argus]

Canadians have already decided what are Canadian values, and wrote them down in a thing called the constitution and charter.

Canadians had no say in the constitution. It was put in place by the Liberal party and variously interpreted and re-interpreted over the years by mostly Liberal judges.

[Argus]

People decide for themselves what they value, as long as they obey Canadian laws. Nobody cares what you think.

On the contrary, the government clearly does care what I think and could not care less what you think. It knows rabid far left wing ideologues will never vote for them anyway, while middle of the road people might and likely will.