.

[cybercoma]

I guess Kim Campbell is also just a stupid bigot.

“I’m always very concerned about cultural practices which suggest that women bear responsibility for the sexual behaviour of men,” she said, referring to coverup garments like the burka.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-gender-equality-under-threat-from-society-of-immigration-former-pm-kim-campbell

Thank goodness there are learned people on this forum who cast aside the nuances in an argument that they either don't understand or that are simply incompatible with their broken ideology, someone has to yell bigot.

If only this thread was about the burqa or domestic violence and not about a woman who fought for her right to wear the niqab.

[Bob Macadoo]

All you are doing are listing the arbitrary criteria that are used by some people to judge a belief worthy of being called a religion. It does not make it less arbitrary or subjective. It simply re-enforces my point that social consensus is the basis for determining what dress is acceptable and what is not. There is no absolute principle being defended here - it is just a debate over where the social consensus should be at this point in time.

It doesn't matter what social consensus is at this point in time.......freedom decisions should never be subject to mob whim. Evidentary process has nothing to do arbitrary......it is an objective test of a proclamation.........

[TimG]

It doesn't matter what social consensus is at this point in time.......freedom decisions should never be subject to mob whim. Evidentary process has nothing to do arbitrary......it is an objective test of a proclamation.........

Nonsense. The determination by the court is a subjective appraisal that takes into account precedent and public perception. Whether you like or not the mob matters if the mob is a majority and not simply a vocal minority. If you want to see how public perception affects court judgement look at the assisted suicide ruling from 20 years ago and this year. Different result, the only difference is public perception and the biases of the judges making the decisions. Edited April 16, 2015 by TimG

[Argus]

I firmly believe that any intolerance is countered by acceptance from others of the new life they have . In this case I mean the kids and grandkids.

You mean the way it's happened in the UK and France?

Oh, I'll concede we've done a better job of integrating Muslims than Europe has. The US has done a better job as well.

But you know what, neither we nor the US have been nearly as accommodating and respectful towards outside values and cultures, not by a long shot. Both of our countries have a long history of absorbing many different kinds of newcomers from around the world, and demanding (unofficially) they integrate and become more or less like us. And the interesting thing about the niqab controversy is that those exact same forces are in play here, coming from people like me, from the government, from Kim Campbell and many others, basically stating, sometimes not even realizing it, that we want people to blend in and integrate and become Canadians. That doesn't mean forget where you came from or give up all that you were. But it does mean we refuse to accept your antiquated, backward social customs as "normal" here. Because they're not. And we don't want them to become normal. And no, I'm not going to respect your moronic value system which says women have to wear shrouds wherever they go lest they arouse men, or that Jews are evil, or that gays should be executed, or that women can be beaten if they get out of line, or that thieves should have their hands cut off. Sorry, but it's not on. Your beliefs suck, and you need to change them here. And if you don't, you're never going to be part of this country, and neither are your kids. You'll forever be outsiders.

And the people who are staunchly defending newcomers' right to wear the niqab and hold onto whatever culture they have, and snarling at the other side... those are the same forces as we've seen in Europe over the past twenty five years, eagerly telling newcomers how much their cultures were respected, passing laws which insisted on accommodation, rejecting the concept of integration. And what has that produced? It's produced populations who feel that they're part of some kind of worldwide religious brotherhood of Muslims and have little or no affinity for their fellow citizens.

Edited April 17, 2015 by Argus

[jacee]

On the contrary, Nazism is a political ideology. So is Islam in that Islam, in addition to speaking about God, includes a whole legal code and a series of requirements for how government must operate. People who are Nazis have a series of fairly predictable social and political beliefs. So do people who are Muslims, especially if they're fundamentalist Muslims of the type who insist on covering up womens faces so as to not tempt men.

The practice of Islam is protected by freedom of religion in the constitution. The practice of Nazism is not as it is not a religion.

I am suggesting that our immigration system has only one purpose, that being the selection of the very best immigrants we can find.

Without discrimination.

The best would be those who are most able to produce the highest economic benefit to Canada, and whose values are most akin to our own. By both standards Muslims fail rather badly. They are at the bottom of the economic pie insofar as their economic success goes, and their social values are centuries behind ours, and often violently at odds with ours.

That's religious discrimination.

.

Edited April 17, 2015 by jacee

[jacee]

All you are doing are listing the arbitrary criteria that are used by some people to judge a belief worthy of being called a religion. It does not make it less arbitrary or subjective. It simply re-enforces my point that social consensus is the basis for determining what dress is acceptable and what is not. There is no absolute principle being defended here - it is just a debate over where the social consensus should be at this point in time.

And the consensus is ... the court has spoken.

Freedom of religion is the law.

.

Edited April 17, 2015 by jacee

[Argus]

In Canada? Yes,

Canada was my frame of reference.

I would definitely not agree with that, even for Canada. Most of the members of other religions are people born and raised in Canada, from a secular, socially advanced society.

Most Muslims are from socially regressive cultures where regressive aspects of their religion are accepted rather than doubted the way we do here. It's possible that if we are able to integrate Muslims they'll start questioning and rejecting the more brutal aspects of their religion too, in time. Most of them anyway. But they certainly haven't done so yet.

[On Guard for Thee]

Nonsense. The determination by the court is a subjective appraisal that takes into account precedent and public perception. Whether you like or not the mob matters if the mob is a majority and not simply a vocal minority. If you want to see how public perception affects court judgement look at the assisted suicide ruling from 20 years ago and this year. Different result, the only difference is public perception and the biases of the judges making the decisions.

If you want to live in a society where mob rule prevails I could suggest a few countries I have visited. You would have your tail between your legs heading home in a big hurry I suspect, and would appreciate the balance the SCC provides.

[Argus]

The practice of Islam is protected by freedom of religion in the constitution. The practice of Nazism is not as it is not a religion.

We impose such limits on freedom of religion as we, as a culture, feel we should impose. One of those is you can't break our laws no matter what your version of God tells you is right.

Without discrimination.

There is absolutely nothing in our legal code or in any moral sense which says we have to ban discrimination against one type of foreigner vs another type of foreigner in considering which would make a better immigrant. Oh, we can, because we're a socially advanced society, say we won't discriminate based on unimportant things like skin colour, but if we feel there's a logical reason to choose on group over the other no law stands in our way. We want these people to be paying taxes, after all, not living in poverty and consuming taxes.

That's religious discrimination.

No, that's discrimination based on a logical judgement about the known qualities and success rate of immigrants from various parts of the world.

If it turns out, according to our statistics, that people from western Asia tend to earn about one third as much in Canada as people from Europe, which, as it happens, statistics do say, then it's perfectly acceptable to decide we'll take more Europeans and less people from Western Asia.

Edited April 17, 2015 by Argus

[On Guard for Thee]

We impose such limits on freedom of religion as we, as a culture, feel we should impose. One of those is you can't break our laws no matter what your version of God tells you is right.

There is absolutely nothing in our legal code or in any moral sense which says we have to ban discrimination against one type of foreigner vs another type of foreigner in considering which would make a better immigrant. Oh, we can, because we're a socially advanced society, say we won't discriminate based on unimportant things like skin colour, but if we feel there's a logical reason to choose on group over the other no law stands in our way.

No, that's discrimination based on a logical judgement about the known qualities and success rate of immigrants from various parts of the world.

If it turns out, according to our statistics, that people from western Asia tend to earn about one third as much in Canada as people from Europe, which, as it happens, statistics do say, then it's perfectly acceptable to decide we'll take more Europeans and less people from Western Asia.

Apparently you need to go back and catch up on a whole lot of reading.

[eyeball]

All you are doing are listing the arbitrary criteria that are used by some people to judge a belief worthy of being called a religion. It does not make it less arbitrary or subjective. It simply re-enforces my point that social consensus is the basis for determining what dress is acceptable and what is not. There is no absolute principle being defended here - it is just a debate over where the social consensus should be at this point in time.

Of course there's no principle at stake here, this debate over social values and culture is just about the Harper Governments determination to generate a political consensus.

[jacee]

There is absolutely nothing in our legal code or in any moral sense which says we have to ban discrimination against one type of foreigner vs another type of foreigner in considering which would make a better immigrant. Oh, we can, because we're a socially advanced society, say we won't discriminate based on unimportant things like skin colour, but if we feel there's a logical reason to choose on group over the other no law stands in our way. We want these people to be paying taxes, after all, not living in poverty and consuming taxes.

No, that's discrimination based on a logical judgement about the known qualities and success rate of immigrants from various parts of the world.

If it turns out, according to our statistics, that people from western Asia tend to earn about one third as much in Canada as people from Europe, which, as it happens, statistics do say, then it's perfectly acceptable to decide we'll take more Europeans and less people from Western Asia.

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

Try again to find a legal reason to discriminate, Argus. :/

Try sticking to these:

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/information/inadmissibility/

There are many reasons we may not let you into Canada, such as:

you are a security risk,you have committed human or international rights violations,you have been convicted of a crime, or you have committed an act outside Canada that would be a crime,you have ties to organized crime,you have a serious health problem,you have a serious financial problem,you lied in your application or in an interview,you do not meet the conditions in Canadas immigration law, one of your family members is not allowed into Canada.

Edited April 17, 2015 by jacee

[Michael Hardner]

Most of them anyway. But they certainly haven't done so yet.

How do you know ? How regularly and how specific are you measuring this ?

[Argus]

Apparently you need to go back and catch up on a whole lot of reading.

If that's the case I guarantee it won't involve anything you have had to says, since snarky one-liners seldom contain anything of value.

[Argus]

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

Try again to find a legal reason to discriminate, Argus. :/

Try sticking to these:

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/information/inadmissibility/

There are many reasons we may not let you into Canada, such as:

you are a security risk,you have committed human or international rights violations,you have been convicted of a crime, or you have committed an act outside Canada that would be a crime,you have ties to organized crime,you have a serious health problem,you have a serious financial problem,you lied in your application or in an interview,you do not meet the conditions in Canadas immigration law, one of your family members is not allowed into Canada.

None of which has the least effect on what foreigners we choose to invite to Canada. Your constitution has no impact outside our borders and foreigners can't claim they were discriminated against because we don't like them.

[Argus]

How do you know ? How regularly and how specific are you measuring this ?

I can say with a certainty that with regard to the topic of this thread no one who continues to believe women must cover up their faces has integrated nor wishes to. I would go further and say no one wearing a hijab, or who believes women should wear one has or will integrate.

[On Guard for Thee]

If that's the case I guarantee it won't involve anything you have had to says, since snarky one-liners seldom contain anything of value.

I was referring to your apparent lack of knowledge of our legal code. Thats the reading I was suggesting.

[GostHacked]

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.

I now read all your posts as it was Bill O'Reilley speaking. Specifically the use of the term 'the far left'. So are you on the far right then?

[GostHacked]

I can say with a certainty that with regard to the topic of this thread no one who continues to believe women must cover up their faces has integrated nor wishes to. I would go further and say no one wearing a hijab, or who believes women should wear one has or will integrate.

You are missing one important element. What if the woman CHOOSES to wear it? No matter her reasons, what if that is the case? Why do you feel the need to make her choice for her? That would not be much different than forcing her to wear it.

[GostHacked]

But to clarify I did state early on that citizenship and court attendances need to be done without face coverings.

[guyser]

You mean the way it's happened in the UK and France?

Oh, I'll concede we've done a better job of integrating Muslims than Europe has.

We sure have. One of which is we dont let them set up shop in ghettos and forget about them.

The US has done a better job as well.

Yes they have. And they too have some issues the same. They have the same urban neighbourhoods were the language is everything but English, same as here in Markham or Van.

And yet like the US , bith of us have a very small sector of rabble rousers from religious sects. (not to put too much on it but it appears the Christian right are the worst for the US-they have some whack jobs there)

But you know what, neither we nor the US have been nearly as accommodating and respectful towards outside values and cultures, not by a long shot. Both of our countries have a long history of absorbing many different kinds of newcomers from around the world, and demanding (unofficially) they integrate and become more or less like us. And the interesting thing about the niqab controversy is that those exact same forces are in play here, coming from people like me, from the government, from Kim Campbell and many others, basically stating, sometimes not even realizing it, that we want people to blend in and integrate and become Canadians. That doesn't mean forget where you came from or give up all that you were. But it does mean we refuse to accept your antiquated, backward social customs as "normal" here. Because they're not. And we don't want them to become normal. And no, I'm not going to respect your moronic value system which says women have to wear shrouds wherever they go lest they arouse men, or that Jews are evil, or that gays should be executed, or that women can be beaten if they get out of line, or that thieves should have their hands cut off. Sorry, but it's not on. Your beliefs suck, and you need to change them here. And if you don't, you're never going to be part of this country, and neither are your kids. You'll forever be outsiders.

Seee, I am quite ok with this.

The reason is because much of what you write in this paragraph is about social pressure . There is nothing wrong with social pressure applied to some outdated modes of dress or behaviour.

Afterall , the greatest strides in civility comes through social pressure.

But when it crosses the line into law is where most of us have the issue. I respect the fact that religions have absurd (to me) customs and celebrations, and while I mock all of them, I am loathe to single on out for anything other than a shrug and a smile.

Christians/ Catholics.....act like jerk offs all week then pray for salvation. Ugh

Muslims - family structures seem archaic-ugh

Orthodox Jews- those ringly things hanging off some kids side of head-ugh

Wiccan- waaay too much makeup

Baptists- Dafuq you mean no booze at this wedding?

And the people who are staunchly defending newcomers' right to wear the niqab and hold onto whatever culture they have, and snarling at the other side... those are the same forces as we've seen in Europe over the past twenty five years, eagerly telling newcomers how much their cultures were respected, passing laws which insisted on accommodation, rejecting the concept of integration. And what has that produced? It's produced populations who feel that they're part of some kind of worldwide religious brotherhood of Muslims and have little or no affinity for their fellow citizens.

I dont think they (we?) are so much defending the niqab so much as the right to wear it in peace. Im not a fan of them, and since I am, frequently in and around the largest Somali neighbourhood in Canada I am not bothered per se because they dont bother me, hassle me nor make it an issue.

There are so few of them I am cool with it

Edited April 17, 2015 by Guyser2

[Argus]

I was referring to your apparent lack of knowledge of our legal code. Thats the reading I was suggesting.

Could you clue me in to how our legal code influences how we treat residents of Pakistan, please?

[Argus]

I now read all your posts as it was Bill O'Reilley speaking. Specifically the use of the term 'the far left'. So are you on the far right then?

Maybe you do because you aren't aware of where you stand on the political spectrum.

[Argus]

You are missing one important element. What if the woman CHOOSES to wear it? No matter her reasons, what if that is the case? Why do you feel the need to make her choice for her? That would not be much different than forcing her to wear it.

I'm not stating we should force her to wear it or not. I'm saying no one who wears it is integrated. And they are much less likely to become integrated any time soon than say someone who comes to this country who doesn't feel the need to wear a shroud.

[Argus]

There are so few of them I am cool with it

Since there seems no major bone of contention in the rest of your reply I'd like to focus on this last line.

How much we can tolerate is often related to that 'there are so few of them' kind of thinking. A few Muslims, meh, so what?

The problem, for me, comes with the expansion of that community. As I've stated before, the Muslim community is rapidly expanding, doubling in size ever ten years both through immigration and natural births. They currently comprise roughly 2.8% of the population, which, by the way, is already greater than the number of first nations people in Canada. But in ten years, if trends continue, that will be 5.6%, and in twenty years 11%.

By way of comparison, Jews make up about 1% and are not expanding.

Any population of citizens which makes up 11% of the voting public is going to have a heavy influence on society, on politics, and on the cultural views and values of that society. Again, by way of comparison, Muslims make up about 5% of the UK population currently and no one would suggest there are 'so few of them' that what they believe doesn't matter. So it seems incumbent upon those who don't want our society to be influenced towards backwards social views to be careful about the social views of people we bring in in large numbers.