.

On Guard for Thee · April 17, 2015

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

A bit of a silly question. But if you meant to ask about immigrants from Pakistan, it says we have to treat them the same as any other person seeking to become a resident of Canada.

Argus · April 17, 2015

A bit of a silly question. But if you meant to ask about immigrants from Pakistan, it says we have to treat them the same as any other person seeking to become a resident of Canada.

Once they're immigrants in Canada, yes. But for those who are not immigrants, but merely potential immigrants, where is the law that says we have to treat citizens of Pakistan who live in Pakistan the same as citizens of Ireland who live in Ireland?

On Guard for Thee · April 17, 2015

Once they're immigrants in Canada, yes. But for those who are not immigrants, but merely potential immigrants, where is the law that says we have to treat citizens of Pakistan who live in Pakistan the same as citizens of Ireland who live in Ireland?

Its the same law for both. The law resides here, not in foreign countries. It has to be applied equally to whomever wishes to qualify under it.

guyser · April 17, 2015

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.

Can one not look at the Quebec and Catholicism and see that even though the majority (and in their case overwhelmingly so) were of one religion, prevailing attitudes swung back from religious control to a fairly secular society whereby the wishes of the Diocese eventually were ignored?

Catholicws ruled in Qie for a long time, now not at all.

Argus · April 17, 2015

Can one not look at the Quebec and Catholicism and see that even though the majority (and in their case overwhelmingly so) were of one religion, prevailing attitudes swung back from religious control to a fairly secular society whereby the wishes of the Diocese eventually were ignored?

Catholicws ruled in Qie for a long time, now not at all.

Sure. Catholics don't even rule in Italy or France any more. But I've seen no similar move towards secular attitudes among Muslims anywhere on earth. The only Muslim country which did make that move, Turkey, has been moving rapidly away from it over the past decade or so. Secularism does not appear to be something which can happily coexist with Islam, and certainly not with the more fundamentalist schools which embrace Sharia law and all the rest.

Note that I'm not saying that Muslims will not become more secular and that most will not eventually integrate and drop their backward social views. They might. But we don't really know. We're basing our hopes that they will on the behaviour of past immigrants, but our past immigrants were all, prior to the 1970s, from European Christian countries. Bringing in people from third world Muslim countries is something new and we don't know how it's going to end up. My question is, why should we settle for "might"? Why should we take the risk? The whole world is our recruiting office and the demonstrated economic failure of immigrants from those areas of the world with high Muslim populations gives us plenty of reason on its own to transfer our interest to other geographical areas.

jacee · April 18, 2015

Well you see Argus, the way it works is western capitalist corporations pay off corrupt governments to go into third world countries and rape and pillage resources, displacing millions of people, destroying their livelihoods and the natural environment that sustains them, often causing famines, civil strife and even civil wars ... and then we get a lot of refugee and immigration applications from those places because people have been uprooted.

So ... to fulfill your dream of all white non Muslim immigration, we'd have to send in mining corps, etc, to decimate and uproot more of them.

/sarcasm

GostHacked · April 18, 2015

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

I am more aware of my political spectrum than most of you with your left OR right ideologies.

GostHacked · April 18, 2015

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.

You think that mentality only comes in the form of head garments? Wake up Argus.

Argus · April 18, 2015

You think that mentality only comes in the form of head garments? Wake up Argus.

I'm sure it doesn't ONLY come with head garments. But indications that a person possesses it should be more than ample reason to not accept their application for immigration.

-TSS- · April 18, 2015

Immigration into Finland has certainly had a negative effect, especially immigration from the third world countries.

Having said that, no other single immigrant has cost us so much and caused as much harm as a certain Canadian IT-boss:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Elop

Rue · April 19, 2015

I again repeat the choice to wear a total face covering is not a religious one. Its a cultural one. Its not in the Koran. Its something certain non Muslims on this forum keep saying is a Muslim religious value but it is not. The choice of clothes, attitre, is a cultural one not a religious one.

To date not one niqab supporter has addressed my legal argument as to their application of accommodation.

If you argue that law says not permitting a face cover is discriminatory, then using that very same reasoning, someone else can make the argument they have the right to wear a KKK hood or Nazi uniform or appear nude at Citizenship ceremonies arguing that is their right the same way it is the other person's right to wear a niqab You want to mispresent that sight to cover your face as a religious right, then the KKK hood wearer, the nudist can claim it is their religious right as well.

I have yet to hear one niqab supporter tell me they honour the right of a Nazi or KKK supporter to be welcomed as a Canadian citizen at the same ceremony as that covered women replete in their garb as well.

Go on just one of you niqab supporters have the balls to address that issue and say you support the right for a KKK supporter to wear their uniform to the ceremony. Lol.Like that will happen.

I repeat again either that right you giv the niqab wearer applies to all equally or it discriminates-that's your reasoning niqab supporter, not mine.

Its easy to say accommodate the niqab now what? You have your precedent. Its o.k. to cover your face.Now tell me why since you allow that, you will be able to prevent a KKK believer from wearing their hood? Go on explain how it won't be discrimination if someone complains about the KKK uniform? Go on finish it then.

What makes one covering o.k.and not the other? Better still explain why a person can't come nude as part of their religious beliefs?

You just opened a Pandora's box of politically proper tolerance precisely because you pick and choose what you find acceptable. You niqab supporters claiming to be tolerant make me laugh. You would be the first screaming t the police if someone showed up wearing a KKK hood. Save your righteousness for someone else.

For me and others, ommon sense dictates there is a time and place for expression of individuality and no just because your religion preaches nudity does not mean you can appear in public nude.

Time and place. No your rights are not unlimited in application there has to be limitation when your desire to impose your rights creates a standard that necessarily opens the door to future problems.

i again argue a covered face is not the message we want to see as part of a celebration of inclusivity-its an act of exclusion, of segregation, its a belief that says I deliberately choose to detach myself from you and your society and stand away from you and hide my face from you because I believe my value is greater than yours.

No you do not build a society with such values, you tear one down.

So?

So finish it then niqab suppporters.

Come on this board and have the sincerity to argue you ar in favour of nudists, Nazis, KKK hoods, people wearing any kind of clothing they want at the citizenship ceremony. Tell us that the law requires we must accommodate anyone because they claim their belief is cultural,religious, ethnic. Go on finish it. SInce we accommodate all, go on, attend the ceremony in the nude, better still,smear friggin lamb blood all over you. Welcome to Canada. Welcome-do what you want. Welcome.

What a crock.

As for Muslims, this for me is not a Muslim issue. I do not give a damn who wears a face covering. Their happening to be Muslim or claiming its a Muslim religious belief is not the issue, covering your face is.

I do not believe this is an issue that allows us to discriminate against Muslims or anyone else who shows their face.

I am not going down that road. Pulling the religious card to try justify a face covering to me is as insincere as slurring all Muslims because some wear face coverings.

My issue is with the face covering period. My bone to pick is with ANY restrictive, sexist, retrograde, primitive, repressive belief- I do not care who it comes from Jew,Muslim. Christian, Hindu, etc., I have disdain and will speak out against anyone who is in my opinion trying to demand our society engage in sexist b.s.

Edited April 19, 2015 by Rue

Michael Hardner · April 19, 2015

It's not the same issue to wear a Nazi uniform than to express religious freedom, that's why. You saying it's not part of the religion means nothing.

Smallc · April 19, 2015

It's not the same issue to wear a Nazi uniform than to express religious freedom, that's why. You saying it's not part of the religion means nothing.

Are you not able to see the contradiction in what you're saying?

Michael Hardner · April 19, 2015

Are you not able to see the contradiction in what you're saying?

No. Why don't you help us out here?

Smallc · April 19, 2015

No. Why don't you help us out here?

You're deciding what is religiously required and then claiming that no one can say that something isn't religiously required.

Michael Hardner · April 20, 2015

You're deciding what is religiously required and then claiming that no one can say that something isn't religiously required.

I didn't decide that the Niqab is religious.

Smallc · April 20, 2015

I didn't decide that the Niqab is religious.

Yet you're trying to determine what is religious when it comes to other belief sets.

Michael Hardner · April 20, 2015

Yet you're trying to determine what is religious when it comes to other belief sets.

Is this an "everything is everything" argument ? Did the Supreme court (or anyone) make a real argument that this garment is not an expression of religion or that Nazi uniforms are ?

Or is this just another fun fair of semantic cartwheels ? I think we know.

Edit: Here's another one for you: if I decide my religion is robbing you then I should be able to rob you right ? Right ?

TimG · April 20, 2015

Is this an "everything is everything" argument ? Did the Supreme court (or anyone) make a real argument that this garment is not an expression of religion or that Nazi uniforms are?

The point you are missing is someone has to make the purely subjective and arbitrary decision that a particular garment is "religious" or not. In the case a niqab, many Muslims themselves say it is not an Islamic thing which means the ideology and biases of the judges hearing the case will determine whether it is declared to be "religious" or not.

The argument I am making is that people should recognize the arbitrariness of the current regime and accept that, at the end of the day, it is public consensus that matters. There is no "absolute freedom" being defended here. It is a freedom that is subject to public approval.

Edited April 20, 2015 by TimG

Smallc · April 20, 2015

Is this an "everything is everything" argument ? Did the Supreme court (or anyone) make a real argument that this garment is not an expression of religion or that Nazi uniforms are ?

Or is this just another fun fair of semantic cartwheels ? I think we know.

Edit: Here's another one for you: if I decide my religion is robbing you then I should be able to rob you right ? Right ?

Again, if you don't understand how your last statement is different....

It's not up to you or a court to decide what's religious....or it is. You can't have it both way. As long as it doesn't interfere with someone else's rights, it's hard to justify these kinds of choices unless you're willing to do it in all cases. You're the one on the semantics cartwheel, not me.

Edited April 20, 2015 by Smallc

On Guard for Thee · April 20, 2015

Actually the SC hasnt decided anything on this issue yet. It was struck down at the federal court level and because the manual the gov. had issued actually contradicted their own law. These boys just cant seem to keep their ducks in a row. I suspect if and when it gets to the SC, it will stand.

Michael Hardner · April 20, 2015

It's not up to you or a court to decide what's religious....or it is.

Yes, it's up to the court. So Rue telling us that Nazi garb is the same is just nonsense.

Smallc · April 20, 2015

Yes, it's up to the court. So Rue telling us that Nazi garb is the same is just nonsense.

Why is it up to a court to determine what is or isn't required in a particular religion? That's rather arbitrary.

On Guard for Thee · April 20, 2015

The point you are missing is someone has to make the purely subjective and arbitrary decision that a particular garment is "religious" or not. In the case a niqab, many Muslims themselves say it is not an Islamic thing which means the ideology and biases of the judges hearing the case will determine whether it is declared to be "religious" or not.

The argument I am making is that people should recognize the arbitrariness of the current regime and accept that, at the end of the day, it is public consensus that matters. There is no "absolute freedom" being defended here. It is a freedom that is subject to public approval.

Do you believe Christianity is a religion... If so I suggest you go familiarize yourself with biblical hermeneutics if you want to see arbitrary subjectivity. Then decide if you accept Christianity is a religion