.

On Guard for Thee · April 21, 2015

They're all based on nonsense. Just because it's old nonsense doesn't mean it's better.

Well you may have the basis for another thread there. This one is dealing with the current reality. And in full disclosure I say that as one who follows no particular religion.

jacee · April 21, 2015

Well you may have the basis for another thread there. This one is dealing with the current reality. And in full disclosure I say that as one who follows no particular religion.

We've kind of skirted this issue throughout this thread: What constitutes a valid religious belief subject to constitutional protections?

I suspect some formal recognition of the religion (tax free status?) and a personal firmly held belief in a particular religious practice - wearing a niqab.

Not sure about Smallc's colander habit though.

.

Edited April 21, 2015 by jacee

On Guard for Thee · April 21, 2015

We've kind of skirted this issue throughout this thread: What constitutes a valid religious belief subject to constitutional protections?

I suspect some formal recognition of the religion (tax free status?) and a personal firmly held belief in a particular religious practice - wearing a niqab.

Not sure about Smallc's colander habit though.

.

What I find ironic in a way is arguing for someones rights to follow something (religion) I dont bother with myself. As much as it may sound like just copping a well worn cliche, I really do believe in the old live and let live idea. This country is held in high esteem for its freedoms, and I dont just mean news stories and such. In my travels to a lot of out of the way places I have found the man or woman in the street tend to perk up when you say Oh Im from Canada. I doubt the colander issue will impinge on that any time soon.

jacee · April 21, 2015

I'm sure Smallc's off recruiting but I think you're right that colanders won't make a big dent in Canada's credibility.

And failing to "live and let live" could.

.

On Guard for Thee · April 21, 2015

I'm sure Smallc's off recruiting but I think you're right that colanders won't make a big dent in Canada's credibility.

And failing to "live and let live" could.

.

I moved to Toronto as a teen and was very happily entranced with the cheek by jowl of the various cultures. What a loss it would have been to take some sort of weird isolationist, protectionist attitude like some here have. All is not perfect for sure, but who the hell wants to live in a fish bowl!

jbg · April 21, 2015

I moved to Toronto as a teen and was very happily entranced with the cheek by jowl of the various cultures. What a loss it would have been to take some sort of weird isolationist, protectionist attitude like some here have. All is not perfect for sure, but who the hell wants to live in a fish bowl!

We should have other cultures. But in the workaday world and official functions we should adhere to the majority culture.

jacee · April 21, 2015

We should have other cultures. But in the workaday world and official functions we should adhere to the majority culture.

We "should" each do what we damn well want to.

.

jbg · April 21, 2015

We "should" each do what we damn well want to.

.

Should I be able to go to work in my birthday suit?

jacee · April 21, 2015

Should I be able to go to work in my birthday suit?

No that's illegal in Canada. Can you do that in the US where you live?

Grow up.

And I'd like to remind you once again that a USian 'should' not be telling Canadians what we 'should' do in our own country.

Our cultures are similar, but they are not the same, and it is not your business.

.

Edited April 21, 2015 by jacee

cybercoma · April 21, 2015

I've never had an opinion about the court case. On the other hand, as an atheist, I think it's strange when people rank made up superstitions in order of validity.

Ranking?

jbg · April 21, 2015

No that's illegal in Canada. Can you do that in the US where you live?

Grow up.

And I'd like to remind you once again that a USian 'should' not be telling Canadians what we 'should' do in our own country.

Our cultures are similar, but they are not the same, and it is not your business.

.

So why can't Canada outlaw niqab use entirely?

cybercoma · April 21, 2015

So why can't Canada outlaw niqab use entirely?

For the same reason they don't ban yamulkas or payots.

On Guard for Thee · April 21, 2015

We should have other cultures. But in the workaday world and official functions we should adhere to the majority culture.

What does HAVE other cultures mean.....I seem to be getting an image of a zoo.

bush_cheney2004 · April 21, 2015

...And I'd like to remind you once again that a USian 'should' not be telling Canadians what we 'should' do in our own country.

Our cultures are similar, but they are not the same, and it is not your business.

.

Indeed...that privilege is only reserved for some Canadians telling USians and other nationals what they 'should' do in their country.

Michael Hardner · April 21, 2015

So we have:

"The Niquab isn't religious" (Rue, no cite for that and I can't find any reference to that being addressed or even brought up by anybody in the summary article in the Toronto Star)

"The court can't/shouldn't rule on religions and/or it's weird if they do" (smallc, as his closing point in a thread that started with something about wearing Nazi uniforms at your swearing-in ceremony)

"I should be able to be naked, or something" (jbg)

Not much. Anybody else ?

Rue · April 21, 2015

Michael Harder writing back to me and posing as a debate position, 'no its not', is not debating. It shows you have no basis for your response.

Mr. Harder arguing one person can wear what they want but another can not, is a contradiction. Its not rocket science. Its you creating a double standard.

Go on and finish the sentence. Why is it not. Why is telling one person they can wear a face covering but another they can not different. Finish wht you started. If you cannot, then show some integrity and move on.

If you don't want to make an effort to respond because you have no idea how to respond to your contradiction walk away.

Your response is no different than the other one's who can't offer anything but name calling.

Bottom line, its not me who says the niqab is not a religious obligation, its Muslims. Making it personal and suggesting it comes from me is a cheap shot, and its what you do so don't come on this forum acting like you are capable of being neutral and some fresh air. Go find out where the niqab practice comes from and stop suggesting it comes from me or Islam. Enough

Many of us do not want faces covered and we don't give a damn whether that person is a Muslim,KKK member,Jew, Nazi, it is the exact same principle to us because unlike you we don't pick and chose arbitrarily and without objective reason.

Edited April 21, 2015 by Rue

Michael Hardner · April 21, 2015

Michael Harder writing back to me and posing as a debate position, 'no its not', is not debating. It shows you have no basis for your response.

Actually, my point is that you have to back up your points which you did not.

Mr. Harder arguing one person can wear what they want but another can not, is a contradiction. Its not rocket science.

Correct. It's not rocket science, it is law.

No many of us do not want faces covered and we don't give a damn whether that person is a Muslim,KKK member,Jew, Nazi, it is the exact same principle to us because unlike you we don't pick and chose from the Michal Harder list of acceptable practices what should be allowed.

Yes, what YOU want doesn't matter to anybody as I have pointed out. Back up your points and make us understand why what YOU want has benefits to all Canadians, thanks.

As for your assertion that one costume, one face covering is the same as another that just ignored the presence of religious costume as protected expression. The court didn't even consider that. Please try to explain why any of us should care what you like/don't like. It's not really an argument if you say "this should be this way".

Thanks for posting.

cybercoma · April 21, 2015

Anyone arguing equivalence between a white supremacist outfit and religious/cultural tradition is just being argumentative for no reason. No reasonable person would see these as the same thing. It's not even worth arguing.

Edited April 21, 2015 by cybercoma

Michael Hardner · April 21, 2015

No reasonable person would see these as the same thing. It's not even worth arguing.

I agree. The only argument here is what is considered 'reasonable'. I can see the argument against hiding your face, but not if other accommodations can be made as is this case.

I do understand people who lament change, especially cultural change, but the world has been crashing together since ... I don't know ... 1492. You can put a fence up around your country, if you can convince people to do that, but you will miss out on economic and cultural developments in the world.

cybercoma · April 21, 2015

Time and again our legal code states "reasonable." That's open to interpretation, but that's what the judiciary is for. They decide what is reasonable and when things get to the Supreme Court, no single person decides. A panel of 9 judges do. All of these arguments about nonsense like, "Why can't I salute Hitler and call for the annihilation of the Jews at my swearing in ceremony" offer nothing to the discussion.

Edited April 21, 2015 by cybercoma

Michael Hardner · April 21, 2015

... nonsense like, "Why can't I salute Hitler and call for the annihilation of the Jews at my swearing in ceremony" offer nothing to the discussion.

I agree, except that they perhaps signal that the process does work for reasonable viewpoints. The dissenting judges had an opinion too but those aren't really echoed here in the ridiculous arguments as you point out.

cybercoma · April 21, 2015

I agree, except that they perhaps signal that the process does work for reasonable viewpoints. The dissenting judges had an opinion too but those aren't really echoed here in the ridiculous arguments as you point out.

And that's just it. The conversation here is 109 pages deep and the dissenting views here haven't even bothered to hold up the reasonable dissenting opinions of the judges. We've got over a hundred pages of completely unreasonable nonsense that doesn't even apply to the ruling. More importantly the majority of people seem to have missed the point that the charter wasn't even applied here in this case. Jason Kenney's "policy" contradicted a Conservative created and passed law.

TimG · April 21, 2015

I agree, except that they perhaps signal that the process does work for reasonable viewpoints. The dissenting judges had an opinion too but those aren't really echoed here in the ridiculous arguments as you point out.

The point I am making is there is no absolute principal here. Free speech is not absolute in this country and the question of what is allowed comes down to a question of what people are comfortable with. When it comes to the niqab reasonable people can argue it is not a religious requirement and it does symbolize some pretty objectionable ideas. You may have no problem with objectionable ideas which means you should also be fine nazi uniforms and KKK hoods. If you want to argue that those things are beyond the pale all you are doing is proving my point about the rules being subjective and you can't say people are wrong to call for a ban on niqabs - only that you are not personally bothered by them.

poochy · April 21, 2015

Sometime i wonder if the charter did not protect some of these cultural or religious practices to the degree that it seems to would the same people who defend those practices continue to defend them in opposition to the charter? Or do you beleive in the rights of someone to keep their head covered simply because you have been told that they should have that right, in other words for you the charter is absolute, it is your moral and ethical guide?

There are reasonable limits on our rights, peronally i don't think this practice is something we should want in this country, hopefully as others have said it will take care of itself over time as these women and thier offspring become more westernized. But i don't think the charter should protect that right, I beleive that because i also beleive it's a symbol of a repressive culture, something which is a negative for the country, representative of things we have been trying to leave behind, something we don't need more of. Meanwhile i see lots of arguments from those that support it that amount to, well the charter says so. As if the charter could possibly account for everything, what a simplistic view.

guyser · April 21, 2015

Sometime i wonder if the charter did not protect some of these cultural or religious practices to the degree that it seems to would the same people who defend those practices continue to defend them in opposition to the charter?

The Charter doesnt protect those cultural or religious practices, it merely enshrines the fact that govt cannot restrict them.

There are reasonable limits on our rights, peronally i don't think this practice is something we should want in this country, hopefully as others have said it will take care of itself over time as these women and thier offspring become more westernized.

Many believe this will happen as it has happened before with other cultures. Many also believe as this will happen there is no need for the govt to enshrine cultural laws so to speak.

Govts have a horrible record for thinking things through, the law of unintended consequences.

But i don't think the charter should protect that right, I beleive that because i also beleive it's a symbol of a repressive culture, something which is a negative for the country, representative of things we have been trying to leave behind, something we don't need more of. Meanwhile i see lots of arguments from those that support it that amount to, well the charter says so. As if the charter could possibly account for everything, what a simplistic view.

The Charter does say so.

But more importantly the govt cannot infinge on one sectors rights while leaving the others at bay.

Head coverings are the issue, not niqabs . We ban head converings and all the lil kids and M/C riders and snowmobilers and halloween goers and cold weather aficionados can be arrested.

Your honour it was -35C . I was trying to keep warm.

Too bad son, the Harper Government (trademarked copyright) has decreed it illegal!

That was for the NIqab.

Son, politicians are lousy thinkers and they made the law.

3 months for you !