.

[On Guard for Thee]

Because they always have?

I dunno, when the Muslim community holds a gay rights celebration and a bikini contest I guess I'll change my mind. Think those are gonna happen any time soon?

You fancy gay rights parades do you.

[kungfuthug]

I have come to the conclusion that has cemented my previous suspicions. It is not the Niqab or the Hijab that is the problem. It is just those damn Muslims coming to our country in the first place. Isn't that right Captain Canada? Sound about right Argus?

Edited February 17, 2015 by kungfuthug

[Argus]

Ok. So we're moving on to a new discussion now ? Sure.

Really, you're passive aggressive act is tiresome. You brought this up specifically because, I assume, you believed it was important. I responded and now you're like "Geeze! You want to talk about this now!?"

If you didn't want to talk about it you shouldn't have brought it up.

I don't agree. But I've satisfied your previous query, which you seem to acknowledge above.

You haven't satisfied anything. You've posted a survey to the effect a larger number of Muslims consider their religion secondary to their nationality than seems to exist for American Christians. It's an interesting datum but doesn't, as I've pointed out, seem to have much affect on the situation as it stands. Anyone who is wearing a niquab considers themselves Muslim first and by far foremost, and rejects Canada's cultural values.

[Argus]

You fancy gay rights parades do you.

I don't fancy people with a sixth century value system.

[overthere]

Being a CITIZEN of Canada means this: every single person that is a citizen has the right to do whatever they please within the law. Everybody. It doesn't matter if you are brown or white, Christian or Muslim, wearing a face covering or not.

There are no degrees of equailty.

It doesn';t matter where you are born, we all have the same freedoms. And that includes the freedom to cover your face at this ceremony if you choose , because the law applies to all of us.

You can also choose to ignore those who would try to deny those freedoms.

[Argus]

Being a CITIZEN of Canada means this:

The point is we don't want her as a citizen, nor her family, nor anyone like them.

[Michael Hardner]

I responded and now you're like "Geeze! You want to talk about this now!?"

You don't get to continually restate what makes this religion different after I have addressed your point. To do so reveals that your mind was made up before you made the initial point.

Anyone who is wearing a niquab considers themselves Muslim first and by far foremost, and rejects Canada's cultural values.

Perhaps, but we're starting to deconstruct this idea that these people are different from other immigrants to Canada. They certainly seem to be different than the Muslims in the source countries from which they came.

[On Guard for Thee]

The point is we don't want her as a citizen, nor her family, nor anyone like them.

Speak for yourself. any of your fellow Canadians arent racists.

[jacee]

The point is we don't want her as a citizen, nor her family, nor anyone like them.

I don't want anyone like you.

.

[cybercoma]

You don't get to continually restate what makes this religion different after I have addressed your point. To do so reveals that your mind was made up before you made the initial point.

And this is a surprise? How many biased discussions do you need to have with Argus to realize that the driving force behind anything he posts in regards to immigration is his biased and bigoted ideals?

[Michael Hardner]

And this is a surprise?

Well, to my mind it's something new. When you have people who say that their ideas are based on principles and values, you have a wedge to help you in progressive discussion. We have this with Argus.

He believes that Muslims are somehow different from others, so if you ask why you can find out whether he's right or whether he's wrong or whether he's being forthright.

How many biased discussions do you need to have with Argus to realize that the driving force behind anything he posts in regards to immigration is his biased and bigoted ideals?

At least one more it seems.

[hitops]

The law should be applied equally. Therefore, from this point on if somebody wants to wear a goalie mask, clown mask, or something from a masked ball, why not?

But why stop there. Why not simply allow people to wear a bedsheet over their bodies with an iron-on imprint of a middle finger sticking out?, if they so choose.

The law should be consistently applied, not special exceptions for the loudest group of malcontents.

Edited February 17, 2015 by hitops

[PIK]

This is a joke the SCC activist judges strike again. No way In hell can people be covered up period.If she is pissed go back to Pakistan.

Edited February 17, 2015 by PIK

[Michael Hardner]

This is a joke the SCC activist judges strike again. No way In hell can people be covered up period.

I would say this is a basic constitutional guarantee. If he was forcing people to wear crucifixes and niqabs then that might be seen as activism. You should thank god you have the SCC to guarantee your rights to be Christian PIK.

[Michael Hardner]

The law should be applied equally. Therefore, from this point on if somebody wants to wear a goalie mask, clown mask, or something from a masked ball, why not?

That's just silly, and reveals an ignorance of what religious guarantees mean.

[cybercoma]

The law should be applied equally. Therefore, from this point on if somebody wants to wear a goalie mask, clown mask, or something from a masked ball, why not?

How does the SCC ruling apply to those other things? Can you point to the specific statements they made which would support wearing goalie masks or clown masks?

[hitops]

That's just silly, and reveals an ignorance of what religious guarantees mean.

If there was a religious issue here, you might have a point. Since there is no religious text, including that of Islam, that requires a facial covering at all times, you do not.

No, apparently its fine to cover your face because you want to. If you don't agree, you're arguing for the law to be unequally applied.

Edited February 17, 2015 by hitops

[cybercoma]

This is a joke the SCC activist judges strike again. No way In hell can people be covered up period.If she is pissed go back to Pakistan.

Those SCC activist judges are the same ones that would strike down a Muslim majority's laws that would require you to stop shaving. You have fundamental rights and freedoms, just like everyone else in this country. You should be thankful that the Supreme Court upholds those values when the government is too stupid to make laws that don't contravene them.

[cybercoma]

If there was a religious issue here, you might have a point. Since there is no religious text, including that of Islam, that requires a facial covering at all times, you do not.

Did you read the SCC decision yet?

[Michael Hardner]

Since there is no religious text, including that of Islam, that requires a facial covering at all times, you do not.

"There is a difference of opinion amongst scholars in Islam as to whether or not covering the face is obligatory (fard). The niqab has continued to arouse debate between Muslim scholars and jurists both past and present concerning whether it is fard (obligatory), mustahabb (recommended/preferable), or cultural.[12]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niq%C4%81b#Views_among_Muslim_scholars

[cybercoma]

"There is a difference of opinion amongst scholars in Islam as to whether or not covering the face is obligatory (fard). The niqab has continued to arouse debate between Muslim scholars and jurists both past and present concerning whether it is fard (obligatory), mustahabb (recommended/preferable), or cultural.[12]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niqāb#Views_among_Muslim_scholars

Just to add:

"[Muslim women in Canada]'s reasons for wearing one are highly personal and individual, the study reported, but “religious obligation” and “expression of Muslim identity” were cited most often. Many women wear a niqab against family wishes, the study noted.

[snip]

Ms. Bakht, whose research focuses on religious freedom and women’s equality, said she is troubled that women who wear bikinis or undergo cosmetic surgery are assumed to be making those choices freely. Yet, when women wear niqabs, it is assumed they’ve been “duped” and don’t have the capacity to make their own choices."

http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/02/16/zunera-ishaq-the-woman-who-fought-to-wear-a-niqab-during-her-citizenship-ceremony/

[PIK]

I hope harper wins this one. I dont care what people think, this is wrong and will only lead to more crap like this. This has nothing to do with religion and it is time to stop this in its tracks. Everybody saying how harper is going to change the country, the SCC is changing the country.

Edited February 17, 2015 by PIK

[eyeball]

The law should be applied equally. Therefore, from this point on if somebody wants to wear a goalie mask, clown mask, or something from a masked ball, why not?

But why stop there. Why not simply allow people to wear a bedsheet over their bodies with an iron-on imprint of a middle finger sticking out?, if they so choose.

The law should be consistently applied, not special exceptions for the loudest group of malcontents.

It was being consistently applied and then along came Harper.

[cybercoma]

I hope harper wins this one.

Harper already lost this one. What are you talking about?

[PIK]

He is going to appeal. And the majority of canadians are with him. The only one that are not, are the ones that disagree with everything he does. This is wrong and needs to be stopped. And he could lose but it is going to be good for him during election time. She is insulting this country, by demanding something that we do not want . Head coverings who cares but when it comes to the face, no fucking way.