.

[Canada_First]

So what? Orthodox Jews won't sit with women on airplanes.

Now..... if it came to legalities, would the government of Canada deem an Oath by a Muslim valid and binding and force compliance? I'm betting it will.

Oh.... and would it force an Orthodox Jew to sit with a woman on an airplane?

Since when is flying on an airplane equal to becoming a citizen of a foreign country?

[Keepitsimple]

The vast, vast majority of Canadians are uncomfortable in the presence of a biker wearing club regalia.

Why do I doubt that they are more uncomfortable in the presence of a Muslim woman with her face covered?

Which one is more apt to do them harm? Why don't we put THAT one at the top of our election issue list?

Maybe because it's a dumb analogy? Your use of the term "uncomfortable" is misplaced. People may indeed be uncomfortable or even afraid to be near a biker. Canadians are not "uncomfortable" in that respect - they just don't think it's right. You can go ahead and spin yourself in circles but there is no denying that Canadians simply have limits on their "accommodation" - and really - is it too much to ask?

Edited September 19, 2015 by Keepitsimple

[Icebound]

Who is afraid? I simply don't think it's Canadian. I don't like it. It doesnt speak for an open and inclysive society. A niqab puts up walls where none need exist. Thats all. Thats my opinion. I'm entitled to it.

All kinds of immigrants live their own world inside Canada.

I know a close relative, who arrived in Canada as a 6-month-old-baby, never went to school, never learned to read or write English in her 80-something years of life in Canada. Why wasn't it a problem? Because she and her ghetto were white and nobody noticed. When she walked down-town, she looked just like everybody else.

And that kind of thing happened in all sorts of immigrant groups. Two or three generations later.... her descendants are all part of the "Canadian fabric" and the issue is pretty well no more.... THEY are now the ones complaining about people "not fitting in", forgetting that their grandmother never did either.

There is no reason to believe this will turn out any differently.

Canadian law weeds out the extremists... we have already had some convictions for honour killings and the like.... the rest will live in "freedom" to live and worship as they like, and become your kids' best friends. The woman in the niqab may become your grand-kid's grand-mother-in-law.

[Icebound]

Since when is flying on an airplane equal to becoming a citizen of a foreign country?

It is even MORE relevant..

Someone take a citizenship oath with her face covered affects ME.... personally .... ZERO, NADA...

Some asking me to change seats so I could accommodate his religious beliefs is INCONVENIENCING ME..... me, PERSONALLY.

Edited September 19, 2015 by Icebound

[scribblet]

Cite?

I haven't seen anyone suggest that all Muslim people who come to 'this country are men'.. that is not true. I haven't seen anything at all that says that.

Looks like the NDP candidate I referred to earlier as to apologize -

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/election/ndp-candidate-backs-off-proposal-to-reopen-constitution-for-senate-niqab-1.2571347?hootPostID=12d08bcfb05afbcc76f2ce7cbd15d315

[Icebound]

Maybe because it's a dumb analogy? Your use of the term "uncomfortable" is not misplaced. People may indeed be uncomfortable or even afraid to be near a biker. Canadians are not "uncomfortable" in that respect - they just don't think it's right. You can go ahead and spin yourself in circles but there is no denying that Canadians simply have limits on their "accommodation" - and really - is it too much to ask?

Okay.... just for arguments sake.... suppose that people feel that this is "not right". Does that justify explicit prohibitory legislation???

If so, then Canadians better get their priorities in order. there are a lot of other things that are "not right" that should be legislated out of existence...obscene T-shirts...tobacco....police with criminal convictions... bad rap music.... corporations fudging their car computers to circumvent the anti-pollution laws.... walmart .... and I could go on.

These are things that I don't like and would like to see some action on.... WAY before spending what we already have on niqab legislation.

[GostHacked]

The biggest irony in all of this is that the government is asking people to "swear" an oath, which is a religious affirmation, but then wants to control how people taking the oath express their religiosity in that moment. They are never going to win that court challenge. You can't insist people take an oath, then tell them they can't observe their faith in that moment.

What is religious about the oath?

[GostHacked]

Since when is flying on an airplane equal to becoming a citizen of a foreign country?

They are only similar in the sense of 'reasonable accommodation'. What are your thoughts on the Jewish man not wanting to sit near women?

[Icebound]

What is religious about the oath?

Most dictionary definitions of "oath" or "swearing and oath" include something about .... invoking a deity or other sacred object.

"Oaths" are an anachronism, back to a time when religion .... ie: "God" .... was considered more important than secular authority.

And even if that were so, I think today's society can be equally served by a simple, signed, witnessed contract/agreement.

[cybercoma]

oh man. Reading the actual decision is enlightening.

http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/108049/index.do

[---SNIP---]

Just to sum up: The judge determined that this was not a charter issue; The policy did not adhere to the Legislation and so the Policy is unlawful.

The government went through a whole bunch of internal policy writing rigamoral to come up with a policy and directions to the functionaries so's that things could be the way that they honestly believe things should be.

But! But they wouldn't go through any trouble to change the legislation! We don't need no stinking parliamentary debates or votes we just change policy and bobs-yer-uncle.

and they do this over and over again, then sob about bleeding-heart liberals ignoring the will of the people.

and that is why I would never vote for these clowns

Thanks for posting the actual decision. Your conclusion at the end is what I've been saying for pages and pages after having read about the decision myself in a private correspondence. I wasn't able to find a public link to it at that time. So it's as I've been saying. The government issued a policy that contradicted the existing legislation around how citizenship ceremonies are held. Policies are what we call "soft" laws, while the regulations are "hard" laws. A soft law never overrules a hard law. So as I've been trying to tell conservatives here, the government wasn't shot down because of a human rights violation, they were shot down because they issued a policy that contradicted the existing laws about citizenship ceremonies. This is why I don't believe the SCC will even hear the appeal. It's not a charter challenge and the lower courts carried out the process appropriately.

[cybercoma]

What is religious about the oath?

Oaths by definition are religious. If you are not religious you make a legal affirmation; however, swearing an oath is a religious process. Oaths are considered sacred in the religious sense. As society becomes less religious, oaths become divorced from their original meaning.

If you look into it, there are a number of various religious precepts around oaths, depending on a person's faith. In Islam, they're taken very seriously. Breaking an oath is one of the biggest sins you can commit in Islam. For some Christians, like Mennonites, they're not even allowed to swear oaths.

But it's a religious process and in this case it's legally binding as well.

[cybercoma]

And even if that were so, I think today's society can be equally served by a simple, signed, witnessed contract/agreement.

This is accounted for in the citizenship regulations. You can make a "solemn affirmation" that is legally binding. The actual public oath is moot though. You sign legal paperwork before the ceremony that is binding.

[BubberMiley]

I haven't seen anyone suggest that all Muslim people who come to 'this country are men'.. that is not true. I haven't seen anything at all that says that.

I haven`t seen anything that says that either, but you said 75% and then 72% were men even after it was shown you weren't telling the truth. Also, Peter Kent, who is a CPC MP, retweeted Ezra Levant's bogus claim, which you still haven't apologized for repeating, even after you knew it wasn't true. All you did was say something about how people on the left can be as dishonest as you (but did not provide a cite to back that up).

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...photo-1.3219625

Edited September 19, 2015 by BubberMiley

[jbg]

Well for one thing the other extreme is not allowed even in Canada (birthday suit) right?

They are allowed at Nunavut, NWT or YT elections if the elections fall between November and March.

[eyeball]

Maybe because it's a dumb analogy? Your use of the term "uncomfortable" is misplaced. People may indeed be uncomfortable or even afraid to be near a biker. Canadians are not "uncomfortable" in that respect - they just don't think it's right. You can go ahead and spin yourself in circles but there is no denying that Canadians simply have limits on their "accommodation" - and really - is it too much to ask?

Yes it is. Because it's such an interminably stupid requirement.

Hey, if it's any consolation this issue has convinced me beyond a doubt the vast majority of Canadians really are as stupid as most conservatives have been trying to tell me for years now. Sad but dismayingly true.

Edited September 20, 2015 by eyeball

[Keepitsimple]

Yes it is. Because it's such an interminably stupid requirement.

Hey, if it's any consolation this issue has convinced me beyond a doubt the vast majority of Canadians really are as stupid as most conservatives have been trying to tell me for years now. Sad but dismayingly true.

You're fully entitled to your opinion - that's the beauty of Canada - but it would be even better if you'd respect the opinions of others - especially if they represent the vast majority. I haven't seen anyone calling you stupid......

[eyeball]

It's stupidity I don't have any respect for.

So tell me, why isn't Harper promising to open up our living breathing mutable constitution so the vast majority of Canadians opinions can be respected? Wouldn't that be the smart thing to do in the wake of all the disrespect the SCC has shown towards the same vast majority of Canadian's and Parliament's opinions on a number of files during Harper's terms?

[cybercoma]

He doesn't even have to open the constitution. He just has to use the notwithstanding clause. The problem is that the niqab ruling makes no reference to the Charter. It refers to Harper's own citizenship legislation. Thus, the notwithstanding clause is not applicable.

Edited September 20, 2015 by cybercoma

[Evening Star]

I don't think anyone has mentioned this BQ ad yet, where they try to compete with the Tories for the bigot vote in Quebec. Roughly:

"Elections are coming. If Thomas Mulcair is elected, we'll get a nice big pipeline, even if we don't want it. Even if you don't agree with people wearing the niqab when voting or swearing their citizenship, Thomas Mulcair does. It's the last straw. I'm going back to the Bloc."

I'm actually a little touched that the Bloc is so concerned about the sanctity of the Canadian citizenship ceremony.

[jbg]

I don't think anyone has mentioned this BQ ad yet, where they try to compete with the Tories for the bigot vote in Quebec. Roughly:

I'm actually a little touched that the Bloc is so concerned about the sanctity of the Canadian citizenship ceremony.

Funny, ain't it?

[Machjo]

The rationale behind banning the niqab?

As far as I can tell, the rationale behind abrogating the freedom of a woman to wear the niqab is to expand her freedom.

What I don't understand is how do we advance women's freedom by further restricting women's freedom? It seems irrational to me.

[eyeball]

It seems irrational to me.

Because it's conservative. The Liberals and NDPer's that lean this way are conservative in their thinking too.

Everyone naturally has an element of conservatism in them that usually serves them well but when this natural force is politicized and unrestrained it leads to irrational results. When so much effort is expended on encouraging people to give way to this impulsiveness and millions upon millions of people do, society goes bonkers.

Ironically enough, Muslim society seems even more ungoverned by conservative thinking than ours.

Edited September 25, 2015 by eyeball

[PIK]

There is no reason for it, nothing in the Koran that says they have to wear it. Our laws are being tested to see how far the laws can be pushed. Here we have one women complaining and the left want to change our laws to accommodate her, one person. HDS at its worst. But 82% of Canadians are behind harper on this one and 92% of Quebec. Harper is the only leader willing to stand up against this attack on our values and way of life and culture. What is next, her wearing a face covering when she gets a drivers lic. We cant even smile when we get ours taken. It seems people on the left have no respect for this country and that is just sickening.

[Big Guy]

I believe that a large part of one's position depends on your attitude to immigration, refugees and superiority of Western values. Bigots, xenophobics and racists will have a knee jerk reaction based on the fact that a niqab is different and "not like us" so it should not be allowed.

There are others who will rationalize and interpret the issue to their personal agenda. Feminists tend to see the niqab as a male idea to influence the woman to wear one and therefore are against the wearing. Other women feel that in the West, women have the right to wear what they want and banning the wearing of the niqab is restricting their right to choose.

A very small number of people actually believe that taking of any oath should require one to be easily identifiable during the process.

Still others believe that when someone comes to Canada, they are the ones who must adjust to our "culture" rather than us having to accommodate their "strange" customs. The other side will argue that we really are a "cultural mosaic" and the acceptance of parts of other peoples cultures is a strength rather than a weakness for Canada.

What I understand the facts to be are: Any woman wearing a niqab is required to show her face to the official when she completes the process of requesting citizenship. Then, during the symbolic part, the oath, she is allowed to wear it.

Personally, the current process guarantees that the right person is granted citizenship. I see no potential "fraud" involved. The accommodation part is tricky. I remember a few problems in Canadian schools over the years with Jews wearing a yarmulke while eating in school cafeterias while others were told to remove their hats, Sikh Kirpans carried by students in schools and Sikh turbans worn in Legions. All these conditions were accommodated mainly because of the infrequency of having to deal with the issue.

I have been unable to find out how many women actually wear a niqab. I was watching a TV program where the commentator suggested that only about 50 women in Quebec wear one. That would mean that there are twice the number of murders (about 100) in Quebec yearly than women who wear a niqab - so for me the issue is miniscule relative to other problems we have to deal with.

I believe that Canada is a country of immigrants. We have survived and blossomed by accommodating new Canadian cultures for the first couple generations while subsequent ones Canadianize. I see multi-culturalism as a strength by accepting the fact that others are equal to us and can be accommodated with no minimizing of Canadian values.

[PIK]

Allowing this is going back wards not forward.