.

[Argus]

Which means what exactly? Governments give lots of tax credits. If you want to talk about killing tax credits, great, let's talk about it. But what you're saying is that you don't think people who, by your definition, don't pay taxes, should be allowed to vote, even though whatever credits they may get at the end of the year, during the year, they are almost certainly paying a whole host of taxes and fees. You are talking about disenfranchising people based on income level.

If you don't contribute, why should you get to vote? Maybe we could set up a thing where you could vote on laws, but not on anything that affects how money is spent, given you contribute nothing. There are too many freeloaders in our society. Why should they get to vote themselves more goodies at my expense?

What kind of a responsible voter are you going to make when you aren't going to be paying for anything? Obviously the only issue on your mind come election time is going to be what goodies you're going to be offered. How will the goodies be paid for? Who cares!?

Edited October 5, 2015 by Argus

[angrypenguin]

If you don't contribute, why should you get to vote?

Simple. So they can get maximum help via social programs that the rest of us pay for.

[ToadBrother]

Simple. So they can get maximum help via social programs that the rest of us pay for.

So you think the right to vote should be based on income as well? What if I were a net contributor to the public coffers for twenty years, but then went bankrupt? Are you saying my right to vote should be terminated?

Thank goodness democratic rights are enshrined in the Constitution, and are among the Charter rights that cannot be touched by the Not-withstanding clause.

[angrypenguin]

So you think the right to vote should be based on income as well? What if I were a net contributor to the public coffers for twenty years, but then went bankrupt? Are you saying my right to vote should be terminated?

Thank goodness democratic rights are enshrined in the Constitution, and are among the Charter rights that cannot be touched by the Not-withstanding clause.

I think the right to vote should be based on income; however, what I think is irrelevant. The problem of my thoughts is that the social inequity would essentially cause the poor to be infinitely poorer. Social programs would diminish significantly.

So what I want to see happen is different than what I think about this whole silly notion. It would be insane to implement, but then again, I've been called worse

[The_Squid]

If you don't contribute, why should you get to vote? Maybe we could set up a thing where you could vote on laws, but not on anything that affects how money is spent, given you contribute nothing. There are too many freeloaders in our society. Why should they get to vote themselves more goodies at my expense?

What kind of a responsible voter are you going to make when you aren't going to be paying for anything? Obviously the only issue on your mind come election time is going to be what goodies you're going to be offered. How will the goodies be paid for? Who cares!?

Charter will prevent such radical libertarian ideals from ever happening in Canada... which is a good thing. My disabled friend is no less a citizen than anyone who pays income taxes.

And you still don't understand that there are other taxes other than income taxes....

[Big Guy]

To The_Squid - found the following at Ontario Human Rights Commission:

http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/iv-human-rights-issues-all-stages-employment/7-pay-benefits-dress-codes-and-other-issues

ii) Dress codes:
Employers can have a dress code or rules about dress that meet the business needs of the organization, as long as they comply with the Code. Rules about dress may include having to wear a uniform or having to wear protective gear. Design such rules to be inclusive of all employees, including men and women, people with disabilities, and anyone who needs accommodation for religious reasons. Make sure that any requirements are made in good faith and are genuinely required to do the job.

Example: All employees are expected to wear blue clothing with the company logo when on duty. The options are shorts or pants, shirts with either short or long sleeves and skirts at either knee or ankle length. The dress code states that religious head coverings of any type may be worn with the uniform. Women are not required to wear skirts and, in fact, most choose to wear pants. Female employees who wish to dress modestly for religious reasons appreciate the option of being able to wear ankle-length skirts without needing to make an accommodation request.

While it is acceptable for men and women to have different uniforms, employers must make sure that any uniform policy does not undermine the dignity and right to full participation in the workplace of employees of either sex. An employer should be prepared to prove that any sex-linked differences in the dress code are bona fide occupational requirements. Do not subject female employees to more difficult requirements than male employees, and do not expect them to dress provocatively to attract clients. It is discrimination based on sex to require female employees to wear high heels, short skirts and tight tops.

Where employees are providing services to the public, a requirement that employees wear name badges can be a part of preventing or tackling racism and racial discrimination. For example, police officers or security guards who may be involved in racial profiling during their shifts can be more easily identified if they wear name badges.

Employers will need to provide accommodation to the point of undue hardship for dress code issues that cannot be addressed through inclusive design. See also Section IV-8f(ii) – “Creed – accommodating employees’ religious needs” and Section IV-8e(vi) – “Dress codes and accommodation requests.”

[The_Squid]

I already posted something similar.

Employers can make a dress code.

If you work at a law firm and show up at a client meeting with 12 nose rings and wearing a niqab when there is clearly a business-formal dress code, then you won't have a job for long.

In my office, if you have a mohawk and meet with clients like that wearing a leather jacket and no shirt, you won't have a job any longer.

Dress codes are perfectly reasonable.

[Big Guy]

...

Dress codes are perfectly reasonable.

I agree. But when do subjective dress codes cross the line of personal freedom? Would a Palestinian scarf be acceptable for a receptionist at a Jewish retirement home? A Kippah by a waiter in a Palestinian restaurant?

Freedoms, when compared, then have to be prioritized of which freedom supersedes the other. Then we again wade into the mud of appropriate accommodation. What is "appropriate" is subjective and what is "accommodation" can be argued as being a right.

[ReeferMadness]

A woman who plans to wear the niqab at her citizenship ceremony writes in the Toronto Star

I am not looking for Mr. Harper to approve my life choices or dress. I am certainly not looking for him to speak on my behalf and “save” me from oppression, without even ever having bothered to reach out to me and speak with me.

And by the way, if he had bothered to ask me why I wear a niqab instead of making assumptions, I would have told him that it was a decision I took very seriously after I had looked into the matter thoroughly. I would tell him that aside from the religious aspect, I like how it makes me feel: like people have to look beyond what I look like to get to know me. That I don’t have to worry about my physical appearance and can concentrate on my inner self. That it empowers me in this regard.

Doesn't seem too threatening to me. But if you're inclined to see a terrorist every time you look at a Muslim, maybe it is scary.

[cybercoma]

The Federal Court has slapped down the Harper Government request for a stay of the recent ruling. You can read the ruling here: http://decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca/fca-caf/decisions/en/item/120099/index.do

Oh and before Argus gets on his high horse about "activist judges," the one who issued the dismissal was appointed by Stephen Harper himself.

[cybercoma]

Christ, this ruling is hilarious. The Harper Government actually tried to argue that it would cause "irreparable harm" for the ruling to stand, despite admitting during the trial that the ban was up to the discretion of the judges and was only "strongly recommended." Further still, they tried to argue that overturning the policy would leave a void, but the judge goes on to note that this is false and that it just reverts to existing law (the Citizenship Act, as it were).

DIsmissed with costs going to the government.

What a clown show.

[ReeferMadness]

Christ, this ruling is hilarious. The Harper Government actually tried to argue that it would cause "irreparable harm" for the ruling to stand, despite admitting during the trial that the ban was up to the discretion of the judges and was only "strongly recommended." Further still, they tried to argue that overturning the policy would leave a void, but the judge goes on to note that this is false and that it just reverts to existing law (the Citizenship Act, as it were).

DIsmissed with costs going to the government.

What a clown show.

Sadly, the Conservatives don't care if they win in court or not. This is dog whistle politics and it has already had the effect of reinforcing their base and wooing away voters.

It's pathetic.

[ReeferMadness]

This cartoon illustrates the ridiculousness of the niqab debate perfectly.

Edited October 5, 2015 by ReeferMadness

[Peter F]

Christ, this ruling is hilarious. The Harper Government actually tried to argue that it would cause "irreparable harm" for the ruling to stand, despite admitting during the trial that the ban was up to the discretion of the judges and was only "strongly recommended." Further still, they tried to argue that overturning the policy would leave a void, but the judge goes on to note that this is false and that it just reverts to existing law (the Citizenship Act, as it were).

DIsmissed with costs going to the government.

What a clown show.

I know. What a bunch of maroons.

[20] [/size][/size]Presuming that the appellant is right that the Policy at issue is not mandatory and citizenship judges can apply it or not — to use the appellant’s language as expressed by counsel at the hearing of the appeal, that the Policy merely amounts to an encouragement in the strongest language possible — how can one raise a claim of irreparable harm?[/size]

[21]... It is simply inconsistent to claim, on the one hand, that a policy has no binding effect on decision-makers, but that irreparable harm would result if that policy was to be declared unlawful on the other.

It is incredible the lengths this government will go to in bullshitting their own supporters. Not to worry, citizens, this government has put an end to niquab

wearing during citizenship oaths.

Then turn around upon legal challenge and say that nobody is required to remove any face-coverings!

Then be horrified when the judge says ok then your policy is bullshit.

Gold! Jerry. Pure gold!

[The_Squid]

This cartoon illustrates the ridiculousness of the niqab debate perfectly.

No, it doesn't.

The woman on the left chooses what to wear...

The woman on the right is often forced through the backwards cultural practice and strict fundementalism of her family to be covered head to toe with only her eyes showing. The punishment for not doing so can be abuse or for her to be ostracized.

There's a big difference.

Edited October 6, 2015 by The_Squid

[ReeferMadness]

No, it doesn't.

The woman on the left chooses what to wear...

The woman on the right is often forced through the backwards cultural practice and strict fundementalism of her family to be covered head to toe with only her eyes showing. The punishment for not doing so can be abuse or for her to be ostracized.

There's a big difference.

Not always.

Don't tell me. Explain to this woman what gives you the right to decide if she is oppressed.

[dialamah]

No, it doesn't.

The woman on the left chooses what to wear...

The woman on the right is often forced through the backwards cultural practice and strict fundementalism of her family to be covered head to toe with only her eyes showing. The punishment for not doing so can be abuse or for her to be ostracized.

There's a big difference.

In the case of each individual woman, you can't know what her particular situation is. There are men who insist their wives/girlfriends dress as skimpily as possible as often as possible. If the women object, they are punished. They are few and far between, relative to the entire population, but they outnumber women who wear the niqab in Canada.

I suppose if you saw a woman in a modest one-piece, you wouldn't assume that she's only wearing it because her male relatives would punish her for wearing a bikini, which is what she'd really like to wear. Or if you saw a woman in a modest dress; for all you know, she'd like to wear jeans and a tank top - but her male relatives do not consider that 'appropriate' so she wears a dress she hates.

You cannot make assumptions about individual women.

If you are really concerned about women being oppressed by male relatives, look at all women in Canada - not just the ones who happen to wear a niqab.

[The_Squid]

Come on... who are you guys trying to fool? The practice is an extremely mysoginistic cultural practice of fundementalists... just because there are exceptions doesn't mean that this is a benign cultural practice that doesn't harm women. Give me a break....

A decent summary:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/banning-the-niqab-harms-an-open-society-so-does-wearing-it/article23469409/

[eyeball]

No, it doesn't.

The woman on the left chooses what to wear...

The woman on the right is often forced through the backwards cultural practice and strict fundementalism of her family to be covered head to toe with only her eyes showing. The punishment for not doing so can be abuse or for her to be ostracized.

There's a big difference.

To clinch the difference in reality though, the state should be cracking down on the misogynists instead of their victims. Why can't the state make the case that forcing the women to comply with Canadian values is actually targeted at the misogynists to let them know their misogyny will not be tolerated?

[The_Squid]

To clinch the difference in reality though, the state should be cracking down on the misogynists instead of their victims. Why can't the state make the case that forcing the women to comply with Canadian values is actually targeted at the misogynists to let them know their misogyny will not be tolerated?

I agree wholeheartedly.... one of the ways is to tell mysoginists that they can no loger dress women up in sheets...

I'm not sure how else that might be accomplished...

[eyeball]

I agree wholeheartedly.... one of the ways is to tell mysoginists that they can no loger dress women up in sheets...

I'm not sure how else that might be accomplished...

How about a public education campaign instead of a public vilification campaign?

Otherwise we could just rely on what we've always done when it comes to waves of immigrants leaving old cultural practices that are at odds with Canadian values behind - the passage of time.

[ReeferMadness]

Come on... who are you guys trying to fool? The practice is an extremely mysoginistic cultural practice of fundementalists... just because there are exceptions doesn't mean that this is a benign cultural practice that doesn't harm women. Give me a break....

One more time. What gives you the right to tell this woman she is oppressed?

Would you deny women the choice of wearing a girdle? How about a nun wearing a habit? Or a Mennonite wearing the getup that Mennonites wear? Honestly, I think women in Canada are oppressed because we live in a society that expects them to shave their body hair (which is arguably more barbaric than covering one's face).

And there are lots of ways women (or men for that matter) can be oppressed that don't involve clothing.

So, you know what? It's up to society to foster an environment where equality can be achieved. And if women (or men) are oppressed, we need to help them. But you and Stephen Harper have no right to take away their decision as to whether they are oppressed or not.

[dialamah]

How about a public education campaign instead of a public vilification campaign?

Otherwise we could just rely on what we've always done when it comes to waves of immigrants leaving old cultural practices that are at odds with Canadian values behind - the passage of time.

Exactly. Education and exposure will be much more effective at releasing women from subjugation than will government imposed dress codes, or even sending out pamphlets telling them it's wrong. Just like partisans, the people we most want to reach will look at those kinds of things and think ... "Those people don't know what they're talking about."

The following quote is from a discussion on reddit, specifically asking Muslim women about their experience wearing niqab. Many women answered, few wore the niqab, all felt it was a personal choice - except in those countries that made it a law. Also mentioned was that the niqab was very useful in the desert for protection from the sun, though not necessarily in black. .

Discrimination exists but it's never been bad for me. What I hate are the "well meaning" activists who assume that they need to save me from my honor killing family or my own brain washed thinking. It's very insulting.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/2hbl8v/muslim_women_of_reddit_what_are_your_opinions_on/

The next quote is from a study of 122 niqab wearing women in Britain. According to the study, niqab-wearing became much more common after 2000; prior to that it was relatively rare - this is not a 14th century tradition. All of these women had taken it up of their own free will - albeit many of them in the context of a strong belief in Islam, through their own study or through their family. Of the women interviewed, almost half were single and 4 were divorced. Women who are single/divorced cannot be said to be made to wear the niqab by their husbands. The assumption that niqab-wearing women is forced to do so by family/husband appears to be the least likely reason, if this sample is representative.

There was no evidence that parents forced their daughters to wear the niqab. The in-depth testimonies showed that when parents applied pressure, it was always to convince a daughter to remove the niqab. One testimony revealed that the tensions between a father and his daughter had spilled over into violence. Severe conflicts between parents and daughters were rare.

• Some husbands were very influential in their wives’ decision to adopt the veil; others opposed their partners’ choice. Most of the married women interviewed had taken to the niqab before meeting their husbands and those who adopted it after their marriage were overwhelmingly supported by their husbands.

https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/sites/default/files/behind-veil-20150401.pdf

[cybercoma]

I know. What a bunch of maroons.

It is incredible the lengths this government will go to in bullshitting their own supporters. Not to worry, citizens, this government has put an end to niquab

wearing during citizenship oaths.

Then turn around upon legal challenge and say that nobody is required to remove any face-coverings!

Then be horrified when the judge says ok then your policy is bullshit.

Gold! Jerry. Pure gold!

It's the legal equivalent of a monkey humping a football.

What's even more hilarious is that not a single member from the radical right wing has taken it upon themselves to say, "That's fine. If it violates the citizenship act, then the government will pass legislation making it illegal." To which there will actually be a Charter challenge. None of these appeals have referred to the Charter because as the judges said, they simply didn't need to. The policy was not legal according to the Citizenship Act. So, the government needs to amend the citizenship act. At that time there will be a SCC challenge noting that it's disproportionate in its effect against an identifiable religious minority. Whereupon the Supreme Court will strike down that section of the new law and tell the government their idiots for trying to pass laws limiting the religious freedoms of a single group.

[cybercoma]

No, it doesn't.

The woman on the left chooses what to wear...

The woman on the right is often forced through the backwards cultural practice and strict fundementalism of her family to be covered head to toe with only her eyes showing. The punishment for not doing so can be abuse or for her to be ostracized.

There's a big difference.

The woman on the left chooses what to wear, as long as she doesn't look too slutty at the office or too prudish at the bar. But then if she looks too slutty at the bar, she was asking for it if she's groped or raped.

Yeah. Free choice and all that.