ReeferMadness Posted October 10, 2015 Report Share Posted October 10, 2015 He didn't create the niqab issue. Please stay on point Why don't you just tell me what point it is you're trying to make. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted October 10, 2015 Report Share Posted October 10, 2015 The politicians are doing what they're supposed to....represent the people. Polls show that a vast majority support the niqab ban so it makes sense that politicians follow suit I believe that a majority of people support capital punishment. A majority of people wanted nothing to do with Libya and Syria. I do not believe that governing by referendum is a good idea. Politicians have a lot more access to inside information than does the Canadian citizen when deciding on an issue. The human psyche is quite capable of bigotry, prejudice and misogyny. We see enough of it on this board. We depend on our elected representatives to filter out issues that divide the population and those that divide it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dialamah Posted October 10, 2015 Report Share Posted October 10, 2015 He didn't create the niqab issue. Please stay on point The Conservatives did in 2008, when they decided to create a policy banning the niqab for citizenship ceremony, although for years before that it hadn't been an issue. Ishaq took them to court over it in 2011; Cons fought it twice in court, and after losing began talking about making laws to ban it. The conservatives made it an issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted October 10, 2015 Author Report Share Posted October 10, 2015 I fail to see where the Charter guarantees me the right to 'recognize or identify' anyone else. Walking down the street the other day, I saw a guy wearing a cap, covered by a hoodie, with a full, bushy beard. I could see his eyes, but barely. Shall I demand he shave and remove his headgear to honor my 'Charter rights'? Every day, I see people (especially females of Asian descent) wearing dust masks as they attempt to protect themselves from pollution. Should they also be forbidden to wear a 'mask'? Well now let's see.....in the first case....if he was taking the oath of citizenship, as long as we could clearly see his face, he'd be OK - even though it would be disrespectful to take a solemn oath with a hat and hoodie.....just as disrespectful if he was in a courtroom pledging an oath. In the second case, sorry - the dust mask comes off when taking an oath. Why do you have a problem with any of this? When you ignore the inherent responsibilities and respect that go with Charter "rights", you begin to nullify the small accommodations we ask newcomers to make in order to at least fulfil the gesture of integration to mainstream Canadian society. Without those gestures (removing the veil at appropriate times is a perfect example), it's no wonder the vast majority of Canadians have found the voice to say "enough is enough". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted October 10, 2015 Report Share Posted October 10, 2015 So if I want to wear a colander on my head as a sign of my faith will that be protected by the constitution too? Because I have a high degree of confidence I won't be able to get a passport or drivers licence photo of that approved. You should be able to get a passport or drivers license photo with a Niqab either. The entire purpose of those photos is facial identification, so the reasonable accomodation of religion does not apply. In most other cases though it does apply. Take the stupid citizenship pledge everyone is wasting their time talking about... At that point the person has already been identified, and they have already been accepted as citizens. The stupid oath is a formality. Same goes for most other jobs in the public service... a positive facial identification is not required for the work to be done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drummindiver Posted October 10, 2015 Report Share Posted October 10, 2015 The argument that the Niqab is not a religious article of clothing and thus is not protected by the Charter fails. Women wear it as a symbol of their faith. That it's not specifically required in the Koran is irrelevant. If a group of citizens got together to request a ban of Christmas because it made them uncomfortable, and wasn't a religious symbol because it wasn't specifically required by the bible, they'd be laughed out of court. If it ever got that far. If you were bent on doing something in which you would prefer you not be recognized, I bet you'd just ignore the requirement that you remove your hat/glasses. And while many people claim they *must* remove certain items that cover their face, I bet they are responding to a business policy and NOT a law. Women who wear niqabs take them off when required to legally do so in order to validate identity; accommodation that they do so in private is the usual method of dealing with those situations. It may be that places like banks have a valid reason to want to see someone's face; I suspect that Muslim women would again be willing to do so - provided accommodation be made for doing so in private and in front of another woman. If she is unwilling to do so, then most likely another family member would take care of banking issues. There are ways of accommodating the rights of these women that does not impact security. Requiring the removal of the niqab in public does not make us any safer. It does make many people more comfortable. It does oppress a tiny group of women. Ever been to a legion? You do not wear a hat out of respect. This issue isn't about safety afaic. It's about respect to Canada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 10, 2015 Report Share Posted October 10, 2015 Ever been to a legion? You do not wear a hat out of respect. This issue isn't about safety afaic. It's about respect to Canada. The thing is, if you did wear a hat the government wouldn't have a say in it. Disrespect is no crime. That's why we can deny the Holocaust, draw Mohammad and say Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas. None of it matters enough to get the government involved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted October 10, 2015 Author Report Share Posted October 10, 2015 I believe that a majority of people support capital punishment. A majority of people wanted nothing to do with Libya and Syria. I do not believe that governing by referendum is a good idea. Politicians have a lot more access to inside information than does the Canadian citizen when deciding on an issue. The human psyche is quite capable of bigotry, prejudice and misogyny. We see enough of it on this board. We depend on our elected representatives to filter out issues that divide the population and those that divide it. Totally agree......but it's also a good idea for governments to heed the genuine concerns of the population. On Capital Punishment for example - while true that the majority feel that Capital Punishment is appropriate in certain circumstances, their real beef is that "Life in prison" should be exactly that. Does that mean we always throw away the key? No - but clearly, the public has been clamouring for keeping killers and very bad people locked away for longer periods and adjusting the lenient parole system. That's something that the Harper government has been addressing - taking some small steps towards changing sentencing.....not knee-jerk throw away the key actions - but responding in small steps to what the public sees as injustice. My point is that regardless of whether you agree with the specific changes - it's that the will of the people should not be completely ignored - and if you do, ignore it at your eventual peril. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted October 10, 2015 Report Share Posted October 10, 2015 Neither Trudeau nor Mulcair followed suit And it may hurt them. It certainly is hurting Mulclair in Quebec Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted October 10, 2015 Report Share Posted October 10, 2015 Why don't you just tell me what point it is you're trying to make. I did. It was that Harper didn't create the issue. Do you need me to repeat that point again? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted October 10, 2015 Report Share Posted October 10, 2015 The Conservatives did in 2008, when they decided to create a policy banning the niqab for citizenship ceremony, although for years before that it hadn't been an issue. Ishaq took them to court over it in 2011; Cons fought it twice in court, and after losing began talking about making laws to ban it. The conservatives made it an issue. It started before then...again France banning it in 2004 created waves in Quebec Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted October 10, 2015 Report Share Posted October 10, 2015 I believe that a majority of people support capital punishment. A majority of people wanted nothing to do with Libya and Syria. I do not believe that governing by referendum is a good idea. Politicians have a lot more access to inside information than does the Canadian citizen when deciding on an issue. The human psyche is quite capable of bigotry, prejudice and misogyny. We see enough of it on this board. We depend on our elected representatives to filter out issues that divide the population and those that divide it. You're blending a couple issues together as though they are apples to apples. Nobody dies from not wearing a niqab. With that said, what more is there to this issue that the govt knows that we don't? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted October 10, 2015 Report Share Posted October 10, 2015 I did. It was that Harper didn't create the issue. Do you need me to repeat that point again? How many times on how many threads do I have to respond to Harper apologists who defend his disgusting behavior by pointing to someone else? Is that your view of leadership? Trudeau and Mulcair (both from Quebec) didn't hide behind Quebec or France or Muslim dictatorships. They took a principled position in favor of reasonable individual rights. Harper pandered to Islamophobes. It's pretty simple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted October 10, 2015 Report Share Posted October 10, 2015 How many times on how many threads do I have to respond to Harper apologists who defend his disgusting behavior by pointing to someone else? Is that your view of leadership? Trudeau and Mulcair (both from Quebec) didn't hide behind Quebec or France or Muslim dictatorships. They took a principled position in favor of reasonable individual rights. Harper pandered to Islamophobes. It's pretty simple. Harper has taken the position that the vast majority of Canadians support. Calling this a disgusting behavior is equivalent to saying the vast majority of Canadians share that disgusting behavior. Truly your HDS can't extend that far, can it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted October 10, 2015 Report Share Posted October 10, 2015 Harper has taken the position that the vast majority of Canadians support. Calling this a disgusting behavior is equivalent to saying the vast majority of Canadians share that disgusting behavior. Truly your HDS can't extend that far, can it? I think that throughout history, there are lots of examples where an unscrupulous leader has been able to whip up prejudicial sentiment against a minority. I think that this is the disgusting behavior that Harper is now displaying. And I think that the Harper apologists who think they are being clever by hiding Harper's disgusting behavior behind public opinion or the actions of other jurisdictions are complicit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jazzer Posted October 10, 2015 Report Share Posted October 10, 2015 Turban doesn't cover the face, and the niqab is not a religious article. I have to take my glasses and/or hat off in a wide variety of circumstances, people should have to take off their masks in such situations too. Facial coverings have to be removed for taking citizenship oath. But I remember the huge and dramatic furor over the turban. A non issue then as the niqab is today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted October 10, 2015 Report Share Posted October 10, 2015 I think that throughout history, there are lots of examples where an unscrupulous leader has been able to whip up prejudicial sentiment against a minority. I think that this is the disgusting behavior that Harper is now displaying. How is is prejudicial when other members of the same minority agree with this 'behavior" And I think that the Harper apologists who think they are being clever by hiding Harper's disgusting behavior behind public opinion or the actions of other jurisdictions are complicit This is the funniest part about your stance. Anyone who supports the niqab ban is now a Harper apologist. The polls are showing that 82% of Canadians and 93% of Quebecois share his belief. If ALL of these people are Harper Apologists then I guess he'll have no issue winning this election. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribblet Posted October 10, 2015 Report Share Posted October 10, 2015 But Harper didn't create it. He picked up on the fact that one of the largest provinces was against it and used it for political gain. Perhaps he agrees with the ban but needless to say this move helps his Quebec numbers Opposition parties in 2007 disagreed with E.C. Mayrand's decision to allow Niqabs while voting. In fact they all said women should be forced to reveal their faces so their identities can be verified. Did Trudeau et al think it was disgusting then, if so why did not speak up then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted October 10, 2015 Report Share Posted October 10, 2015 Opposition parties in 2007 disagreed with E.C. Mayrand's decision to allow Niqabs while voting. In fact they all said women should be forced to reveal their faces so their identities can be verified. Did Trudeau et al think it was disgusting then, if so why did not speak up then. Oh...but the opposition were just Harper apologists. Right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted October 10, 2015 Report Share Posted October 10, 2015 It's sad. Apparently, it takes only one unscrupulous leader to pander to bigots and people will throw our principles under the bus. Are you speaking about Phillippe Couiliard or Pauline Marois? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted October 10, 2015 Report Share Posted October 10, 2015 (edited) Harper has been going after Muslims longer than Quebec has. Citation and examples? Edited October 10, 2015 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted October 10, 2015 Report Share Posted October 10, 2015 Create what? niqabs? Islamophobia? Racism? No. He didn't create any of those things. He just used them and that is beneath contempt. Seems to me that Trudeau is using this issue a lot more than Harper. He won't shut up about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted October 10, 2015 Report Share Posted October 10, 2015 (edited) Take the stupid citizenship pledge everyone is wasting their time talking about... At that point the person has already been identified, and they have already been accepted as citizens. The stupid oath is a formality. You know, I was talking to a guy about this last night. He said that when he took the pledge in a group of people, one of the officials made him take it again because he didn't see his lips moving. And that was years ago. So how can you see if someone's lips are moving under one of those black sheets? Edited October 10, 2015 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted October 11, 2015 Report Share Posted October 11, 2015 You know, I was talking to a guy about this last night. He said that when he took the pledge in a group of people, one of the officials made him take it again because he didn't see his lips moving. And that was years ago. So how can you see if someone's lips are moving under one of those black sheets? Who cares? Its just a stupid ceremony with no real purpose. The immigrants have already been accepted at that point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angrypenguin Posted October 11, 2015 Report Share Posted October 11, 2015 Seems to me that Trudeau is using this issue a lot more than Harper. He won't shut up about it. Precisely. He's saying that Harper's making it a big deal when Harper himself doesn't even bring it up unless he's asked about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.