Women Who Cover Their Faces Shouldn't Be accepted To Enter Canada!

[DogOnPorch]

The Prophet (ﷺ) said: Allah does not accept the prayer of a woman who has reached puberty unless she wears a veil.

https://sunnah.com/abudawud/2/251

But, yeah...it's 100% voluntary...no matter the allowed beatings. 

[dre]

23 hours ago, taxme said:

It still makes anyone immigrating to Canada a foreign born person. So, I am also a citizen of Canada with equal rights. So, what's your point? I address her as foreign because she is foreign born. It means that if she was not born in Canada then she is a foreign born muslim. East Indians call themselves Pakistan Canadians even though they were born here. Why? Why do they not just call themselves Canadian like I do? Is calling yourself Canadian a bad thing for some people to want to do? When I hear people say that they are Asian Canadian, I have to ask them as to where can I find Asia Canada on the worlds map. Is it near China? At times Canada makes me want to cry. This country is becoming so sad a place to live with all these so-called Canadians immigrating to Canada, and telling us host Canadians that I am a something Canadian. I guess the only time some new foreigners have to call themselves Canadian is when they are asked by some border guard of another country as to what citizenship are they. Otherwise, they won't call themselves Canadian it seems anymore. Maybe it is just a racial thing on their part. 

 

Why on earth would you spend even one second worrying about how other people describe themselves. Dont you have any hobbies?

[jacee]

On 07/06/2017 at 6:15 AM, betsy said:

That's should be the new rule added to our immigration policies! 

 

Let's face it.  Women who wear these face coverings obviously adhere to the kind of Islam, that mainstream Muslims say isn't really Islam!  It's Talibanesque - fundamentalists like those who'd adhere to ISIS!

 

Does this come as a surprise at all?

 

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/toronto-woman-charged-with-assault-uttering-threats-pledges-allegiance-to-isis-in-court-1.3446341

 

http://www.dw.com/en/why-wearing-the-burqa-is-on-the-rise-in-south-asia/a-19497638

 

These covered women are likely radicalized, and are sympathetic to the cause of ISIS.  Why should we take the chances?  If there's anyone homegrown  who'll be most likely to be radicalized, it will be the kids of these women!

In North America, it's right wing Christian terrorists doing the most damage.

It's your kids who are "most likely to be radicalized".

What shall we do about that?

[DogOnPorch]

39 minutes ago, jacee said:

In North America, it's right wing Christian terrorists doing the most damage.

It's your kids who are "most likely to be radicalized".

What shall we do about that?

 

Here's a load.

[Argus]

16 hours ago, jacee said:

It is nobody's business what a woman chooses to wear, nor why.

It's our business who we choose to admit to our country.

[Argus]

16 hours ago, jacee said:

That's already been decided in law: Canada does not discriminate by religion.

The Canadian Charter does not apply in foreign countries or to their citizens - at least not until they come here. Prospective immigrants thus have no rights under the Charter.

[jacee]

3 hours ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

Here's a load.

http://m.huffingtonpost.ca/julius-haag/right-wing-extremism_b_14629734.html

[jacee]

2 minutes ago, Argus said:

It's our business who we choose to admit to our country.

The courts have already settled this question.

Women who wear face coverings are admitted to Canada.

Because any other action would be just stupid.

This discussion is just stupid.

[Argus]

4 minutes ago, jacee said:

The courts have already settled this question.

Women who wear face coverings are admitted to Canada.

Because any other action would be just stupid.

This discussion is just stupid.

The courts have never even been asked the question. Canada has never made the effort to limit immigration by religion. On the other hand, it doesn't need to limit it by religion. We could simply say that women without education or job skills aren't admissible. Or we could say people from certain countries which have proven over the years to collectively produce economically unsuccessful immigrants aren't admissible. We have the right to decide on who would make the best immigrants based on economic success and cultural fit. 

[DogOnPorch]

33 minutes ago, jacee said:

http://m.huffingtonpost.ca/julius-haag/right-wing-extremism_b_14629734.html

[capricorn]

39 minutes ago, jacee said:

This discussion is just stupid.

Judging by the number of times you posted on this thread, it sure looks as if you like to engage in what you call "stupid discussions".

[hot enough]

24 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

Quote

The suspect, Alexandre Bissonnette, has been linked to hateful ideologies, including anti-immigrant and anti-feminist comments.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/julius-haag/right-wing-extremism_b_14629734.html

 

That sounds a lot like our own gang of right wingers who link themselves to "hateful ideologies, including anti-immigrant" comments.

They hold off on the anti-feminism comments because their right wing meme feeders can't walk and chew bubble gum at the same time. 

[hot enough]

17 minutes ago, capricorn said:

Judging by the number of times you posted on this thread, it sure looks as if you like to engage in what you call "stupid discussions".

Humans have to address "stupid discussions", capricorn. How else can these vile hate crimes be stopped? 

[hot enough]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

It's our business who we choose to admit to our country.

It has been in the past, the business of right wing racists who have chosen those admitted to western nations. Thankfully, these racists no longer control such policies and they are normally confined to the dark corners of society. 

[hot enough]

37 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

This is so typical of science denying/anti-truthers. They seem to have no concept of anything except deception and misdirection.

The US/UK/... own most of these crimes because they are the countries that have illegally invaded sovereign nations, committing the ultimate, the supreme war crime. All crimes subsequent to those illegal invasions are contained within the initial supreme war crime and become the responsibility of the illegal invaders. 

Quote

A war of aggression, sometimes also war of conquest, is a military conflict waged without the justification of self-defense, usually for territorial gain and subjugation.

...

In the judgment of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, which followed World War II, "War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world. To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."^[2] [3]

^{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_aggression}

 

[WestCoastRunner]

On 7/1/2017 at 11:20 AM, CITIZEN_2015 said:

Because they represent symbol of oppression of women. Many women in Middle east are forced to wear hijab like in Iran or cover their face like in Saudi A. and Afghanistan. If they don't comply fully they will be attacked, beaten or arrested and possibly assaulted.  Those here still wearing a hijab or niqab are either supportive of the oppression (are likely among those who back home would be enforcing the forced niqab or hijab) or forced by their family or culture to cover in latter case they represent a symbol of oppression of their sisters. You ask a women in Iran how she feels about wearing hijab!!! and why she is terrified by it. Likely same reason that a torture victim is terrified of torture devices.

You seem to think that once Muslim women enter Canada they are left alone in their homes with their abusive husbands forced to wear a burka.  They have resources to turn to and outreach programs to help them adjust to living in a country with a foreign culture, foreign language and not to mention the hatred that is spewed out towards them.

One such organization is the Canadian Council of Muslim Women.  Their mandate:

• 'these women sought to mobilize their passion for social justice and faith in order to enrich their communities and work towards the common good of Canadian society.'
•  not-for-profit organization that works to provide equity, equality and empowerment for all Canadian Muslim women. For the past 30 years, its proud and accomplished roster of members have achieved and continue to achieve great milestones for Muslim women and Canada’s multicultural landscape. As a highly diverse organization, CCMW is firmly committed to the overarching vision of improving the status of Muslim women to remain true to their Islamic heritage and Canadian identity.

One of their projects include:

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN – HEALTH AND JUSTICE FOR CANADIAN MUSLIM WOMEN

WOMEN IN NIQAB SPEAK: A STUDY OF THE NIQAB IN CANADA

Instead of helping to suppress these women new to Canada, perhaps you should volunteer to help them adjust.

[CITIZEN_2015]

Again the debate is about their entrance to Canada not AFTER they are here. Then I have said it twice before they should be allowed to wear what they wish to wear if it is their choice and anyone who may harm them in any way physical or emotional must be punished severely to the maximum allowed by the hate laws as this would be a clear case of hatred towards those individuals.

Edited July 2, 2017 by CITIZEN_2015

[WestCoastRunner]

1 hour ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

Again the debate is about their entrance to Canada not AFTER they are here. Then I have said it twice before they should be allowed to wear what they wish to wear if it is their choice and anyone who may harm them in any way physical or emotional must be punished severely to the maximum allowed by the hate laws as this would be a clear case of hatred towards those individuals.

My comments should very much be part of this discussion.  It sounds to me like you are trying to shut down anything positive relating to Muslim women.  

[jacee]

5 hours ago, Argus said:

The courts have never even been asked the question. Canada has never made the effort to limit immigration by religion. On the other hand, it doesn't need to limit it by religion. We could simply say that women without education or job skills aren't admissible. Or we could say people from certain countries which have proven over the years to collectively produce economically unsuccessful immigrants aren't admissible. We have the right to decide on who would make the best immigrants based on economic success and cultural fit. 

/facepalm

We do decide. We don't discriminate.

Look up our immigration points system: education and job skills do count. 

And re niqab face covering ... 

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/politics/zunera-ishaq-niqab-ban-citizenship-oath-1.3257762

 

[CITIZEN_2015]

inutes ago, WestCoastRunner said:

My comments should very much be part of this discussion.  It sounds to me like you are trying to shut down anything positive relating to Muslim women.  

Shut down anything positive about Muslim women!!!!!. Nobody is trying to shut down anything quite the opposite I am trying to attract attention to the plight of Muslim women in certain parts f the world. The lack f rights and equality, the forced hijab, the being attacked or arrested for refusing to comply, the family and cultural pressures, the inability in some countries to enter politics or decide fr themselves, t lack of rights to education and health and even driving in Arabia. You as a women should be more concern and sensitive to witness these issues for the hundreds of millions f female population than I do but you are trying t shut down discussions on the oppression of women and their lack of rights and freedom.

Btw I never said anywhere that your comments should not be part of this discussion. I don't know who you are mixing me up with!!!!

Edited July 2, 2017 by CITIZEN_2015

[jacee]

7 hours ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

Shut down anything positive about Muslim women!!!!!. Nobody is trying to shut down anything quite the opposite I am trying to attract attention to the plight of Muslim women in certain parts f the world. The lack f rights and equality, the forced hijab, the being attacked or arrested for refusing to comply, the family and cultural pressures, the inability in some countries to enter politics or decide fr themselves, t lack of rights to education and health and even driving in Arabia. You as a women should be more concern and sensitive to witness these issues for the hundreds of millions f female population than I do but you are trying t shut down discussions on the oppression of women and their lack of rights and freedom.

Btw I never said anywhere that your comments should not be part of this discussion. I don't know who you are mixing me up with!!!!

I think you're in the wrong thread.

This thread isn't about the plight of  women in other countries.

 

[Argus]

17 hours ago, jacee said:

/facepalm

We do decide. We don't discriminate.

We SHOULD discriminate based on what is best for Canada.

17 hours ago, jacee said:

Look up our immigration points system: education and job skills do count. 

Only a minority of applicants are ever judged under the points system.

17 hours ago, jacee said:

And re niqab face covering ... 

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/politics/zunera-ishaq-niqab-ban-citizenship-oath-1.3257762

Irrelevant to the question of allowing people with social/political views which are violently contrary to those of Canada's homegrown culture to settle here. If a member of the KKK applied to immigrate to Canada would you not want us to take his political/social views into account?

[jacee]

19 hours ago, Argus said:

We SHOULD discriminate based on what is best for Canada.

Only a minority of applicants are ever judged under the points system.

Irrelevant to the question of allowing people with social/political views which are violently contrary to those of Canada's homegrown culture to settle here. If a member of the KKK applied to immigrate to Canada would you not want us to take his political/social views into account?

The immigration points system is applied to all aspiring immigrants. 

The Charter of Rights also applies.

My personal preferences of ideology, or yours, are irrelevant.

[Argus]

8 hours ago, jacee said:

The immigration points system is applied to all aspiring immigrants. 

The Charter of Rights also applies.

My personal preferences of ideology, or yours, are irrelevant.

The immigration points system is only applied to the principal applicant, and then only in skilled/business class. It is not applied to family class at all, or of course, to refugees.

The charter of rights does NOT apply to foreigners living in foreign countries.

[overthere]

On 7/2/2017 at 10:50 AM, Argus said:

The courts have never even been asked the question. Canada has never made the effort to limit immigration by religion. On the other hand, it doesn't need to limit it by religion. We could simply say that women without education or job skills aren't admissible. Or we could say people from certain countries which have proven over the years to collectively produce economically unsuccessful immigrants aren't admissible. We have the right to decide on who would make the best immigrants based on economic success and cultural fit. 

The Supreme Court has been there, done that regarding face coverings.  If you are allowed to wear a face covering at a citizenship ceremnony, what would possibly be the point of ethnic screening for the same thing prior to entry?  You could not get that issue in front of a JP, never mind the Supremes..

 

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/liberals-drop-controversial-supreme-court-of-canada-niqab-appeal/article27280846/