Rise in Canadian Hate Crimes

[Guest]

Just now, Omni said:

Well you do have a point there. However you could go to Walmart and buy me all the stuff I needed to rob a bank and simply pass it over to me with some sort of a percent of proceeds agreement and that picture would not implicate you.

Ah, but I wouldn't, because I took the test, passed the background checks, and got the good references.

[Omni]

6 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

What does it have to do with immigration?

Granted I'm coming late to it, and I haven't read back.

A while back a Muslim woman taking the oath of citizenship in Canada wanted to do so in a room full of people with her face covered. She of course agreed to bare her face in private to an immigration official for proper identification prior to the ceremony.

[Guest]

Just now, Omni said:

A while back a Muslim woman taking the oath of citizenship in Canada wanted to do so in a room full of people with her face covered. She of course agreed to bare her face in private to an immigration official for proper identification prior to the ceremony.

I remember that.  I just wondered what the connection to the PAL was.

[Omni]

6 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Ah, but I wouldn't, because I took the test, passed the background checks, and got the good references.

Well good for you, but it does not obviate the fact you could. Amd Muslim women have to do the same checks. 

[Omni]

2 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I remember that.  I just wondered what the connection to the PAL was.

I hasten to add that while I'm about the last person to be a follower of any religion beyond R&B music, trying out new crazy recipes, and sipping single malt Scotch, I don't mind a little accommodation of others who have different ideas 

[Omni]

24 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said:

So, the answer is...what?  That you disagree with showing photo ID to buy a gun?

Don't disagree at all.

[Hal 9000]

4 minutes ago, Omni said:

Don't disagree at all.

So, we should loosen the gun laws in Canada to accommodate Muslims (or, lets say any religion)?

[Omni]

6 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said:

So, we should loosen the gun laws in Canada to accommodate Muslims (or, lets say any religion)?

The background checks are what are important in my book. 

[Hal 9000]

6 minutes ago, Omni said:

The background checks are what are important in my book. 

Yeah, you really aren't getting it.  Why not just answer the question: 

So, we should loosen the gun laws in Canada to accommodate Muslims (or, lets say any religion)?

[Omni]

7 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said:

Yeah, you really aren't getting it.  Why not just answer the question: 

So, we should loosen the gun laws in Canada to accommodate Muslims (or, lets say any religion)?

The background checks are what might effectively thwart a person with potential criminal intent. Pictures not so much. Does a photo ID driver's license stop someone from driving home drunk?

[DogOnPorch]

10 minutes ago, Omni said:

The background checks are what might effectively thwart a person with potential criminal intent. Pictures not so much. Does a photo ID driver's license stop someone from driving home drunk?

 

There you have it: PALs don't need no stinkin' photos. 

[Omni]

Just now, DogOnPorch said:

 

There you have it: PALs don't need no stinkin' photos. 

They seldom get my good side anyway.

[DogOnPorch]

1 minute ago, Omni said:

They seldom get my good side anyway.

 

When you're giving them away, I can see the need for more than one. You did pass your Background Check, I assume...so I won't have any trouble at the gun store.

[DogOnPorch]

Or should I wear a burka?

[Omni]

1 minute ago, DogOnPorch said:

Or should I wear a burka?

Yes I think that would work for you.

[DogOnPorch]

Just now, Omni said:

Yes I think that would work for you.

 

Or anybody.

[Omni]

Just now, DogOnPorch said:

 

Or anybody.

You're free to wear what suits .

[DogOnPorch]

11 minutes ago, Omni said:

You're free to wear what suits .

 

Full face balaclavas...or perhaps rubber President masks. All work in any heist...errrr...gun purchase.

[Omni]

1 minute ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

Full face balaclavas...or perhaps rubber President masks. All work in any heist...errrr...gun purchase.

If you say so.

[DogOnPorch]

4 minutes ago, Omni said:

If you say so.

 

If you say so.

Edited June 21, 2017 by DogOnPorch

[Rue]

5 hours ago, bcsapper said:

Ah, but I wouldn't, because I took the test, passed the background checks, and got the good references.

I get in trouble when I am asked for good references. I tried using you but the CBC interviewer freaked out and called the police on me.

 

[Rue]

4 hours ago, Omni said:

You're free to wear what suits .

Actually he's not.. That is precisely the issue he is debating you on. He can't. None of us can. The government of the day tells us what we can wear. Who you kidding with that liberal tolerance shtick. You telling me you would  support a KKK hood and uniform being worn at a swearing in ceremony?   That uniform you condone as harmless  is seen as a KKK uniform to many women and men.

The standard  as to what you feel should be  allowed hooded  is based on your subjective trendy opinion not objective standards.

if it was you would insist all citizens have the exact same standards when dealing with government and that means no exceptions, everyone show their face. You choose who you want to have special treatment so   your posing as  tolerant is necessarily selective and thefrefore flawed.. Your

Youy get into bed with Muslim fascist symbols and think it makes you tolerant?

I argue total face coverings symbolizes exclusivity  the exact opposite as to the inclusive construct Canadian society tries to symbollize n the citizenship swearing. Why at a swearing in ceremony where someone agrees to be acceptedinto an inclusive society where women are equal to men  do they cover their faces in an act which defines them as inferor to men and embraces an archaic sexual belief that a woman's face must be hidden because men find them too sexually provocative. You think a symbol that defines a woman as in need of covering up is the kind of calue that belongs at a ceremony embracing equality? Hell man, soldiers died so that Nazis did not impose such  fascist crap on us. Why would I embrace people who believe in such sexual fascism  that spits on the face of what this country has struggled to achieve?

No I do not want people undoing essential basic freedoms fought so hard for. No I do not think total face coverings are harmless and meaningless expressions of culture. I believe such displays challenge the very essence of our laws and beliefs and challenge the very basic value of women being equal exactly what this country should NOT tolerate.. Don't ask me to feign tolerance of intolerant sexual  fascists because you have liberal guilt and feel you might offend a Muslim..

You think these values you embrace mutually respect yours? What bubble do you live in man? The values that bring us the total face covering are  brutal. They were created tp crush freedom of  choice of women. Been there done that. I have seen it first hand where Muslims opted out of Israel family laws precisely because Zionism gives them the freedom to opt our of certain state laws. Violence against women in Muslim tribunals is condoned and tolerated and so some women flee to the Israel state family laws which are non denominational. Same goes with ultra orthodox Jewish women. You embrace antiquated treatment of women. Women in Saudi Arabia, Iraq. Iran, Bahrain, the UAE. Afghanistan, etc.,where sharia law is practiced don't make free choices. They are ordered to cover up on the penalty of their lives. Then that crap is imported to Canada who want it to continue and you argue its harmless, its just clothes? 

As a liberal I think you embrace values you define as superficial and harmless because your main concern is your own feelings and the feeling Muslims don't hate you but see you as friendly to them. 

I am not here to support or moddy coddle any sexual facist. They find it offensive I find their practices of covering a woman;s face up intolerant, wait. I haven't started. SAsk me about female circumcision,  multiple marriages. honour killings, marrying first cousins, because if you think this is some simplistic harmless issue you are mistaken and I am not about to have your naivite  welcome values that believe our very essential freedoms are religious and  moral abominations.

You are one naïve rat cuddling up to a rat snake. I am a mongoose. I deal with both of you the same way. 

 

 

Edited June 21, 2017 by Rue

[dialamah]

There is a religious exemption for having a photo taken for a gun license - but was not implemented for Muslims, because it requires that the religion forbid picture taken, as Hutterites and Mennonites do.  From Section 14, Paragraph 2 of the Firearms License Regulation:

Quote

 

(2) An application that is made by an individual who, for religious reasons, cannot be photographed must be accompanied by

• (a) a declaration, signed by the applicant, stating that the applicant cannot, for religious reasons, be photographed; and

• (b) a declaration, signed by an individual who is of the same religion as the applicant and who is authorized under the laws of a province to solemnize marriages, stating that that religion prohibits the taking of photographs of its members and that the applicant is a member of that religion.

 

1

•  

Even if a Muslim woman claimed a religious exemption, she'd fail because Islam does not forbid picture taking.  

In 2009, the Supreme Court ruled that Alberta could insist that even these religious groups had to have a photo for their driver's license because it was a security issue.  

According to the CCLA, it's also a requirement for niqab wearing women to have a full face pic for driver's license and passport; the accommodation is in allowing those women to remove their niqab  in private and by another woman.   To think that the RCMP would just randomly decide to ignore it's own regulations and the general standard for other and similar situation beggars belief.  

Quote

For the purpose of getting a photo taken for a driver’s licence or passport, your full face must be clearly visible and if wearing a head covering, it must not cast any shadows on your face. A woman will have to remove her niqab for identification purposes, but this could be done privately in the presence of women only.

1

Clearly, this bit of anti-Muslim fantasy provided to us by the Rebel is designed only to stoke outrage against Muslims.   Is it any wonder that I rarely believe any of the anti-Muslim bullshit from any source, when it can be so easily proven wrong by just 15 minutes of research.

 

Edited June 21, 2017 by dialamah

[Goddess]

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

Even if a Muslim woman claimed a religious exemption, she'd fail because Islam does not forbid picture taking.  

I'm not sure about this.....Islam seems to be whatever the individual Muslim wants it to be.

The Muslim girl I went to college with refused the photo ID required by the college on the grounds that it is forbidden in Islam.  And she was accomodated.  When I asked about it, she said there were many verses that forbid picture-taking.  

I'm sure some do allow pictures.  

But if an individual Muslim claims it is against Islam and invokes religious rights to refuse photo ID, I feel that's up to them - but that they also must accept the consequences of such a belief ie: no driver's license, no gun permits, no passport, etc.

Same with the woman who sued Canada and got our laws changed to allow coverings at the citizenship oath.  I read dissenting views amongst Muslims that did not agree with her doing that, claiming that hijabs and burkas are NOT a requirement of Islam outside of worship and that she did a big disservice to Islam by forcing her views on a country.

But again, it appears to me that Islam is whatever the individual Muslim claims it is.  If they personally do not want a photo ID, they will find myriads of "scholars" who agree with them and myriad of verses to support their view and then will invoke religious rights.

Edited June 21, 2017 by Goddess

[dialamah]

11 minutes ago, Goddess said:

 

Same with the woman who sued Canada and got our laws changed to allow coverings at the citizenship oath.  I read dissenting views amongst Muslims that did not agree with her doing that, claiming that hijabs and burkas are NOT a requirement of Islam outside of worship and that she did a big disservice to Islam by forcing her views on a country.

But again, it appears to me that Islam is whatever the individual Muslim claims it is.  If they personally do not want a photo ID, they will find myriads of "scholars" who agree with them and myriad of verses to support their view and then will invoke religious rights.

The RCMP is not a college.  And yes, if there is a photo requirement and they refuse the photo, they don't get a license - the belief has to be an integral part of the religion, not an individual determination.  The gun license photo exemption was implemented decades ago for a Christian religious group that was well-known for it's rejection of modern technology.  Even so, more recently, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled against that group when it came to photos for driver's licenses based on the need for security among the wider society.  

So we have these facts:

The gun photo exemption has nothing to do with Muslims;

It has been around for decades as an accommdation to Christian religious groups who believe having their picture taken at all is a sin;

There is no widely practiced belief in Islam that having one's own photo taken is a sin;

Muslim women must bare their face for licenses and passports; there is no religious exemption for them and that accommodation it has even been eroded for the Hutterites and Mennonites;

If a Muslim woman tried to use the exemption to get a gun license, she would fail because there is nothing in Islam that forbids picture taking.  

But the Rebel, who broke the story, presented it as "for Muslims" and authorities bending over out of PC concerns which is completely false.  

By the way, our laws were not 'changed' for the niqab wearing woman at that citizenship ceremony.  There was no law that stated 'face must be bare during citizenship ceremony'.  Rather, the right to religious accommodation where there was no threat to public security was upheld.  She still had to bare her face privately prior to the ceremony for identification and that satisfies the 'security' requirement.  She would also have to bare her face for her passport photo, and driver's license and gun license if she applies for those.  

I don't like the niqab either, but the narrative of special treatment by authorities and changing laws to appease Muslims is simple fear-mongering.