"Harper rips Elections Canada over veil ruling"

[kuzadd]

Aaah you see, it's not really about about agreeing or not with unmasking yourself, it's about siding with anything that can be seen as opposing the U.S. Israel, or the west in general. Apologists generally will side with pretty much any movement that opposes them, I just wonder how the apologists would cope under Islamic law in an Islamic society?

Not only that, all the parties are in agreement with issue of removing veils, so I guess they are xenophobic too.

http://www.thestar.com/Article/254476

MONTREAL–Federal and Quebec political leaders have unanimously blasted an Elections Canada decision to let Muslim women wear traditional face coverings when voting in three federal by-elections in Quebec.

xenophobia is all the rage.

among the fear-full

[kuzadd]

Funny how the name calling starts whenever these issues come up, guess it replaces intelligent debate.

FD doesn't represent ALL conservatives either, as a matter of fact they represent the small minority of radical social conservatives, but hey I suppose Rabble doesn't represent all the lefties either.

I wouldn't know a darn thing about rabble, but apparently you do??

You are not going to deny the xenophobic rantings of freedominion, are you???

I mean they are there for all to look at?

[Michael Bluth]

Yeah , but Harpers minions are *generally * rabidly xenophobic , and he knows it, so he is playing to HIS audience.

So Harper is behaving xenophobically in trying to uphold the will of Parliament?

How exactly does that work?

The blanket insult really does say it all.

[kuzadd]

So Harper is behaving xenophobically in trying to uphold the will of Parliament?

How exactly does that work?

The blanket insult really does say it all.

The "blanket insult" is to deny some people there religious freedom, because a xenophobic society, doesn't like the way it is practiced.

Now either society denies that freedom ,equally, or not at all.

If people can mail in there vote, and ID is in fact never checked, the relevance to these people going in to vote, dressed as per their religious custom, is much ado about nothing!

[M.Dancer]

The "blanket insult" is to deny some people there religious freedom, because a xenophobic society, doesn't like the way it is practiced.

Now either society denies that freedom ,equally, or not at all.

If people can mail in there vote, and ID is in fact never checked, the relevance to these people going in to vote, dressed as per their religious custom, is much ado about nothing!

So we are to be statistfied witha system that is ripe for fraud to satistify some nebulous need for religious freedom? All parties recognise a need to change the voting laws. Mail in votes area perfect example. Another example of course are leadership campaigns where new members resemble the cast of a Wes Craven Horror .

[betsy]

The majority of women here in Canada who CHOOSE to wear the viel are very devout women,

Hmmmm....majority....

Out of curiousity....approximately how many veil-wearing women are we talking about here?

[betsy]

Absolutely!!

It will be interesting to see how Harper manages to save face on this issue because he will find out that there are many reasons why Canadian voters do not show their face (eg, they are on a beach in Mexico, voting by mail), and thus many reasons other than Muslim women to allow voting without physical identification.

Perhaps the solution would be for these devout veil-enthusiast women to vote by mail.

Actually, voting through mail should be re-visited just so to prevent the possible corruption of our voting system.

And really, the electoral law should be changed so everyone is treated equally....with no preferential treatment being given to anyone, including minorities due to religious or cultural beliefs.

Edited September 12, 2007 by betsy

[betsy]

there's the xenophobia i was talking about... without understanding. Those women don't want that done to them, but they may have a valid reason for wanting to wear the veil.

What's understanding got to do with it?

If the law says SHOW YOUR FACE , then like everyone else, you've got to show your face. Whether the reason behind the veil is religious, piety, fear of getting rape or hiding multitudes of acne....show your face if you want to vote.

If not, then don't vote! Nobody's pointing a gun to their heads.

[betsy]

LMAO!!! Good one!!!

:lol:

As a Conservative I've even a better suggestion: Wear your bras AND boycott the polls! Refuse to vote at all!

Since chances are, all of you are either Liberals or NDP anyway!

Edited September 12, 2007 by betsy

[buffycat]

As a Conservative I've even a better suggestion: Wear your bras AND boycott the polls! Refuse to vote at all!

Since chances are, all of you are either Liberals or NDP anyway!

This may come as a shock to you Betsy - but for most of my voting life I was a card carrying conservative - but more of a paleocon than these new fangled posers!! But no worries honey, I will make sure I wear my bra and CANCEL out your vote!!

[guyser]

Hmmmm....majority....

Out of curiousity....approximately how many veil-wearing women are we talking about here?

50% + 1 , somehow though, I think you fail to get it.

[kuzadd]

So we are to be statistfied witha system that is ripe for fraud to satistify some nebulous need for religious freedom? All parties recognise a need to change the voting laws. Mail in votes area perfect example. Another example of course are leadership campaigns where new members resemble the cast of a Wes Craven Horror .

we don't need to change our voting laws, they are perfectly fine!

I've worked polls myself.(scrutineer)

Suggestion, be careful what you wish for.

Demanding, concessions from others will eventually lead to YOU making them also.

I know, I know, right over your head....

Are you gonna go for the verichip soon?

It seems to be something you would love, so I am just wondering.?

It gives cancer ya know, something to think about before you so willingly give up your own freedoms.

Edited September 12, 2007 by kuzadd

[kuzadd]

This may come as a shock to you Betsy - but for most of my voting life I was a card carrying conservative - but more of a paleocon than these new fangled posers!! But no worries honey, I will make sure I wear my bra and CANCEL out your vote!!

I am gonna vote anything at all 'cept conservative, myself, your over run Betsy.!

[scribblet]

So we are to be statistfied witha system that is ripe for fraud to satistify some nebulous need for religious freedom? All parties recognise a need to change the voting laws. Mail in votes area perfect example. Another example of course are leadership campaigns where new members resemble the cast of a Wes Craven Horror .

No, we just have to accept that anyone who doesn't agree with a liberal or in this case unmasking people, is xenophic...LOL you know how it goes - definition of a racist - anyone who disagrees with a liberal

[betsy]

This may come as a shock to you Betsy - but for most of my voting life I was a card carrying conservative - but more of a paleocon than these new fangled posers!! But no worries honey, I will make sure I wear my bra and CANCEL out your vote!!

It was just a suggestion anyway.

On second thought, I think doing it your way is way better. I could just picture it now....these three cool chicks with bra on their faces, waving their ballots.... among other things.

Of course I assume you go topless too! Wouldn't hurt if you do your gigs on a train track.

More symbolism in one go! You guys will surely be hot on tv!

We'll just have to figure out who's Jennie, Kuzadd and Buffy!

Edited September 13, 2007 by betsy

[betsy]

I am gonna vote anything at all 'cept conservative, myself, your over run Betsy.!

I wouldn't be too sure of that, if I were you. Being "over-run," that is.

With all three political parties all agreeing on the same thing could only mean one sure thing: public approval is quite certain.

[jbg]

Mayrand said the onus is on Canada's Parliament to decide public policy, so let's hope Parliament works on this quickly and that our judges and the system accept that same principle.

If they cannot work through this, it may be a good reason for Parliament to vote itself into an election. It would be a great issue for Canadians to vote on; who and what kind of country they are. Is Canada a country that treats women like cattle, and insists that they veil themselves, or is it a democracy, where people have free, dignified relations with members of the opposite sex?

Isn't it strange how many people who advocate feminism are silent on this issue?

[gc1765]

Is Canada a country that treats women like cattle, and insists that they veil themselves, or is it a democracy, where people have free, dignified relations with members of the opposite sex?

I must have missed something. Who in Canada is insisting that women veil themselves?

[jbg]

I must have missed something. Who in Canada is insisting that women veil themselves?

Their husbands and imams.

[gc1765]

Their husbands and imams.

And these people are running in the next election??

[kimmy]

The majority of women here in Canada who CHOOSE to wear the viel are very devout women, and while I may not follow their traditions myself in this so called FREE country I will defend these women's right to do so.

I think that this the whole point that you so obviously missed. It's like the freedom of speech thing - while I might not agree with what another has to say I will defend their right to say it.

I just don't think it's a project for "the sisterhood".

It's like, a lot of Jews believe in freedom of speech, but you probably won't find many of them lining up to support KKK rallies.

Anyway, freedom of religion isn't absolute. That's been demonstrated again and again as religious practices have been adapted to resolve conflict with society at large. (for example, Sikhs have balanced their practice of carrying a Kirpan with society's need for security: in situations where carrying a functional dagger is inappropriate, they carry a small, blunt one that is bolted into its sheath.) Likewise, authentication of personal identity is a legitimate need of society. Not just at polling stations, but in a variety other situations as well.

If one is determined to wear a bag over her head for religious reasons, then she must find some alternative means of authenticating herself.

-k

[betsy]

And these people are running in the next election??

No. But those who purport to fight for women's rights are actually supporting the same abuse women are suffering from Taliban-ruled Islamic societies to continue in this society.

Furthermore, these Muslim veiled women who only amount to a few in numbers, all the more feel their segregation from the rest.

These women are the pin-up women from the women's rights' slogan from pre-historic times: those suffering in silence; those who are isolated. those who are trapped.

But then what's so surprising that radical feminists supporters would choose to turn a blind eye over this. As I've always believed, and been proven on numerous count....most of today's feminists are not really for equality and protection of women's rights.

It's all just a hypocritical posturing. Or worse, these pseudo-feminists do not fully understand what they're supposed to be fighting for.

OR, perhaps they're not really into feminism at all....but just conveniently uses these Muslim women and feminism to further a different ideology. Or probably like the idea of fundamentalism. Who knows...

THIS kind of hypocrisy is what's the "rage" today.....the new "fashion" (to borrow a poster's remark).

Edited September 13, 2007 by betsy

[Posit]

Its about reasonable accomodation, something many of seem to have trouble grasping.

Its the law. You do believe in the rule of law, no?

Edited September 13, 2007 by Posit

[betsy]

Its about reasonable accomodation, something to seem to have trouble grasping.

Depending on what's on the table.

How do we define "reasonable accomodation?"

And who determines what's "reasonable?"

For majority of people in this country, I would bet that giving "reasonable accomodation" (whatever that means) is never an option when it involves security.

[Posit]

Depending on what's on the table.

How do we define "reasonable accomodation?"

And who determines what's "reasonable?"

For majority of people in this country, I would bet that giving "reasonable accomodation" (whatever that means) is never an option when it involves security.

What the majority of people think - even what the Prime Minister thinks - is irrelevent. Reasonable accommodation is defined by the Charter, supported by the Supreme Court of Canada as the way the Charter is to be interpreted AND is incumbent on all Canadians to exercise. If you choose not to be reasonable under the law then your business and even your household becomes open to litigation for failing to comply with the basic human rights afforded in the Charter.

So go ahead and be angry about something you can't do anything about. I've always considered that that kind of energy exercised by xenophobes is a good distraction from having to participate in my reasonable and democratic society.