PCB

Exactly, this is how it would play out and why we have S.1. in our Charter. There's no slippery slope, and I'm not sure why explaining that our Constitution distinguishes between niqabs and beatings is a silly answer. I don't understand why you keep repeating this. The Government of Canada, Stephen Harper's government, did not raise the "symbol of oppression" argument in the case. Why do you think that is?

Thinking people should sacrifice their religious beliefs because you or even the majority of Canadians disagree with them does conflict with multiculturalism, however. That you think wearing the niqab is a symbol of oppression is irrelevant. Because it's not about your beliefs; it's about her beliefs. And its pretty arrogant to say "common sense should prevail." Again, two levels of the Canadian judicial system have found in favour of the woman in this case. Are you really trying to argue that they don't understand this issue?

You're right the judges who decided this case at trial and on appeal, as well as the Canadian judicial system, whose principals I'm repeating, lack the common sense required to discuss this issue. I also find it interesting, that you say the left treats people who disagree with them as dumb (which I do think can be true), yet because I disagree with you, you've insinuated I'm too dumb to discuss this issue.

No, I don't think I am. You just conceded that conforming is an inherent piece of your definition of multiculturalism. I think that's pretty hard to reconcile. As was said, someone gets to "choose" because in this instance, it involves her religious beliefs. Because you don't agree with her beliefs, you don't think she should become a Canadian. I don't think that fits within the scope of multiculturalism. And I think its a fundamental piece of the Charter that, in the face of a majority who disagrees, it protects the rights of an individual. So two people or two million, it's irrelevant to the question at issue.

I don't see how I'm misconstruing what you're saying. Here's the definition of assimilate: "to bring into conformity with the customs, attitudes etc., of a group, nation, or the like." You specifically brought up the nations standards in your definition. And my idea of multiculturalism, and the law's, is not to tolerate all other cultural aspects without limit. As I said, all rights freedoms are limited by S.1. of the Canadian Charter. And your argument would likely fail: she is willing to unveil for identification purposes to another woman and you can hear her saying the words during the oath.

I think defining multiculturalism by your personal standards and expectations, which is what you're doing, is antithetical to the the very idea of multiculturalism. Thats a lame point. Its not an all or none proposition. We cant enjoy each others cultural diversity unless we allow mistreatment of women on religious grounds? Is the multiculturalism of Canada going to disappear because two women dont want to remove their face coverings while taking the oath? Come on... And according to the overwhelming majority, its not MY personal standards. Its the nations. To me, your idea of multiculturalism seems more closely linked to assimilation. In the court case were talking about, the individual asserted her religious right. I think multiculturalism, the idea you purport to love, councils that whether or not we agree with her religion on personal grounds we tolerate it. Again, S.1 allows for the deprivation of your religious rights if there's a sufficiently important objective, the Government of Canada did not even assert the issue, "mistreatment of women," that you bring up as a S.1. argument. Are you arguing the Government forgot to make that argument?

I think defining multiculturalism by your personal standards and expectations, which is what you're doing, is antithetical to the the very idea of multiculturalism.

So what's next then? What happens when some judge (unelected) decides that not allowing Muslim men to discipline their wives according to sharia law is "unconstitutional"? Where is the end of the slippery slope? Are you going to defend that man's right to beat the snot out of his wife because his religion allows it and some judge no one voted for ruled that he can? I am just trying to find out where the breaking point for people truly lies. Because if you use the excuse that judges dictate what is right and wrong, then you can't turn around and disagree later when you've fallen all the way down the slope. I also don't get how a nativity scene on government property can be constitutionally removed while deeply offending Christians, but it's unconstitutional to say that you have to abide by laws regarding revealing your face because it offends your Islamic faith. I honestly don't think I will ever understand that. To distinguish between not unveiling at a citizenship ceremony and stoning individuals to death, there is a constitutional provision and an accompanying test. Section 1 of the Charter "guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject to only such reasonable limits prescribed law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." For a charter violation to be saved by Section 1, the law must be promote a sufficiently important objective. I think preventing the murder of individuals is a sufficiently important objective to justify depriving an individual, who argues he has such a right, of their religious right to stone their wives. And that opens it waaay up to interpretation. Protecting women and making a point of not allowing a symbol of the oppression of women to be used during the taking of the citizenship oath? Important. Isnt there a clause that allows the government to ignore the court? They should use it. I just read the decision that is at issue, and the Government did not even make the argument that the important objective was preventing a symbol of oppression to be used during the oath. So I'm going to go ahead and say that's not an issue. Considering the woman took this case to court to assert her right to wear her niqab, it seems pretty paternalistic to say she should stop oppressing herself. The only argument the Government made was that unveiling was necessary to ensure candidates were actually reciting the oath. Which doesn't make much sense considering you would be able to hear her speak. Also, beating, like murder, would definitely not be saved by S.1.

So what's next then? What happens when some judge (unelected) decides that not allowing Muslim men to discipline their wives according to sharia law is "unconstitutional"? Where is the end of the slippery slope? Are you going to defend that man's right to beat the snot out of his wife because his religion allows it and some judge no one voted for ruled that he can? I am just trying to find out where the breaking point for people truly lies. Because if you use the excuse that judges dictate what is right and wrong, then you can't turn around and disagree later when you've fallen all the way down the slope. I also don't get how a nativity scene on government property can be constitutionally removed while deeply offending Christians, but it's unconstitutional to say that you have to abide by laws regarding revealing your face because it offends your Islamic faith. I honestly don't think I will ever understand that. To distinguish between not unveiling at a citizenship ceremony and stoning individuals to death, there is a constitutional provision and an accompanying test. Section 1 of the Charter "guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject to only such reasonable limits prescribed law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." For a charter violation to be saved by Section 1, the law must be promote a sufficiently important objective. I think preventing the murder of individuals is a sufficiently important objective to justify depriving an individual, who argues he has such a right, of their religious right to stone their wives.