Election 2015

[The Unknown Poster]

Not at all. I'm saying you twisted what you knew to be by meaning into a different argument altogether. Thinking people should embrace values of Canada does not

Mean an end to multiculturalism.

And if the debate is a mere distraction well tell that to the vast majority of Canadians. As I said before it's silly

Common sense should prevail. But the opposition can't argue effectively because they don't want to agree with the government but disagreeing offends most Canadians.

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?

Once again you're completely missing the point. You want to argue one thing and are trying to fit a stance into that narrow view.

[HardCoreBlue]

 

If you can't doscuss an issue with some Common sense don't bother.

 

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.

 

I think that's called irony.

[kelownabomberfan]

 

 

Oh it's silly all right - but somehow its been spun into an election issue. Two women. And all the have to do is swear the oath to a female official. Why is this even news?

 

What pisses me off is Harper will spend millions of tax-payers money fighting this in the courts.  It's a non-issue, so stop wasting my frickin' money!!!

 

 

No problem - he can just take some of the 15 billion from the Saudi arms deal.  But never mind all that, we're still protected from terrorism and Comrade Harper is always right.

 

The fact that this is an election issue that is actually shifting the polls is disturbing to say the least.

 

 

I honestly don't think that the niqab is the issue.  I've actually attended a citizenship ceremony and a Muslim woman was one of the people taking the oath.  When the commissioner asked her to remove her face-covering, she complied without complaint.  And you know what, I wouldn't have cared either way.  It's just an oath that is ceremonial, so does it really matter?  I don't think so.  

 

What this actually represents to a lot of Canadians is a "slippery slope".  I've tried to make that clear in a few posts, but its obvious none of the deep thinkers here want to go there.  I even asked what the breaking point for people would be, and no one bothered to reply.  Because they don't even want to think about it.  They want to compartmentalize this issue.  It's not that simple for a lot of people.  They think more than one step ahead.  What's next?  Is it sharia law?  I asked what people would say if a judge ruled that under sharia law, a guy could beat his wife, and all I got was a silly answer.  So to sum up - if this was just about the niquab at a ceremony, then yes, it would be stupid and ignorant to make this an issue.  But it's not that simple.  At least, for the majority of Canadians who obviously are all dumb and ignorant, unlike the super-intelligent judgmental Einsteins who reside here.

[The Unknown Poster]

Funny how the anti harper crowd says harper is wasting money persuing something important to the vast majority of Canadians

The NDP would never waste money. Hahahahahahahahahahaha

[Mark H.]

Okay, so let's say one views the niqab as a symbol of oppression. If they allow it, the concern would be that judges might also allow some people to beat their wives - or some other extreme action. That's where the reasonable limits clause applies. A niqab is reasonable, obviously beatings are not, regardless of what anyone's personal beliefs are.

[The Unknown Poster]

Common sense. Symbol of oppression has no place. The welcoming aspect of this country allows it in almost all circumstances but not when taking the oath.

Pretty reasonable. And Canadians agree

[PCB]

Okay, so let's say one views the niqab as a symbol of oppression. If they allow it, the concern would be that judges might also allow some people to beat their wives - or some other extreme action. That's where the reasonable limits clause applies. A niqab is reasonable, obviously beatings are not, regardless of what anyone's personal beliefs are.

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.

 

Common sense. Symbol of oppression has no place. The welcoming aspect of this country allows it in almost all circumstances but not when taking the oath.

Pretty reasonable. And Canadians agree

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?

[kelownabomberfan]

 

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?

 

 

So the only reason I've seen for why so many Canadians are against the niquab in citizenship ceremonies is because they are dumb ignorant bigots.  You honestly think that is it?  If so, it's not surprising why the liberal elitists lose election after election.

[kelownabomberfan]

 

Oh it's silly all right - but somehow its been spun into an election issue. Two women. And all the have to do is swear the oath to a female official. Why is this even news?

 

What pisses me off is Harper will spend millions of tax-payers money fighting this in the courts.  It's a non-issue, so stop wasting my frickin' money!!!

 

 

So where is the money coming from on the other side?  Why are they willing to spend millions of their money fighting it?  Are they relying on volunteers?  Who is paying the tab, and why?

[PCB]

 

 

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?

 

 

So the only reason I've seen for why so many Canadians are against the niquab in citizenship ceremonies is because they are dumb ignorant bigots.  You honestly think that is it?  If so, it's not surprising why the liberal elitists lose election after election.

 

It's likely because legally its a losing issue. If the polls are too believed and the vast majority of Canadians are in favour of the ban, then I would suggest liberals and conservatives are in favour of it. It's not about what the majority thinks however. Again, it's about her beliefs. The niqab is not a symbol of oppression to this individual, it's part of her religious beliefs.

 

And in this thread, the individual arguing the conservative side of the argument, Unknown Poster, has repeatedly said people who disagree with him, like me, lack the common sense necessary to discuss this issue, and, you have called the answer as to why wearing a niqab and beatings are different "silly." If anything, that's elitism.

[PCB]

 

 

So where is the money coming from on the other side?  Why are they willing to spend millions of their money fighting it?  Are they relying on volunteers?  Who is paying the tab, and why?

 

I doubt she is spending millions, and she has said publicly she's brought this case to assert her religious freedom and rights under the Charter. I think that's as a good a reason as any to bring a case. 

 

She had an immigration and refugee firm representing her, which she is likely paying for. And she had intervenors written in support of her by organizations like the CCLA which rely on private donations and do no receive government funding. Not sure why that's an issue. 

[kelownabomberfan]

, you have called the answer as to why wearing a niqab and beatings are different "silly." If anything, that's elitism.

 

 

I called one poster's response silly, because it didn't address my question.  Anyway, you seem to be happy being an elitist too and also didn't answer my question regarding why so many people in Canada must be bigots and stupid because they disagree with you, so I bid you good day.

[kelownabomberfan]

 

I doubt she is spending millions, and she has said publicly she's brought this case to assert her religious freedom and rights under the Charter. I think that's as a good a reason as any to bring a case. 

 

 

 

She had an immigration and refugee firm representing her, which she is likely paying for. And she had intervenors written in support of her by organizations like the CCLA which rely on private donations and do no receive government funding. Not sure why that's an issue. 

 

 

So if she isn't spending millions, then why didn't you also state that the government isn't spending millions too?  Who exactly is spending millions here?  I get it that there would be volunteers helping her for the notoriety, much like the guy helping Omar Khadir.  There's a guy who never met a camera he didn't like.

[HardCoreBlue]

 

, you have called the answer as to why wearing a niqab and beatings are different "silly." If anything, that's elitism.

 

 

I called one poster's response silly, because it didn't address my question.  Anyway, you seem to be happy being an elitist too and also didn't answer my question regarding why so many people in Canada must be bigots and stupid because they disagree with you, so I bid you good day.

 

How many? Do you have specific numbers? Do you at least have an an estimate based on a sound methodology to make that claim?

[PCB]

 

, you have called the answer as to why wearing a niqab and beatings are different "silly." If anything, that's elitism.

 

 

I called one poster's response silly, because it didn't address my question.  Anyway, you seem to be happy being an elitist too and also didn't answer my question regarding why so many people in Canada must be bigots and stupid because they disagree with you, so I bid you good day.

 

I haven't once used the word bigot or called anyone stupid, so there's no need to put words in my mouth. I've simply stated that our Charter protects her right to wear a niqab. When you responded that's a slippery slope to stonings and beatings, I explained why it's not. 

 

Personally, I'm glad that we live in country in which, despite how others feel about one's beliefs, an individual is free to practice her beliefs when, as in this case, they have not been demonstrated to harm anyone. And, despite what Unknown Poster may argue, I read the case and the Government introduced no evidence that her wearing a niqab when she recites the citizenship oath harms anyone. 

 

 

I doubt she is spending millions, and she has said publicly she's brought this case to assert her religious freedom and rights under the Charter. I think that's as a good a reason as any to bring a case. 

 

 

 

She had an immigration and refugee firm representing her, which she is likely paying for. And she had intervenors written in support of her by organizations like the CCLA which rely on private donations and do no receive government funding. Not sure why that's an issue. 

 

 

So if she isn't spending millions, then why didn't you also state that the government isn't spending millions too?  Who exactly is spending millions here?  I get it that there would be volunteers helping her for the notoriety, much like the guy helping Omar Khadir.  There's a guy who never met a camera he didn't like.

 

The Government is not spending money to support her case. They are spending money to appeal it. They could stop spending on this case by not appealing it.

[kelownabomberfan]

 

 

, you have called the answer as to why wearing a niqab and beatings are different "silly." If anything, that's elitism.

 

 

I called one poster's response silly, because it didn't address my question.  Anyway, you seem to be happy being an elitist too and also didn't answer my question regarding why so many people in Canada must be bigots and stupid because they disagree with you, so I bid you good day.

 

I haven't once used the word bigot or called anyone stupid, so there's no need to put words in my mouth. I've simply stated that our Charter protects her right to wear a niqab. When you responded that's a slippery slope to stonings and beatings, I explained why it's not. 

 

Personally, I'm glad that we live in country in which, despite how others feel about one's beliefs, an individual is free to practice her beliefs when, as in this case, they have not been demonstrated to harm anyone. And, despite what Unknown Poster may argue, I read the case and the Government introduced no evidence that her wearing a niqab when she recites the citizenship oath harms anyone. 

 

 

I doubt she is spending millions, and she has said publicly she's brought this case to assert her religious freedom and rights under the Charter. I think that's as a good a reason as any to bring a case. 

 

 

 

She had an immigration and refugee firm representing her, which she is likely paying for. And she had intervenors written in support of her by organizations like the CCLA which rely on private donations and do no receive government funding. Not sure why that's an issue. 

 

 

So if she isn't spending millions, then why didn't you also state that the government isn't spending millions too?  Who exactly is spending millions here?  I get it that there would be volunteers helping her for the notoriety, much like the guy helping Omar Khadir.  There's a guy who never met a camera he didn't like.

 

The Government is not spending money to support her case. They are spending money to appeal it. They could stop spending on this case by not appealing it.

 

 

I didn't say you called anyone a bigot and I didn't put words in your mouth.  I asked you why this seems to be the only reason some here have given for why Canadians who disapprove of the niquab is that they are bigots.  But I see now I won't get any straight answers out of you so I am giving up trying.   And if you honestly think that you answered the question about the slippery slope I feel sorry for you.

 

I too am happy to live in a country of religious tolerance and freedom.  Mark H. and I both are in this country thanks to this amazing concept, that so few areas of the world allow. As I said before, unlike probably everyone else in this thread, I have attended a citizenship ceremony and witnessed a Muslim woman being asked to remove her niquab.  When he asked her to do it, there was an audible cheer from the crowd. So obviously there is a strong feeling in Canada about this subject.  The test of "no harm" per the Charter is fine, but perhaps there are things going on in the world now that weren't contemplated in 1982.  I will state that if the majority of Canadians are against the niquab, I guess I am in minority, as I honestly don't care, as it really does no harm in my opinion.  Your point about how the commissioner could just "listen" to the person behind the niquab is kind of ridiculous though, as at the ceremony I witnessed, there were thirty new Canadians taking the oath, and the commissioner was standing 50 feet away.  There is no way he/she would be able to discern if the niquab clad person was saying the oath.  But that being said, I honestly don't care, and don't believe that it matters.

 

Why I jumped in this argument was that it bugged me that the only reason why people would be against the niqab was, per certain posters here, because they are bigots, ignorant or stupid.  Perhaps this issue is just a bit deeper than that.  But I am giving up trying to explain why, as its obvious those here who have certain opinions don't want to hear it, or want to bother even trying to understand a different viewpoint.  So be it. KBF out.

[voodoochylde]

Hey guys .. as a moderator on the site .. and someone who has strong feelings about our political system .. I simply wanted to say that I appreciate the tone and intelligence in this discussion. It could easily devolve into partisan nonsense but, for the most part, there has been good back and forth.

Kudos to you guys for making my job easy!

[Mark H.]

I dare say there's more relevance here than you'll find in most of the leaders' debates.

[PCB]

 

I didn't say you called anyone a bigot and I didn't put words in your mouth.  I asked you why this seems to be the only reason some here have given for why Canadians who disapprove of the niquab is that they are bigots.  But I see now I won't get any straight answers out of you so I am giving up trying.   And if you honestly think that you answered the question about the slippery slope I feel sorry for you.

 

I too am happy to live in a country of religious tolerance and freedom.  Mark H. and I both are in this country thanks to this amazing concept, that so few areas of the world allow. As I said before, unlike probably everyone else in this thread, I have attended a citizenship ceremony and witnessed a Muslim woman being asked to remove her niquab.  When he asked her to do it, there was an audible cheer from the crowd. So obviously there is a strong feeling in Canada about this subject.  The test of "no harm" per the Charter is fine, but perhaps there are things going on in the world now that weren't contemplated in 1982.  I will state that if the majority of Canadians are against the niquab, I guess I am in minority, as I honestly don't care, as it really does no harm in my opinion.  Your point about how the commissioner could just "listen" to the person behind the niquab is kind of ridiculous though, as at the ceremony I witnessed, there were thirty new Canadians taking the oath, and the commissioner was standing 50 feet away.  There is no way he/she would be able to discern if the niquab clad person was saying the oath.  But that being said, I honestly don't care, and don't believe that it matters.

 

Why I jumped in this argument was that it bugged me that the only reason why people would be against the niqab was, per certain posters here, because they are bigots, ignorant or stupid.  Perhaps this issue is just a bit deeper than that.  But I am giving up trying to explain why, as its obvious those here who have certain opinions don't want to hear it, or want to bother even trying to understand a different viewpoint.  So be it. KBF out.

Here, I'll try to give you a straight answer. I can't speak for others in this thread, but I don't think the reason some Canadians disapprove of wearing a niqab while reciting the citizenship oath is because they're bigots. I think, as you and others have said, some Canadians are worried about a slippery slope, oppression and Canadian values.  I'll do my best to explain why I don't think we should be concerned about these issues however. And unless the argument progresses to somewhere else, I'll stop responding too because I do think we're spinning our wheels at this point.

 

The slippery slope argument is moot. Wearing a niqab at a citizenship ceremony will not lead to the legalization of beatings in the name of religion because of S.1. in our Charter. That's not a silly answer, it is a legal fact.

 

Oppression, or harm, also is not an issue because this woman has made it very clear she does not feel she is being oppressed and no evidence has been presented in this case to suggest otherwise.; rather, wearing a niqab is part of her religious beliefs.

 

Now, as to the third issue, Canadian values, I can't objectively disprove this argument because values are a subjective thing. But I will say multiculturalism is one of our most important Canadian values and I think multiculturalism councils us to tolerate and accommodate an individual's religious beliefs, like this woman's, even when they are not our own.

 

I've done my best to explain why I don't think these concerns are valid. Because some have these concerns does not make them bigots. I don't think its intuitive to know about clauses like S.1. So I think a lot of blame lies on the politicians for distorting this issue, and others like it, and not talking about it in a substantive way. If politicians talked about things like S.1., I bet fewer Canadians would disapprove of wearing a niqab at citizenship ceremonies. 

 

If someone wants to give me another reason why I should be against this woman wearing a niqab while reciting the citizenship oath, I'll listen. But so far, I haven't heard one that can't be disproved.

[The Unknown Poster]

In your mind it will never be disproved. How about vast majority of Canadians? Is that not reason enough to visit the issue or if the vast majority disagrees with you they are all wrong and you're right?

[Mark H.]

In your mind it will never be disproved. How about vast majority of Canadians? Is that not reason enough to visit the issue or if the vast majority disagrees with you they are all wrong and you're right?

You keep quoting the phrase 'vast majority of Canadians.' Some links to support that would be good.

[Fraser]

I think there was some poorly done poll on it a while ago. Frankly the political momentum seems to have turned firmly against the torys on this issue the more people educate them self on it.

I don't blame the torys for trying to throw a hail mary wedge issue into the mix but it appears to have backfired

[Mark H.]

It's not an unheard of political strategy, but to do it based on that particular issue is despicable.

[Noeller]

Harper needed a miracle and this worked for awhile, but as people learn about it, it's working against him.

[PCB]

In your mind it will never be disproved. How about vast majority of Canadians? Is that not reason enough to visit the issue or if the vast majority disagrees with you they are all wrong and you're right?

Even assuming the "vast majority" claim is correct, no, it's not reason to revisit this issue. That's the great thing, in my opinion, about constitutionalism and religious freedom. When your individual freedoms are at stake, like your religious practices, it does not matter what the majority thinks, subject to reasonable limits, you get to practice them.

 

You're trying to use the political process (will of the majority etc.) to counter the judicial process and constitutionalism. However political will does not get to overrule the Charter.