The Unknown Poster Posted October 2, 2015 Report Share Posted October 2, 2015 Ofcourse the Conservative view point is correct. Its not even a matter of politics. Thats why Mulcair played it both ways because he knows the Cons are right too. Why does a woman have to uncover for a passport photo? Do we make "accommodations" for that? Get them alone and away from prying eyes of men? Do they get accommodated at airports? When they walk into a licensed beverage room, what happens then? Its not religion. There's a line between religion and stupidity. This crosses it. If someone cant see that, it doesnt mean its my opinion, it means its wrong. And before anyone jumps down my throat that is not my perspective on everything just the common sense things. Courts get things wrong. Its the role of the people to create laws and the courts to enforce them not the other way around. If the Cons win a majority, they should absolutely put through a law to ban the Niqab. Why on earth would we, as Canadians, condone or endorse something that is used to control and marginalize women? That is despicable conduct for any Canadian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Unknown Poster Posted October 2, 2015 Report Share Posted October 2, 2015 And by the way, I agree pot should be decriminalized. Never smoked. Think it's disgusting. Think it IS a gateway for many people. But it should not be illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kcin94 Posted October 2, 2015 Report Share Posted October 2, 2015 If they were correct, they wouldn't keep losing in court. So if a law is a law, we can't think it is wrong. If so, why does Trudeau, Muclair and May want to legalize marijuna. It's against the law. All current laws must be right, therefore they must be wrong. You can think everything is wrong if you're so inclined. TUP's pronouncement of it as fact that it's correct was inaccurate. If the Liberals win the election and attempt to legalize pot, only to be rejected in court and again in appeal, then yes, they'll be wrong about being able to legalize it. He thinks it's correct. That's his opinion. The fact that the courts disagreed with him doesn't change it. I think it's correct to legalize and tax marijuna. That's my opinion. 82% think it's correct to ban the niqab at citizenship ceremonies. That's our opinion. It doesn't mean we are racist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweep the leg Posted October 2, 2015 Report Share Posted October 2, 2015 Why does a woman have to uncover for a passport photo? Do we make "accommodations" for that? Get them alone and away from prying eyes of men? Do they get accommodated at airports? When they walk into a licensed beverage room, what happens then? Courts get things wrong. Its the role of the people to create laws and the courts to enforce them not the other way around. If the Cons win a majority, they should absolutely put through a law to ban the Niqab. Why on earth would we, as Canadians, condone or endorse something that is used to control and marginalize women? That is despicable conduct for any Canadian. Yes, they do get accommodated for passport photos and airport lineups. Also, any Muslim woman who follows her religion closely enough to wear a niqab won't be hanging out in beverage rooms. You've missed the main point of this conversation. The Conservatives have already tried to make this law, and had it struck down in court and again in appeal. Soon they'll lose at the Supreme Court. They can't make a law like this b/c it's a violation of the woman's human rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kcin94 Posted October 2, 2015 Report Share Posted October 2, 2015 If they were correct, they wouldn't keep losing in court. So if a law is a law, we can't think it is wrong. If so, why does Trudeau, Muclair and May want to legalize marijuna. It's against the law. All current laws must be right, therefore they must be wrong. You can think everything is wrong if you're so inclined. TUP's pronouncement of it as fact that it's correct was inaccurate. If the Liberals win the election and attempt to legalize pot, only to be rejected in court and again in appeal, then yes, they'll be wrong about being able to legalize it. He thinks it's correct. That's his opinion. The fact that the courts disagreed with him. I think it's correct to legalize and tax marijuna. That's my opinion. 82% think it's correct to ban the niqab at citizenship ceremonies. That's our opinion. It doesn't mean we are racist. Not to mention once again, there is no religious requirement for muslims to hide their face. Hence only 10% or so of muslim women wear a burka or niqab. Many more wear a hijab or other garments to show modesty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kcin94 Posted October 2, 2015 Report Share Posted October 2, 2015 Why does a woman have to uncover for a passport photo? Do we make "accommodations" for that? Get them alone and away from prying eyes of men? Do they get accommodated at airports? When they walk into a licensed beverage room, what happens then? Courts get things wrong. Its the role of the people to create laws and the courts to enforce them not the other way around. If the Cons win a majority, they should absolutely put through a law to ban the Niqab. Why on earth would we, as Canadians, condone or endorse something that is used to control and marginalize women? That is despicable conduct for any Canadian. They can't make a law like this b/c it's a violation of the woman's human rights. which is your opinion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweep the leg Posted October 2, 2015 Report Share Posted October 2, 2015 Why does a woman have to uncover for a passport photo? Do we make "accommodations" for that? Get them alone and away from prying eyes of men? Do they get accommodated at airports? When they walk into a licensed beverage room, what happens then? Courts get things wrong. Its the role of the people to create laws and the courts to enforce them not the other way around. If the Cons win a majority, they should absolutely put through a law to ban the Niqab. Why on earth would we, as Canadians, condone or endorse something that is used to control and marginalize women? That is despicable conduct for any Canadian. They can't make a law like this b/c it's a violation of the woman's human rights. which is your opinion It's the court's opinion. The law violated the Citizenship Act, which is closely related to the Human Rights Act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Unknown Poster Posted October 2, 2015 Report Share Posted October 2, 2015 Why does a woman have to uncover for a passport photo? Do we make "accommodations" for that? Get them alone and away from prying eyes of men? Do they get accommodated at airports? When they walk into a licensed beverage room, what happens then? Courts get things wrong. Its the role of the people to create laws and the courts to enforce them not the other way around. If the Cons win a majority, they should absolutely put through a law to ban the Niqab. Why on earth would we, as Canadians, condone or endorse something that is used to control and marginalize women? That is despicable conduct for any Canadian. Yes, they do get accommodated for passport photos and airport lineups. Also, any Muslim woman who follows her religion closely enough to wear a niqab won't be hanging out in beverage rooms. You've missed the main point of this conversation. The Conservatives have already tried to make this law, and had it struck down in court and again in appeal. Soon they'll lose at the Supreme Court. They can't make a law like this b/c it's a violation of the woman's human rights. What a world we live in where a country like Canada thinks its a human right to enforce a symbol of the lack of human rights in other countries. Conservatives are absolutely right (and with the vast majority of the nation behind them) to demand this change. Hopefully they can also change some Supreme Court justices in time to get the right result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelownabomberfan Posted October 2, 2015 Report Share Posted October 2, 2015 The Conservatives began their climb when they started appealing to racists in Quebec. The niqab issue will win them the election b/c a lot of people are scared of muslims and Harper is doing what he can to stoke that fear. To date there have been two women who were refused the oath of citizenship b/c of a niqab, but the Conservatives have been able to turn this into a major issue. One sued the gov't and has won, twice. Harper will also lose at the Supreme Court...again. But it doesn't matter b/c by then he will be the pm again. I am still trying to figure out how, if you are asking a religion to abide by the laws of the state, that that is to be considered racist. So by this same token, not allowing Christian symbols on government property, like a nativity scene, or even the phrase "Merry Christmas" to appear anywhere in government literature, is the government engaging in racist activity. Either it is also racist, or neither action is racist. The two are not mutually exclusive, but just people deliberately bending over to accommodate one religion, while crapping on another, all in the name of political correctness. The Unknown Poster 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Unknown Poster Posted October 2, 2015 Report Share Posted October 2, 2015 The Conservatives began their climb when they started appealing to racists in Quebec. The niqab issue will win them the election b/c a lot of people are scared of muslims and Harper is doing what he can to stoke that fear. To date there have been two women who were refused the oath of citizenship b/c of a niqab, but the Conservatives have been able to turn this into a major issue. One sued the gov't and has won, twice. Harper will also lose at the Supreme Court...again. But it doesn't matter b/c by then he will be the pm again. I am still trying to figure out how, if you are asking a religion to abide by the laws of the state, that that is to be considered racist. So by this same token, not allowing Christian symbols on government property, like a nativity scene, or even the phrase "Merry Christmas" to appear anywhere in government literature, that is the government engaging in racist activity. Either it is also racist, or neither action is racist. The two are not mutually exclusive, but just people deliberately bending over to accommodate one religion, while crapping on another, all in the name of political correctness. Its PC gone absurd. Great point. Is there a private room at government buildings for Christians to have crosses? Is there a private Christmas Concert for those that arent offended by the word? But something that is rooted in the mistreatment and control of women, oh thats religious freedom! No it isnt. Not at all. Can someone murder a gay guy during a citizenship oath too? Do we have a private room for that? God forbid the officer administering the oath learns that the woman was once raped...he'd have to behead her or at least provide a private room for the beheading. Are there female genital mutilation rooms to accommodate that religious belief too? What if a Muslim woman was seeking Canadian citizenship without the approval of her family? Would we accommodate them stepping in and beating her...in a private room ofcourse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelownabomberfan Posted October 2, 2015 Report Share Posted October 2, 2015 The Conservatives began their climb when they started appealing to racists in Quebec. The niqab issue will win them the election b/c a lot of people are scared of muslims and Harper is doing what he can to stoke that fear. To date there have been two women who were refused the oath of citizenship b/c of a niqab, but the Conservatives have been able to turn this into a major issue. One sued the gov't and has won, twice. Harper will also lose at the Supreme Court...again. But it doesn't matter b/c by then he will be the pm again. I am still trying to figure out how, if you are asking a religion to abide by the laws of the state, that that is to be considered racist. So by this same token, not allowing Christian symbols on government property, like a nativity scene, or even the phrase "Merry Christmas" to appear anywhere in government literature, that is the government engaging in racist activity. Either it is also racist, or neither action is racist. The two are not mutually exclusive, but just people deliberately bending over to accommodate one religion, while crapping on another, all in the name of political correctness. Its PC gone absurd. Great point. Is there a private room at government buildings for Christians to have crosses? Is there a private Christmas Concert for those that arent offended by the word? But something that is rooted in the mistreatment and control of women, oh thats religious freedom! No it isnt. Not at all. Can someone murder a gay guy during a citizenship oath too? Do we have a private room for that? God forbid the officer administering the oath learns that the woman was once raped...he'd have to behead her or at least provide a private room for the beheading. Are there female genital mutilation rooms to accommodate that religious belief too? What if a Muslim woman was seeking Canadian citizenship without the approval of her family? Would we accommodate them stepping in and beating her...in a private room ofcourse. You are just being racist. Besides, she'd be lucky if she was just beheaded. The main punishment is stoning (and not the good kind) in a lot of these countries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweep the leg Posted October 2, 2015 Report Share Posted October 2, 2015 The Conservatives began their climb when they started appealing to racists in Quebec. The niqab issue will win them the election b/c a lot of people are scared of muslims and Harper is doing what he can to stoke that fear. To date there have been two women who were refused the oath of citizenship b/c of a niqab, but the Conservatives have been able to turn this into a major issue. One sued the gov't and has won, twice. Harper will also lose at the Supreme Court...again. But it doesn't matter b/c by then he will be the pm again. I am still trying to figure out how, if you are asking a religion to abide by the laws of the state, that that is to be considered racist. So by this same token, not allowing Christian symbols on government property, like a nativity scene, or even the phrase "Merry Christmas" to appear anywhere in government literature, is the government engaging in racist activity. Either it is also racist, or neither action is racist. The two are not mutually exclusive, but just people deliberately bending over to accommodate one religion, while crapping on another, all in the name of political correctness. It's not a law of the state. It was struck down as unconstitutional. It's not just Christian symbols affected by government rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweep the leg Posted October 2, 2015 Report Share Posted October 2, 2015 Its PC gone absurd. Great point. Is there a private room at government buildings for Christians to have crosses? Is there a private Christmas Concert for those that arent offended by the word? But something that is rooted in the mistreatment and control of women, oh thats religious freedom! No it isnt. Not at all. Can someone murder a gay guy during a citizenship oath too? Do we have a private room for that? God forbid the officer administering the oath learns that the woman was once raped...he'd have to behead her or at least provide a private room for the beheading. Are there female genital mutilation rooms to accommodate that religious belief too? What if a Muslim woman was seeking Canadian citizenship without the approval of her family? Would we accommodate them stepping in and beating her...in a private room ofcourse. All good points. You've clearly put a lot of thought into this. I'll step aside from this argument now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Unknown Poster Posted October 2, 2015 Report Share Posted October 2, 2015 Its PC gone absurd. Great point. Is there a private room at government buildings for Christians to have crosses? Is there a private Christmas Concert for those that arent offended by the word? But something that is rooted in the mistreatment and control of women, oh thats religious freedom! No it isnt. Not at all. Can someone murder a gay guy during a citizenship oath too? Do we have a private room for that? God forbid the officer administering the oath learns that the woman was once raped...he'd have to behead her or at least provide a private room for the beheading. Are there female genital mutilation rooms to accommodate that religious belief too? What if a Muslim woman was seeking Canadian citizenship without the approval of her family? Would we accommodate them stepping in and beating her...in a private room ofcourse. All good points. You've clearly put a lot of thought into this. You're right. Only parts of other religions are okay. Its not okay here to beat a woman for going outside on her own. But forcing her to cover up, thats okay. There is a difference to be sure, but if we're arguing religious freedom, then why is there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelownabomberfan Posted October 2, 2015 Report Share Posted October 2, 2015 It's not a law of the state. It was struck down as unconstitutional. It's not just Christian symbols affected by government rules. 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. The Unknown Poster 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Unknown Poster Posted October 2, 2015 Report Share Posted October 2, 2015 Christians are fair game. But dont piss off the Muslims or the radicals will get you. I actually think its a matter of trying too hard to prove we're not racist. This is not an issue of racism whatsoever. Human rights should always trump religious rights first of all. Citizenship oaths and things of that nature pertaining to Canada should be secular. So whether a requirement offends a religious belief or not shouldnt even factor in. This is the rules and processes to become Canadian. Dont like it, dont become Canadian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCB Posted October 2, 2015 Report Share Posted October 2, 2015 It's not a law of the state. It was struck down as unconstitutional. It's not just Christian symbols affected by government rules. 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. Fatty Liver 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Unknown Poster Posted October 2, 2015 Report Share Posted October 2, 2015 It's not a law of the state. It was struck down as unconstitutional. It's not just Christian symbols affected by government rules. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelownabomberfan Posted October 2, 2015 Report Share Posted October 2, 2015 It's not a law of the state. It was struck down as unconstitutional. It's not just Christian symbols affected by government rules. 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. OK - but allowing someone to murder someone else is the most radical case. What if it's just a casual daily/weekly beating? No stoning. Just a little beating. Are you good with that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelownabomberfan Posted October 2, 2015 Report Share Posted October 2, 2015 Isnt there a clause that allows the government to ignore the court? They should use it. It is commonly known as the notwithstanding clause (or "la clause dérogatoire" in French), or as the override power, and it allows Parliament or provincial legislatures to override certain portions of the Charter. It was, and continues to be, perhaps the most controversial provision of the Charter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Unknown Poster Posted October 2, 2015 Report Share Posted October 2, 2015 Isnt there a clause that allows the government to ignore the court? They should use it. It is commonly known as the notwithstanding clause (or "la clause dérogatoire" in French), or as the override power, and it allows Parliament or provincial legislatures to override certain portions of the Charter. It was, and continues to be, perhaps the most controversial provision of the Charter. Thats what I was thinking of. Sounds perfect for this. The best part is, the vocal minority would be outraged for about three days and then they wouldnt care anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelownabomberfan Posted October 2, 2015 Report Share Posted October 2, 2015 I still say that there is a flaw in the Canadian multi-cultural experiment. I still remember reading that Macleans article where a man from Afghanistan killed his two daughters and his wife in Ottawa, with the help of his son and other wife (yes somehow he was allowed into Canada as a practicing polygamist because no one wanted to offend him), and then was perplexed as to why he was being charged with a crime in Canada. How the hell can you enter this country and live here full time, and not understand that murdering your women if you feel they have brought shame on you is wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shafia_family_murders The Unknown Poster 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCB Posted October 2, 2015 Report Share Posted October 2, 2015 It's not a law of the state. It was struck down as unconstitutional. It's not just Christian symbols affected by government rules. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Unknown Poster Posted October 2, 2015 Report Share Posted October 2, 2015 I love multiculturalism. But there should be no confusion about the expectations and standards of this country. You are free to practice your religion and culture, more free than some are in their own country. But human rights and equality trumps that. Is your wife allowed to make her own decisions, go where she wants, when she wants with whom she wants? If not, dont come here. The dream should not be to become a melting pot for distasteful cultural "traditions". it should be to be a place where people want to be free and equal. And if their culture works within that, great! If not, change or **** off. Brandon Blue&Gold 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Unknown Poster Posted October 2, 2015 Report Share Posted October 2, 2015 It's not a law of the state. It was struck down as unconstitutional. It's not just Christian symbols affected by government rules. 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. I was waiting for the "how can she oppress herself" argument. If she is so oppressed she thinks its cool, is that okay? We dont look out for people brainwashed into thinking the abuse they take is deserved? And besides which, who said she cant wear it? Wear it all day long. But coming to THIS country, taking the oat of citizenship? Get off your high horse and take off your veil. Or...if you want to protest the government, try going to some of these really despotic countries and protest...and see what happens. Its a slap in the face to come to Canada and then snub your nose at OUR standards for equality of women. Disgraceful in fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts