[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[garbon]

Alright. What you think of the having to have your face uncovered when dealing with the state?

Depends on context. In some contexts, it makes sense from a purely functional POV to require an uncovered face for ID purposes.

Every time one deals with "the state" makes it sound more like a respect/obedience thing, like taking your hat off in church. 

Of course, rather than liberate muslim women who use face coverings, it'll just force them entirely back into the house.

[Barrister]

Alright. What you think of the having to have your face uncovered when dealing with the state?

Depends.  There are situations and scenarios where you certainly need to be able to determine the proper identity of the person you are dealing with.  In those situations you should be able to set up a simple protocol where the person steps into a semi-private area in order to remove the veil in order to compare to photo ID.

If there's no need to confirm identity however (say you're just making an inquiry, or picking up some forms to mail in) forcing someone to remove their veil just seems petty and vindictive.

[Jacob]

If it's with that premise that you disagree with than this has once again being reduce to a Right vs Left divide.

Which side is the right and which side is the left?

[Grey Fox]

Alright. What you think of the having to have your face uncovered when dealing with the state?

Depends on context. In some contexts, it makes sense from a purely functional POV to require an uncovered face for ID purposes.

Every time one deals with "the state" makes it sound more like a respect/obedience thing, like taking your hat off in church. 

Of course, rather than liberate muslim women who use face coverings, it'll just force them entirely back into the house.

or abandon their perfidious religion and join us fully in our secular society.


I understand that to the Anglo-saxon world this simply doesn't happen.

[Grey Fox]

If it's with that premise that you disagree with than this has once again being reduce to a Right vs Left divide.

Which side is the right and which side is the left?

Big Gov = Left.


I wish viper stop being sick & shows up to ruffle your feathers!

[Barrister]

Alright. What you think of the having to have your face uncovered when dealing with the state?

Depends on context. In some contexts, it makes sense from a purely functional POV to require an uncovered face for ID purposes.

Every time one deals with "the state" makes it sound more like a respect/obedience thing, like taking your hat off in church. 

Of course, rather than liberate muslim women who use face coverings, it'll just force them entirely back into the house.

or abandon their perfidious religion and join us fully in our secular society.


I understand that to the Anglo-saxon world this simply doesn't happen.

Except in the real world it just doesn't work that way.  The more you discriminate, the more people cling to their religion.  I went on about this a page or two back.

[Jacob]

Big Gov = Left.

That may be the breakdown on this issue in Quebec, but outside of Quebec it seems that pretty much everyone, left and right, think it's a terrible idea.

I wish viper stop being sick & shows up to ruffle your feathers!

I hope he gets better soon!

[crazy canuck]

If it's with that premise that you disagree with than this has once again being reduce to a Right vs Left divide.

It is odd that you say it is the "Right" that demands tolerance and it is the "Left" that demands obedience to State defined norms.  That may be how it is viewed in the insular world that is Quebec politics but traditionally it is the left the presses for things like human rights laws that protect the interest of vulnerable minorities and it is the right that is slow to change to accept those protections.

[Malthus]

Alright. What you think of the having to have your face uncovered when dealing with the state?

Depends on context. In some contexts, it makes sense from a purely functional POV to require an uncovered face for ID purposes.

Every time one deals with "the state" makes it sound more like a respect/obedience thing, like taking your hat off in church. 

Of course, rather than liberate muslim women who use face coverings, it'll just force them entirely back into the house.

or abandon their perfidious religion and join us fully in our secular society.


I understand that to the Anglo-saxon world this simply doesn't happen.

Totally untrue. In fact, the reverse of the truth.

In the RoC, the notion is that if we leave the minorities and religious types alone, in effect removing any threat of persecution, what will happen is ... after a generation or two they or their kids will be mostly indistinguishable from us ... perhaps with some cultural traits worn as badges of pride, but otherwise fulling accepting and participating in our values.

You view "multicuturalism" in the RoC as a wimpy folding to minorities and religious wackjobs. It is more properly viewed as the secular version of the Borg.  Come here and in two generations most of you will give up your religion, marry outsiders, and melt in. I cite myself as evidence. 

You think Orthodox religious Jews are quaking in their kippahs over the pansy-ass Quebec proposals? They've seen worse. In their hearts, they probably welcome it. The threat to them isn't some Quebec bureaucrat persecuting them, its that their kids will go to a gay Jewish film festival or something, and decide that their religion if a bunch or rules for no purpose. Some light persecution will get those kids to wake up and say "I'm Jewish, goddamit!". 

[Grallon]

Except in the real world it just doesn't work that way.  The more you discriminate, the more people cling to their religion.  I went on about this a page or two back.

The 'real world' is what one makes of it.  This clumsy proposal is one such attempt.  The real solution is of course to get rid of the muslims which are at the core of the problem.  Who knows - perhaps the deteriorating social climate fostered by the ongoing debate will stimulate many of them to leave on their own - before further actions need to be taken.

-----

In fact, when you think about it, it's rather perplexing to see those opposed claiming their hidjab or kippa is essential to their so called 'identity'; is their identity such a fragile thing they need article of clothings to bolster it?  Obviously this has more to do with underlining their belonging to a group distinct from the majority than any fundamental expression of their individual identity. 

And this is the perfect illustration of how vicious and debilitating Canadian multiculturalism really is: confusing individual rights with collective rigths - equating individual identity and liberties with collective identity.  If the sole result of this proposal is to expose this fallacy then it will have served the greater good.




G.

[crazy canuck]

is their identity such a fragile thing they need article of clothings to bolster it? 

Is the identity of a French speaking person in Quebec so fragile that they need to enact such laws?  And we dont even have to mention the language laws here do we?

[Barrister]

Except in the real world it just doesn't work that way.  The more you discriminate, the more people cling to their religion.  I went on about this a page or two back.

The 'real world' is what one makes of it.  This clumsy proposal is one such attempt.  The real solution is of course to get rid of the muslims which are at the core of the problem.  Who knows - perhaps the deteriorating social climate fostered by the ongoing debate will stimulate many of them to leave on their own - before further actions need to be taken.

-----

In fact, when you think about it, it's rather perplexing to see those opposed claiming their hidjab or kippa is essential to their so called 'identity'; is their identity such a fragile thing they need article of clothings to bolster it?  Obviously this has more to do with underlining their belonging to a group distinct from the majority than any fundamental expression of their individual identity. 

And this is the perfect illustration of how vicious and debilitating Canadian multiculturalism really is: confusing individual rights with collective rigths - equating individual identity and liberties with collective identity.  If the sole result of this proposal is to expose this fallacy then it will have served the greater good.

I just don't know what to say to someone who sees banning the hijab as a useful first step to his ultimate desire of genociding all muslims.

[Malthus]

The 'real world' is what one makes of it.  This clumsy proposal is one such attempt.  The real solution is of course to get rid of the muslims which are at the core of the problem.  Who knows - perhaps the deteriorating social climate fostered by the ongoing debate will stimulate many of them to leave on their own - before further actions need to be taken.

Yuck.

In fact, when you think about it, it's rather perplexing to see those opposed claiming their hidjab or kippa is essential to their so called 'identity'; is their identity such a fragile thing they need article of clothings to bolster it?  Obviously this has more to do with underlining their belonging to a group distinct from the majority than any fundamental expression of their individual identity. 

Comming from a defender of "language laws", that's pretty funny. 

[Grey Fox]

is their identity such a fragile thing they need article of clothings to bolster it? 

Is the identity of a French speaking person in Quebec so fragile that they need to enact such laws?  And we dont even have to mention the language laws here do we?

Yes! Yes! It's barely 50 years old!

[Grey Fox]

Alright. What you think of the having to have your face uncovered when dealing with the state?

Depends on context. In some contexts, it makes sense from a purely functional POV to require an uncovered face for ID purposes.

Every time one deals with "the state" makes it sound more like a respect/obedience thing, like taking your hat off in church. 

Of course, rather than liberate muslim women who use face coverings, it'll just force them entirely back into the house.

or abandon their perfidious religion and join us fully in our secular society.


I understand that to the Anglo-saxon world this simply doesn't happen.

Totally untrue. In fact, the reverse of the truth.

In the RoC, the notion is that if we leave the minorities and religious types alone, in effect removing any threat of persecution, what will happen is ... after a generation or two they or their kids will be mostly indistinguishable from us ... perhaps with some cultural traits worn as badges of pride, but otherwise fulling accepting and participating in our values.

You view "multicuturalism" in the RoC as a wimpy folding to minorities and religious wackjobs. It is more properly viewed as the secular version of the Borg.  Come here and in two generations most of you will give up your religion, marry outsiders, and melt in. I cite myself as evidence. 

You think Orthodox religious Jews are quaking in their kippahs over the pansy-ass Quebec proposals? They've seen worse. In their hearts, they probably welcome it. The threat to them isn't some Quebec bureaucrat persecuting them, its that their kids will go to a gay Jewish film festival or something, and decide that their religion if a bunch or rules for no purpose. Some light persecution will get those kids to wake up and say "I'm Jewish, goddamit!".

You may have a point.

@BB You did & we're an example of that. Seems we cannot even learn from ourselves.