[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Jacob]

I'm not saying they didn't discuss it, I'm saying the language wasn't as strong as when it's Quebec.

But I agree with Harper on this.  You can't veil your face for this, and numerous other acts, like testifying in court, registering for a vote, having your picture taken for a passport or any other identity card that requires it.

If they want to keep their veil on at all times, they're free to live in Saudi Arabia or Iran, they don't have to move here.  I don't see the point of these people coming here to enjoy our freedoms anyway, since they don't want to participate in our society.

Besides, we shouldn't tolerate muslim fundamentalists sent here to establish a beachhead.  It's not like we are in a shortage of moderate muslim immigrants, they can keep their fanatics over there.

I guess I'm one of "those people" in that I don't think "our freedom" of not wearing scarves on our heads is a particularly big deal, especially compared to the freedoms enumerated in our Charter.

[crazy canuck]

I'm not saying they didn't discuss it, I'm saying the language wasn't as strong as when it's Quebec.

But I agree with Harper on this.  You can't veil your face for this, and numerous other acts, like testifying in court, registering for a vote, having your picture taken for a passport or any other identity card that requires it.

If they want to keep their veil on at all times, they're free to live in Saudi Arabia or Iran, they don't have to move here.  I don't see the point of these people coming here to enjoy our freedoms anyway, since they don't want to participate in our society.

Besides, we shouldn't tolerate muslim fundamentalists sent here to establish a beachhead.  It's not like we are in a shortage of moderate muslim immigrants, they can keep their fanatics over there.

The language isn't as strong as in Quebec because nobody outside of Quebec agrees with you.

[Grey Fox]

You guys are crazy.

[viper37]

Why shouldn't they be able to be veiled at a swearing in ceremony?

1) How do I know the person in front of me is who she says she is?
2) What kind of message about equality of men&women does that send?

[viper37]

The language isn't as strong as in Quebec because nobody outside of Quebec agrees with you.

I guess Harper and his cabinet are all from Quebec, then

[garbon]

1) How do I know the person in front of me is who she says she is?

It is a ceremony. Who gives a fuck if they have already met citizenship requirements?

2) What kind of message about equality of men&women does that send?

I don't think private citizens should be forced to choose their actions based on what sends the best message to wider society. That isn't this hypothetical person's job.

[dps]

1) How do I know the person in front of me is who she says she is?

It is a ceremony. Who gives a fuck if they have already met citizenship requirements?

2) What kind of message about equality of men&women does that send?

I don't think private citizens should be forced to choose their actions based on what sends the best message to wider society. That isn't this hypothetical person's job.

Agree on both points. 

Now, if we're talking about testifying in court, or getting a picture taken for a driver's license, that's a different issue.

[garbon]

Now, if we're talking about testifying in court, or getting a picture taken for a driver's license, that's a different issue.

I agree on the latter but not so much on the former. As long as the court has taken measures to verify the identify of the person testifying (aka they could do so in an antechamber I guess), I don't know why a person must be unveiled to testify.

[Grallon]

Why shouldn't they be able to be veiled at a swearing in ceremony?

*sigh*


As if a ceremony where a person pretends to be someone, for the sake of a solemn oath, yet cannot be identified as such because of his/her/its accoutrement, could have any value...

We should call you Fluffy rather than garbon...



G.

[garbon]

Why shouldn't they be able to be veiled at a swearing in ceremony?

*sigh*


As if a ceremony where a person pretends to be someone, for the sake of a solemn oath, yet cannot be identified as such because of his/her/its accoutrement, could have any value...

We should call you Fluffy rather than garbon...



G.

It is a ceremony. It isn't really that important. Generally, I don't think the state should curtail freedoms unless there is a compelling reason. Something ceremonial doesn't pass the bar in my opinion.

[Grallon]

It is a ceremony. It isn't really that important. Generally, I don't think the state should curtail freedoms unless there is a compelling reason. Something ceremonial doesn't pass the bar in my opinion.

And isn't that a testament to the Twitter era...




G.

[garbon]

That ceremonies aren't that important?

[viper37]

It is a ceremony. Who gives a fuck if they have already met citizenship requirements?

She's swearing allegiance to the country.  She's not shopping.  She's not receiving a diploma for her best knitted fabric.

I don't think private citizens should be forced to choose their actions based on what sends the best message to wider society. That isn't this hypothetical person's job.

Not all actions, no.  But some important ones, like getting your citizenship in a country wich believes in men&women equality, yes.  Do you think we should allow a KKK Member to swear allegiance with his hood on?

Besides, if it dissuades such people from coming here and implanting their lifestyles, so much the better.  Radical relgious fanatics are not wanted here, as much as I'm concerned, but I know I'm in the minority.

[viper37]

I agree on the latter but not so much on the former. As long as the court has taken measures to verify the identify of the person testifying (aka they could do so in an antechamber I guess), I don't know why a person must be unveiled to testify.

Unless there are serious reasons to do so, wich religion is not, but a rape case where the victim must testify could be, I disagree that a witness should be masked from her interrogator.  What with the right of having a full, fair defense &all that unimportant stuff.  I'ts extremely important to be able to see who's testifying so you can asses whether they are lying or not. Facial & bodily expression can tell a lot.  If a witness is completely covered from head to toe, you really can't see that.

Now, I'm ok for rape victims to testify in another chamber, not to be confronted by their alleged tormentor.

[viper37]

That ceremonies aren't that important?

that getting your citizenship in a new country is unimportant and your old traditions prime to your allegiance to this new country of yours.

Again, if a woman doesn't feel like she wants to integrate to the Canadian society, she can move to another, freer country like Yemen or the United Arab Emirates.  They will welcome her to pledge her allegiance with a full veil.  She will be free from Canadian persecution of her Faith.

I'm not asking her to swear on the Bible.  I'm not asking her to kneel before an image of Christ.  I'm asking her to show some politeness and willingness to integrate our society by removing her veil for a few minutes.  If she can't do that, she has no business emigrating in a non theocratic country.  And we certainly shouldn't split ourselves to accomodate all religions out there, crazy or not.