[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Malthus]

That ceremonies aren't that important?

It is amazing how important our friends from Quebec find the formal act of swearing personal allegiance to the English Queen. Who would have suspected such depths of monarchical sentiment?

[garbon]

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

Again it is a ceremony. From my relatives who had such ceremonies, it seemed like the main effect was it made them feel really proud about what they had done to join their chosen country (/discard their old one). On day one you want to set up an antagonism between a new citizen's allegiance to her new country and her religious faith? Why?

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?

Ah so is your assumption that only a woman who agrees in the oppression of women would ever adopt a face covering?

I don't understand your KKK example. Would I find that distasteful? Sure, if I knew about it. Is that a good enough reason to deny someone citizenship? I don't think so / if there was something of racial violence in their background, the process would have uncovered that before there were ever invited to a ceremony to anoint(?) their citizenship.

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.

Are they going to not show up or are they just going to still be there but be disaffected non-citizens?

[Grey Fox]

On day one you want to set up an antagonism between a new citizen's allegiance to her new country and her religious faith? Why?

Because, rightfully so, the two are incompatible.

[garbon]

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.

I'm not so sure. How vital is it for jurors to be able to look at facial/bodily expressions of a witness?

Also it seems like a more apropos concern in Quebec is that you are going to have witnesses that show up with veils that will then be disregarded by prejudiced jurors.

Looking at it from the opposite angle, you are really making it more difficult for those who would like to testify in a manner that is in accordance with their religious beliefs to actually volunteer to testify. Seems like that would have negative outcomes on your muslim residents (both citizens and non-citizens alike).

[garbon]

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

I don't know what you are saying here.

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.

So a woman who has taken the steps to apply for and attain Canadian citizenship isn't signalling that she wants to be part of Canadian society? Wearing a face cover negates all of that work and marks her in opposition to the state?

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.

You are asking her to set aside her religious beliefs for no legitimate reason except that you find the wearing of veils to represent something distasteful to you. Why is it such a big deal that she remove a veil for a couple minutes then? Are you think that once the veil has been lifted in public for a short amount of time that the scales will be metaphorically lifted from her eyes and she'll renounce her previous customs/beliefs? Are you expecting some sort of miraculous transformation that can only be completed by veil removal?

Also, where do you draw the line? Should Sikh men be required to let there hair out as it is disrespectful for men to keep their heads covered indoors?

[garbon]

That ceremonies aren't that important?

It is amazing how important our friends from Quebec find the formal act of swearing personal allegiance to the English Queen. Who would have suspected such depths of monarchical sentiment?

It is really weird how ceremonial can on one hand be taken as oppressive by V but then he seeks to take ceremonial and oppress others with it.

[Valmy]

When the Canadian National Anthem is played all non-traitors remove their hats.  It is obvious Sikhs stand with the terrorists.

[garbon]

On day one you want to set up an antagonism between a new citizen's allegiance to her new country and her religious faith? Why?

Because, rightfully so, the two are incompatible.

Well I guess there isn't much to discuss there. I guess good luck with continue culture wars with your immigrants? You hardly are going to get them to join in happily with your society if you insist on alienating them.

[Valmy]

Well I guess there isn't much to discuss there. I guess good luck with continue culture wars with your immigrants? You hardly are going to get them to join in happily with your society if you insist on alienating them.

Well at least they are upfront about it as early as the swearing in ceremony.  Still time to immigrate someplace more welcoming, like Texas.  Besides it is not like people required to wear religious headgear make up a huge percentage of their immigrants.

[garbon]

Besides it is not like people required to wear religious headgear make up a huge percentage of their immigrants.

From the degree to which they protest, you would think so.

[Malthus]

That ceremonies aren't that important?

It is amazing how important our friends from Quebec find the formal act of swearing personal allegiance to the English Queen. Who would have suspected such depths of monarchical sentiment?

It is really weird how ceremonial can on one hand be taken as oppressive by V but then he seeks to take ceremonial and oppress others with it.

In this case, it's the very same ceremonial. 

From the article:

Zunera Ishaq was scheduled to become a Canadian citizen last year. She came to Canada in 2008, and in late 2013 passed the citizenship test. All that remained was for her to take the oath. It's a public ceremony, where new Canadians pledge allegiance to the Queen and their new country.

[Valmy]

To disrespect the Queen of Canada is to disrespect the Royal 22e Régiment.

[Valmy]

Besides it is not like people required to wear religious headgear make up a huge percentage of their immigrants.

From the degree to which they protest, you would think so.

Soon we will be overrun by people with strange hats!

[garbon]

That ceremonies aren't that important?

It is amazing how important our friends from Quebec find the formal act of swearing personal allegiance to the English Queen. Who would have suspected such depths of monarchical sentiment?

It is really weird how ceremonial can on one hand be taken as oppressive by V but then he seeks to take ceremonial and oppress others with it.

In this case, it's the very same ceremonial. 

From the article:

Zunera Ishaq was scheduled to become a Canadian citizen last year. She came to Canada in 2008, and in late 2013 passed the citizenship test. All that remained was for her to take the oath. It's a public ceremony, where new Canadians pledge allegiance to the Queen and their new country.

Ah, I thought that is what you were suggesting but wasn't quite sure so tried to leave it vague on whether they were separate or not.

[Jacob]

Viper, if you had the choice between the swearing in ceremony allowing veils and head coverings, but it no longer referenced the Queen but aprather Canada only; or the swearing in ceremony playing up the royal connections but disallowing headwear, which would you choose?

Basically, what's the bigger issue? Hats or allegiance to the crown?