http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/03...untrys-values/
Printable View
I won't add much of any significance to this thread.
I will only ask one to ponder who is really sexist or racist. Imagine what would happen if I was to walk into the local BMO to do my banking wearing a Burka! I have the strange feeling I would be wearing a shiny set of bracelets real quick.
I couldn't care less if you wear a turbin or yamaka, wear bunny ears or tin foil if you like. I feel offended when somebody who isn't even a citizen yet feels they have the right to challenge our laws and beliefs. Would you be comfortable if men were allowed to wear white pointy hoods into banks and airports? I consider the niqab just as offensive as it implies men are incapable of looking at a woman without having uncontrollable urges to molest her. If they want to be slaves in private that is sad but when swearing an oath, boarding a plane or accessing any kind of service that requires identification they should have to confirm photo ID. If they don't like our values then they can go to a country that suits their beliefs better.
Why? I heard you look like a woman anyway.:cool:.. It is not against the law to wear a balaclava.... unless you are using it as a disguise, to commit a crime. Ask a few questions let you go, maybe not, if they find a note ,and or a weapon in your pocket. Since when did the kkk become a recognized religion? Go behind a screen - curtan, show your face to another woman in authority and be on your way, easy peasy. Would you want,(maybe), or let a female cop grab your junk in a pat down, or a male police officer do it to your wife,(bet not), same thing.
Walk onto Parliament hill or an airport or bank with a balaclava and let us know how it works out for you. I have a wife, daughters, sister and live among women. Not once have I felt that a woman should have to hide her face because she is a woman. Clearly you are ok with that. I'm not. We will never agree on this so by all means carry on but it won't change my opinion.
If that article is referring to Harper's stance on forcing people to remove the niqab during swearing in ceremonies to be identified, I agree with him 100% on that one... I think the niqab is despicable, but under the charter you are free to practice beliefs/wear what you want. Having said that during civic engagements, your obligations lie to the state, not religions...
If you want you to separate Christian beliefs from the state(abortion, gay marriage, etc), you have to apply that same standard to all religions including Islam. It's sepatation of church/state period, no exceptions...
Although I agree with Harper on this, I'm not sure this is the best fight to be picking before an election, and he has been playing to the fear of radical Islam and since we've only had 2 "terrorist" attacks by wannabes that were actually French or half french and converts, he's going too far and playing the fear card too much... And JT is just playing extreme suck up politically correct card, sad state of affairs all around...
How showing one's face to confirm ID is the same as a police pat down of my genitals or my wife's is the same to you is ...well bizarre. But in actuality I have no doubt that occasionally a police officer for his or her safety or of the safety of others actually do have to pat down someone of the opposite sex. I'm OK with that too. I trust police to not do stuff like that unless necessary. I also expect to be able to look a police officer in the face and actually see his or her face. Will we have female constables wearing Niqabs now while on duty? All it takes is a few judges to want to give the finger to Harper and all of a sudden it's the law of the land. Because let's cut the Bullsheet here, most people who would support women wearing a Niqab do it mostly in protest to everything Conservative and a woman's human rights are secondary here.Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
Go behind a screen show you face to another woman and all is good. That is all it is about, not banks, parlament, airports. If a religion says no man but the husband or father should see their face so be it. Heck some religions cut skin off the penises of their males and no one bats an eye at that.
Some religions allow multiple wives and marrying of girls who should be playing with dolls not having sex with strangers who are 4 or 5 times their age and picked out by another old man. Religion isn't always an acceptable excuse for barbaric behavior. Hey you like Niqabs and feel they belong in our society that is your right. If you think your wife or daughters can't show their faces in public ...good for you. I don't think you will find many here to agree with you.
Just came across this column.
http://www.torontosun.com/2015/03/14...-trumps-church
Do not care if you agree or not. Just as long as everyone's religion or lack of one, is treated equally. Accommodate if you can, but only if it does not break any laws we now have. Do not make any new one's to cover what you do not like.
That is an opinion piece, his opinion nothing more.Quote:
Originally Posted by terrym
In Canada we show our faces and we are obliged to do so by law. So you want Canada to make special arrangements for women who wear this clothing?
That is special treatment we can't afford and one hell of a slippery slope to start going down.
If I had my way religion would not carry any weight in any way. You come to Canada YOU fit in not the other way around.
My folks came to Canada and they had assimilate to Canadian culture.
If you want to live in this country then follow our laws. If not, there is a plane at Pearson that can take you back where you can hide who you are and no one cares.
When I go for photo ID I have to remove my GLASSES! When a LEO compares me with my ID they often ask me to remove my glasses. What happens when I have total face covering?
Where's the "like" button ????? Agree 100% !!!!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Jack
For the win !! Whats so hard about that ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Jack
Very good column Terry.Quote:
Originally Posted by terrym
Yes but Canadian culture allows us to practice our faith in peace and that is why my parents immigrated to Canada. They left the wooden shoes behind and only wore them while gardening.lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Big Jack
If we were a communist country then we would be stripped of our religious practice and would worship in secret out of fear of being found out. Really not sure what your thoughts or how accurate your understanding of Canadian culture is but I am sure that is one of reasons why many immigrate to Canada is to practice ones faith in peace.
Your parents and my parents did not come to Canada and expect Canada to change its laws to suit them. They assimilated to the Canadian way of life.Quote:
Originally Posted by yellow dog
If part of your religion contravenes law then that part of your religion cannot be executed. It's that damn simple. It needs to be this way.
What happens when they are born here ,and are as Canadian as anyone else can claim to be? Send them home...they ARE home. It would be a small accommodation to have their identity confirmed by another female. Just like having females frisked by a female officer. No big deal, don't make it one because you as a private citizen want to see their face, the government does have that right ..for a moment, to confirm identity, you do not.
To have the right to choose a male or female clerk to confirm identity is discrimination in of itself. Telling a male Federal employee he is unsuitable to perform the job Canadians pay him to because of his gender is illegal and to do so is discrimination. And let's not forget these women who are challenging these identification policies for citizenship ceremonies aren't even Canadians yet but feel entitled to dictate the government how to act.
The Niqab is nothing but a symbol of male domination and exploitation of women. To force or coerce women to hide their faces is abhorrent to reasonable people. Interestingly it always seems to be the "progressives" who would support this barbaric treatment of women. Where the hell are the feminists and womens rights groups in this discussion? They are condoning by thier silence so women's rights aren't really as important as thier hate of Conservatives and Harper. Just exposes their hypocracy and questionable morals. The countries where this originates from treat women worse than we do animals. If you are comfortable with that that certainly is your right but don't be surprised that nobody here has agreed with you yet.
If Stephen Harper had come out in support of the Niqab you and your fellow "progressives" would be marching in the streets.
It is a woman's right to choose whether she wears one or not . It is not your right to tell her she can't.
They do not do it willingly even if they say that publicly. They do it in fear of their oppressive masters who would beat them into submission. The niqab does hide cuts and bruises though.Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
Excuse me but I do take exception to this. WE live by the law of the land and in doing so expect ALL others to do the same. NO accommodation should be given to this nonsense. If you are born here you must live by the law of the land or face consequences.Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
You start pandering to this garbage then you have to pander to all garbage.
Slippery slope we should not traverse.
If this generous country does not suit you find one that does. You have no more rights than the next person.
Next you will want accommodations for all things unlawful in Canada because it doesn't jive with someone's religion.
In Canada women are treated as equals and have rights as equals. That is the Canadian way.
They are also governed by the same laws men are.
How dare you assume you know what women think. It IS NOT against the law to cover your face in Canada. You want to change the law so it is, which is entirely different.
Not what I'm saying nor have I said that. Please advise where I made such a comment.
Wear a potato sack if you like that covers you head to toe.
At issue is when you must identify yourself as required by law.
What part of that can't you comprehend?
Maybe your comments were aimed at Terry?
No Idea, clarify please.
Not you, BJ . I was talking to T...... You want them to identify themselves , they will .. to a woman cop. No law says you must show your face in public , to everyone.
Not acceptableQuote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
To any cop male or female or to fulfill any other lawful requirement. Under our constitution they have the same rights as any other woman or man. You propose special treatment and by that condone unlawful acts.
By your thinking should the Canadian Government then reject women immigrants who claim religious persecution because they are forced to adhere to that very religion that requires this garb to be worn?
By that same token should they also allow honour killings?
If I understand you correctly you want to allow all inequities as long as the person in question agrees and accepts that inequality?
Like I said its a slippery slope.
I don't think our charter of rights and freedoms is engineered to allow oppression even if the victim would willing allow and accept it.
You can't have it both ways.
Like I said wear a potato sack if you like but when you are required to show your face then you do so or face the consequences.
Who are you to decide if they are oppressed? These women do not feel they are unequal, who are you to say they are? They want to wear it. It is not against the law to wear it. It is against the law to kill people in Canada for whatever reason. They are not breaking any laws by wearing them, but you want to change the law so they are. I do not want my wife to wear a thong at the beach , or dye her hair purple, I would not beat her if she did, but I might not talk to her for a few days, or pretend I do not know her, does that make her oppressed?
I will tell you a little story about inequality. I worked 32 years in long tem care. Women residents were able to refuse having their bath given to them by a male PSW, (5% of workforce). The men residents were given a bath by female PSW's ( 95% of workforce), even if they objected. How fair is that?
What kind of man would rather be scrubbed by another man? Other than the obvious it would be a rare occasion. Does not really matter. Muslim or not. Women tend to hide it and men like to show it off.Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
Some residents did like to be bathed by the opposite sex , the point I was trying to make was, the men were given no choice, even against their objections. If a women did not want a male PSW to give them a bath, then they did not have to, accommodations were made.
I wonder just how many of the people here have ever actually had a conversation with a woman wearing niqab? Or even a less modest hijab? Because I have. Many times. And all of them have told me about the positive aspects for themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by terrym
Have the discussion about laws but please don't presume to know how a Muslim woman feels.
Do you really equate showing your face to confirm identity to being bathed in a hospice or patted down by a police officer? The government isn't saying to never wear the sacks they are saying take it off for a couple seconds to prove who you are and you are eligible for all the rights and protections we are about to give you. If those rights and obligations aren't good enough there are planes departing every day to countries who expect women to wear a mask. They won't be allowed to do most things every woman does here like drive, vote or be educated but the choice is there. Canada won't jail or assault you for "not" wearing the sack but the other country ..........HhhmmmmQuote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
Why is it do you think that they don't force men to wear a Niqab?
Your hatred of Harper and everything Conservative really convinces you that the way these women are treated in countries where the Niqab originated is desired by them? Battered women regularly return to the man who beats them. Ask any LEO who attends a domestic and see how many times the battered woman turns on the police when they cuff the agressor. You will always find battered women to say they deserved it and don't feel wronged. Your arguments show no empathy for those women who have been abused for generations and don't know any different or dare speak out. If you beat a dog he will still obey your commands. How "progressive" of you.Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
I will repeat my question: Why don't they make men wear them? And other than this faith what other women on the planet feel the need to conceal their faces in public? What possible healthy reason could there be to justify this behaviour? And if the reasoning is that men are going to not be able to control themselves by merely seeing a woman's face should we not be suspicious of these men as potential agressors of women here? Can men with that mentality be allowed here? Why don't men wear them?
Nobody is telling them they can't wear a Niqab. They are only saying to show their face to confirm identity. After doing so they are free to cover up. If they were to apply for a job that required a hard hat or safety boots we would enforce that also. This is also why when some Sikhs were fighting mandatory helmet laws for riding motorcycles it was wrong also. Religion doesn't override safety. Proving identity is a cornerstone of providing safety in a world full of people who would murder women and children in the name of religion.Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
I am all for and support that they need to uncover there face when needed especially when they are becoming a Canadian citizen or being pulled over by the police for speeding etc. Yes you are correct my parents assimilated into Canadian society and other Canadians adopted my parents culture as well. It works both ways and is not one way or nothing. I really don't care if they are dressed in all black from head to toe with two slits to see out of. But in saying that if they are asked by a person of authority to remove the head covering to prove their identity such as a police officer, border guard, judge, school principal, bank manager etc they need to. I just can't imagine living in a society where every women is covered up and thinking its a normal way of life. Not seeing a persons face during a conversation in times of sadness, laughter , joy or birth of a child would seem very cold.Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Jack
That's because they don't care what the women think or feel.Quote:
Originally Posted by yellow dog
Quote:
Originally Posted by yellow dog
You can see my point and I appreciate that. Really that's it. I don't care what a person wears either, I simply expect them to live by the same rules I do.
I also see your point about multiculturalism.
If people are treating them differently in society because of the way they are dressed(completely covered up) it would be out of fear of the unknown. Lets face it we are not use to this in a our society and why would we make an attempt to allow it to become the norm. As a parent of grown children I didn't have to have the discussion when they were young about the women all covered up and not seeing who they were. My kids would be terrified of the people all in black with two eyes peering out at them. How do you explain to them that the people behind the face covering are not bad people ? To me it is cause for a lot of confusion and more distrust from a child point of view.Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Jack
Back in the day, we could not shop, or go to sporting events on Sunday, how backwards is that. Times they are a changing. What about in Asia where everyone wears a surgical mask? Not for religious purposes but health.:ninja: Why don't men wear them , the same reason there are no women catholic priests, or popes....religion.
I rarely shop on Sundays and honor the day of rest and most of my family, friends do as well. Never even considered it to be backwards.
Having a religion dictate when you may shop, is as backwards as having a religion dictate what it's females can wear.
Have you ever considered that you are backwards ? It never harmed me not shopping on Sundays and spending time with family and friends . Seems to be very judgmental and ignorant on your part not knowing my chosen way to live my life.Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
Are you kidding, how does, how a woman dresses, harm you? I don't think anyone has been harmed by shopping or going to a ball game on sunday. That sunday closing was mandated by law, for the beliefs of the few, over the convenience of the many. There is no law that says she may not dress as she wants. And leave the nuns alone to.
Hey Fishermcann too bad Great White was banned from this section, I miss your bickering with him... lol
The great Gilroy was also banned...
Please don't give them any thoughts about me. I try to be respectful to those whose viewpoints are different from mine. In fact many times I agree, but someone has to play the devils advocate. Entertainment without harm.
Attempt to enter Saudi Arabia with a Miss Piggy doll, any video tapes with her or any pig caricature, alcohol, etc., etc. See how that works out for you and your State Dept.
Also take your FEMALE wife outside the compound without being covered, or wearing shorts etc, etc. and see how it works out for you.
Want to be FEMALE and wear shorts to the market in SA? WEAR THEM INSIDE THE COMPOUND OR ELSE BE DEPORTED IMMEDIATELY OR PUNISHED.
I expect the same in North America, fit in or go where you do...........
We do not think that way in Canada, a civilized society. We are not S.A. Why lower yourself to their level , we ARE better than that. We have always welcomed all people without reservation , or stipulation. Freedom means all people are free to worship how they want, not just the ones you agree with. We a talking about people who were born here in many cases, they have as much right as any other Canadian to dress the way they want. Anyone who wants to be really informed about the subject, should-must read page 11 of todays-Monday, Toronto Star, (Ya I know), the article by Zunera Ishaq may put your fears of the niqab to rest.