Good column

[terrym]

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.

[fishermccann]

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.

[terrym]

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.

[Big Jack]

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.

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.

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.

[fishermccann]

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.

[Big Jack]

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?

[Big Jack]

Maybe your comments were aimed at Terry?

No Idea, clarify please.

[fishermccann]

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.

[Big Jack]

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 acceptable

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.

[fishermccann]

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?