Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Recommended Posts

And yet we are not permitted to do so, because it would cause offense to others.

There is that Ontario woman who challenged the law about being topless, because men were allowed to be topless. She won, despite the offense it would cause others.

I do agree that an attempt to uncover one's genitals in public would likely not succeed. Although, there are nude beaches/colonies that aren't automatically shut down, even if neighbors complain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did she?

Yes. She also took it off for her passport, and through her citizenship application whenever required to confirm her identity. She took it off again, just prior to the citizenship ceremony, again to have her identify confirmed.

If you see a meme going around with a Driver's license showing a person in a niqab, it's fake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. She also took it off for her passport, and through her citizenship application whenever required to confirm her identity. She took it off again, just prior to the citizenship ceremony, again to have her identify confirmed.

If you see a meme going around with a Driver's license showing a person in a niqab, it's fake.

Then what's the problem?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simply untrue. Police are required to arrest/remove the spouse at the slightest sign of any kind of violence, no matter what the wife says. That is not the case in any other sort of assault, where the victim's testimony is required for any hope of successful prosecution.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/10/09/judge-berates-domestic-violence-victim-and-then-sends-her-to-jail.html

http://www.pressherald.com/2014/06/03/maine-domestic-violence-victim-jailed-after-refusing-to-testify/

http://tdn.com/news/local/family-jailed-for-refusing-to-testify-against-dad/article_6a0ccd50-323b-11e3-add6-0019bb2963f4.html

I checked out these links, and the first two were jailed for contempt of court, because they were under subpeona and didn't show up. The first incident may even have been an illegal action by the judge. The third case, not so clear. In all cases, the judges did appear to want the victims punished for not testifying against their assaulter, regardless of the effect it had on the victims.

In any case, all the stories note the unfairness and lack of justice in jailing the victims - especially in the last case, where the accused went free while his victims - wife and children - went to jail.

And, all American where the legal system is a little different. Got any Canadian sources? My understanding is that in Canada, the police can press charges, the victim does not have to. Its easier if the victim does, and will testify, but not absolutely necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did she?

Yes she did.

Have you not been following the news? Maybe you could go read up on this so we don't have to go through this exercise one painful point at a time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes she did.

Have you not been following the news? Maybe you could go read up on this so we don't have to go through this exercise one painful point at a time.

Why is this painful. As I showed in one simplistic post it really comes down to three views with only one making logical sense. If she takes off the niqab for security purposes then I don't see an argument against it.

Is that too hard for an earthling like you to understand?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is this painful. As I showed in one simplistic post it really comes down to three views with only one making logical sense. If she takes off the niqab for security purposes then I don't see an argument against it.

Is that too hard for an earthling like you to understand?

Yes, it's impossible to understand why this requires a ban.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What this group needs to learn is that Canada does not accept the frivolous restraint of civil liberties.

Canadians might but our laws certainly don't.

It's sad. Apparently, it takes only one unscrupulous leader to pander to bigots and people will throw our principles under the bus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's sad. Apparently, it takes only one unscrupulous leader to pander to bigots and people will throw our principles under the bus.

Is that chicken or the egg though? Quebec has been against the niqab longer than its been an election issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is that chicken or the egg though? Quebec has been against the niqab longer than its been an election issue.

It's both, actually. Harper has been pushing this button over and over again. And it's been snowballing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Harper has been going after Muslims longer than Quebec has.

Where do people think Quebec got the idea it was okay to do so?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's both, actually. Harper has been pushing this button over and over again. And it's been snowballing.

But Harper didn't create it. He picked up on the fact that one of the largest provinces was against it and used it for political gain. Perhaps he agrees with the ban but needless to say this move helps his Quebec numbers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Harper has been going after Muslims longer than Quebec has.

Where do people think Quebec got the idea it was okay to do so?

Maybe when France banned them in 2004

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Muslim countries do a lot of things we wouldn't dream of imitating. Restricting personal freedoms is just one of those things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's sad. Apparently, it takes only one unscrupulous leader to pander to bigots and people will throw our principles under the bus.

They don't really see it as throwing our principles under the bus, but rather upholding our principles as twisted as it seems. I think they're wrong and so do you, but it's also unfair to assume bad intent on a huge group of people, though doubtless there some few who are deliberately adding fuel. But most people are just doing what humans do, without any truly bad intent. "Forgive them father, for they know not what they do".

The politicians are the ones that throw our principles under the bus. And it's not exactly reassuring that so few people understand exactly what happened with Ishaq, or that she actually must show her face and have her identity validated.

But yeah, it is discouraging and disappointing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But Harper didn't create it. He picked up on the fact that one of the largest provinces was against it and used it for political gain. Perhaps he agrees with the ban but needless to say this move helps his Quebec numbers

He (and Lynton Crosby, who has a well-deserved reputation in other countries for race-baiting politics) have been exploiting this for all its worth. In the last few weeks, first it was the niqab at swearing in ceremonies, then the idiotic "barbaric cultural practices" hot line idea, then publicly musing about banning it in the public service. Harper has pushed it for all its worth. He's exploiting the worst tendencies in Canada.

Good leaders bring out the best in people. Stephen Harper is not a good leader.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The politicians are the ones that throw our principles under the bus.

The politicians are doing what they're supposed to....represent the people. Polls show that a vast majority support the niqab ban so it makes sense that politicians follow suit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He (and Lynton Crosby, who has a well-deserved reputation in other countries for race-baiting politics) have been exploiting this for all its worth. In the last few weeks, first it was the niqab at swearing in ceremonies, then the idiotic "barbaric cultural practices" hot line idea, then publicly musing about banning it in the public service. Harper has pushed it for all its worth. He's exploiting the worst tendencies in Canada.

Good leaders bring out the best in people. Stephen Harper is not a good leader.

Again....this is a result of seeing the response of the vast majority. He did not create this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A Muslim group is also against it

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/muslim-group-calls-for-burka-ban-1.863810

It is interesting that in 2007 all of the major parties disagreed with E.C. Mayrand's decision to allow Niqabs while voting. In fact they all said women should be forced to reveal their faces so their identities can be verified.

Edited by scribblet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again....this is a result of seeing the response of the vast majority. He did not create this

Create what? niqabs? Islamophobia? Racism?

No. He didn't create any of those things. He just used them and that is beneath contempt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create what? niqabs? Islamophobia? Racism?

No. He didn't create any of those things. He just used them and that is beneath contempt.

He didn't create the niqab issue. Please stay on point

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Muslim organizations in Canada want the niqab banned. It's not a part of their religion, it's purely a symbol of oppression of women and has no place in any civilized or just society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The politicians are doing what they're supposed to....represent the people. Polls show that a vast majority support the niqab ban so it makes sense that politicians follow suit

Neither Trudeau nor Mulcair followed suit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×