Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Recommended Posts

Clearly, the policy was driven by Kenney himself. All documents found he was the driving force behind it.

...

The minister would like this done, regardless of whether there is a legislative base and that he will use his prerogative to make policy change.

I wonder how much of our money the Conservatives have wasted to date enacting legislation and policy subsequently deemed to be in violation of the Charter?

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The federal court of Canada has struck down the ban on Niqab's at citizenship ceremonies.

http://www.thestar.com/news/immigration/2015/02/06/niqab-ban-at-citizenship-ceremony-struck-down-by-court.html

Internal correspondence indicate that the Conservatives new there was no legislative standing for the regulation, but that the immigration minister would "use his prerogative" to force through the change.

I guess if Argus was pissed about assisted suicide, this is really going to ruin his day.

I'm not pissed at assisted suicide. You have such a low level of reading comprehension about things I honestly wonder if you're slipping into early dementia. I would be fine with the government deciding to legislate on its own.

As for this, I think I've demonstrated my contempt for the judiciary on more than enough occasions. This is hardly suprising. The appropriate response is to simply not allow such people to even come to Canada in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That the current federal courts would come up with a decision that is so extremely nonsensical is to be expected these days. The more obvious the correct course of actions is, the more certainty that they will make the wrong judgement.

If there was ever a case where the correct decision was obvious, it's that you can't hide your face for things that require you to be identified.

We are long passed the point where the federal govt needs to start using the not withstanding clause to override the courts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not pissed at assisted suicide. You have such a low level of reading comprehension about things I honestly wonder if you're slipping into early dementia.

Argus- the personal comments aren't necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for this, I think I've demonstrated my contempt for the judiciary on more than enough occasions. This is hardly suprising. The appropriate response is to simply not allow such people to even come to Canada in the first place.

People who cover their faces for religious purposes based on sexual modesty? Yeah, what evil, horrible people we need to ban from Canada. /sarcasm

I think niqab's are a bit ridiculous myself, but this was a clear violation of the Charter. I also don't see why showing your nose and mouth are needed for the Oath? Clearly, a Muslim taking the oath would be audible through the niqab.

Edited by Moonlight Graham

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not pissed at assisted suicide. You have such a low level of reading comprehension about things I honestly wonder if you're slipping into early dementia. I would be fine with the government deciding to legislate on its own.

Yup. You're not pissed at all. That's why you resort to petty insults, which are usually against the forum rules. But who gives a shit about the rules these days? It's not like they're enforced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That the current federal courts would come up with a decision that is so extremely nonsensical is to be expected these days. The more obvious the correct course of actions is, the more certainty that they will make the wrong judgement.

If there was ever a case where the correct decision was obvious, it's that you can't hide your face for things that require you to be identified.

We are long passed the point where the federal govt needs to start using the not withstanding clause to override the courts.

So you didn't read the article nor have you read anyone's arguments in support of wearing the Niqab at the ceremony. They individuals are identified in private and the legal documents are signed. Nobody's saying they should go through the entire immigration process without identifying themselves. That was never an argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We don't hide our faces in Canada. The ceremony is to publicly declare their acceptance of the laws and customs of this country. Uncovering their face is the minimum they should be expected to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Supreme Court may have been right in its legal interpretation of the Charter....but I believe Kenney was right in his attempt to stem the unwise accommodation of "Religious Freedom" when aspects of that religion clearly go against the equality of men and women and at worst, enable the continued subjugation of women. From the Star article:

Immigration officials subsequently offered to seat her in either the front or back row and next to a woman at the ceremony, but she refused the arrangement since the citizenship judge and officers could still be male, and there could potentially be photographers at the event.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Misguided Fake Outrage.

The citizenship oath is just a stupid ceremony and has nothing to do with screening or identifying immigrants.

I would rather they didnt make religiocentric rulings though... If its allowed for you to cover your face at the ceremony then anyone should be able to cover their face in any way they see fit. We oughtta not be giving people special priviliges in Canada because they believe in magical men in the sky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We don't hide our faces in Canada.

Your buzz phrases and platitudes are meaningless. We do hide our faces in Canada. Just today I went outside with my face hidden to protect it from the cold. We also don't tell people how to dress, like they do in Saudi Arabia.

The ceremony is to publicly declare their acceptance of the laws and customs of this country. Uncovering their face is the minimum they should be expected to do.

But why? They're identified when they sign the legal documents. Why do they need to be uncovered in Canada? Your reason so far has been, "they should uncover their face because they should." Do you have any compelling reason that isn't a tautology? Edited by cybercoma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think niqab's are a bit ridiculous myself, but this was a clear violation of the Charter. I also don't see why showing your nose and mouth are needed for the Oath? Clearly, a Muslim taking the oath would be audible through the niqab.

+1 to this.

More importantly, even saying the oath is immaterial. They sign a legal document affirming the oath. Someone who is deaf and does use verbal language would not speak the oath either. They would still legally agree to it by signing their immigration papers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you look at recent results of Conservative success (or lack of) in passing legislation that withstands the scrutiny of our laws and Constitution, you may see the political brilliance of the process.

The Harper Conservatives only hope of staying in power is to keep its base coming out to vote while keeping the center right also satisfied. I believe that they know that many of their promises will not pass the Supreme Court tests but these same promises keep that support money and votes of the far right in the Conservative basket.

And it works.

The process frames the SC as the "bad guy" but keeps the Conservatives from legislating any really dumb ideas. They can tell their base - "See, we try, so vote for us". They can also tell the others "See, only our legitimate legislation passes, so vote for us".

I have been following the "Speech From The Throne" - "Life Means Life" legislation. This bill will make it mandatory for those convicted of certain crimes to spend the rest of their natural lives in jail. Already, most jurists and lawyers have stated it will never pass the SC test and will be ruled unconstitutional - the argument being that a person 20 years old is given a 60 year sentence while the 60 year old is given a 20 year sentence for the same crime.

The right wing base will cheer the legislation, condemn the Supreme Court when it rules against it and continue to back the Conservatives.

Great politics - yes.

Great use of parliament and the SC - I don't think so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your buzz phrases and platitudes are meaningless. We do hide our faces in Canada. Just today I went outside with my face hidden to protect it from the cold. We also don't tell people how to dress, like they do in Saudi Arabia.

But why? They're identified when they sign the legal documents. Why do they need to be uncovered in Canada? Your reason so far has been, "they should uncover their face because they should." Do you have any compelling reason that isn't a tautology?

Because of what the niqab stands for - cultural apartheid. Do you believe that in today's Canada - or any Canada - a woman should be kept completely apart from other men - to not let their faces be seen in public? It's not only inequality between men and women, it enables subjugation of women by their husbands. Do you believe those are values that Canadians want to accommodate? Is that what you want to accommodate? If not, then you should be able to see the issue that Kenney was trying to address.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because of what the niqab stands for - cultural apartheid. Do you believe that in today's Canada - or any Canada - a woman should be kept completely apart from other men - to not let their faces be seen in public?

No I don't. Do you believe a woman should be able to choose her own clothing?

Do you believe those are values that Canadians want to accommodate? Is that what you want to accommodate?

Nope. I don't support those values.

Do you support subjugating women by creating legislation that dictates the way they should dress?

If not, then you should be able to see the issue that Kenney was trying to address.

Funny, telling a woman what to wear is somehow supposed to address violence against women?

He should try a lot harder. Considering:

Overall, men were responsible for 83% of police-reported violence committed against women. Most commonly, the accused was the woman's intimate partner (includes both spousal and dating) (45%), followed by acquaintances or friends (27%), strangers (16%) and non-spousal family members (12%). This contrasts violent crimes against men, where intimate partners were among the least common perpetrators (12%).

Intimate partner violence, which was nearly four times higher for women, was characterized by physical assaults and the use of physical force rather than weapons. About half (51%) of female victims of intimate partner violence suffered some type of injury.[

Source: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2013001/article/11766-eng.pdf

I dunno, but I highly doubt the tens of thousands of women in Canada who are violently abused each year are all Muslim. Your hypocritical concern just for Muslim women suggests that it's less to do with women's rights and more to do with xenophobic bigotry because let's face it, you can't even imagine a woman choosing to wear a Niqab of her own volition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I submit that the niqab stands for anything you want it to stand for. Keepitsimple states that it stands for cultural apartheid to him/her. A Muslim may think that it represents a commitment to a culture. The shtreimel, spodik or fedora mean one thing to an Orthodox Jews and another to fashionista.

Why do you think that people who follow a particular culture have been coerced or forced into it? What makes you feel that your attitude and perception of life is any better than that of others? Is it not possible that a person follows the customs of a religion or a culture because it pleases them and gives them a sense of peace?

What makes you think that the way you choose to live, the things that give you pleasure and the things that bother you should be imposed on others?

Sometimes bigger is not better, faster is not better, more is not better and "To be Canadian then you have to be like me" is not always true.

Edited by Big Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We don't hide our faces in Canada.

We can if we want to. It's a free country.

The ceremony is to publicly declare their acceptance of the laws

Yes.

and customs of this country.

No.

Nobody has to eat bacon & maple syrup or drink beer and play hockey.

Not required.

Covering one's face against the cold is customary, however.

Uncovering their face is the minimum they should be expected to do.

Too bad. It's illegal to demand that.

Have to obey the laws of this country, you know.

.

Edited by jacee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clearly, the policy was driven by Kenney himself. All documents found he was the driving force behind it.

...

The minister would like this done, regardless of whether there is a legislative base and that he will use his prerogative to make policy change.

I wonder how much of our money the Conservatives have wasted to date enacting legislation and policy subsequently deemed to be in violation of the Charter?

.

Lots, and thats only an estimate. Sadly it seems its far from over. I imagine there will be chunks of C 51 that will once again run afoul of the chater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just wanna throw my hat in Cybers rig on this one. As was pointed out, by the time it gets to the oath part, the actual legal stuff has been concluded. I hasten to add I am no fan of religions, but if the woman wishes to abide by hers then its fine by me. Whats important here in Canada is that if she chooses not to, our laws will support her there as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It had to be struck down. Freedom of expression means you can't be told what not to wear, regardless of whether or not you were told to wear it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Supreme Court may have been right in its legal interpretation of the Charter....but I believe Kenney was right in his attempt to stem the unwise accommodation of "Religious Freedom" when aspects of that religion clearly go against the equality of men and women and at worst, enable the continued subjugation of women.

Have you always been such an activist for women's rights?

.

Edited by jacee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For most people it stands for the oppression of women, but if a women wanted to attend the citizenship ceremony wearing a T shirt that stated, "I belong to my Husband" I'm sure the SCOC woudn't stop her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, the federal gov't needs to write legislation that accomplishes their goals, rather than trying to rule by decree....

Write a law banning the Niqab in a manner consistent with the Constitution.

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

×