Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Recommended Posts

I think anyone who puts a bag over their wife or daughter doesn't hold any Canadian values whatsoever.

You think you can be a mysoginistic religious zealot and conform to Canadian values?

You realize that many Muslim women choose to wear a hijab or niqab, right? Some don't choose, and some of it is rooted in misogyny and domination, which is wrong and yes doesn't conform to "Canadian values", but the primary purpose of women covering their bodies and faces is sexual modesty. Muslim men are also supposed to dress modestly according to Islam, which is why many wear long flowing robes etc. to hide their physiques, but there's nothing in the Koran saying that they should cover their heads unlike females.

Edited by Moonlight Graham

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I flipped through the first screen or two of this thread. If I understand, it is not yet a Supreme Court ruling.

1. To me, it is remarkable that the Toronto Star has now blocked comments to the article in the OP.

2. And moreover, I suspect that 95% of French Quebecers (and maybe 80% of English Canadians) would agree that a person should willingly show their face to a judge to become a Canadian citizen. Heck, in Quebec, the percentage is probably much higher if it's a woman who must show her face. (Lise Payette changed the law so that women were forced to keep their name after marriage.)

3. Did Harper appoint the Federal Court judges who made this decision? (If so, it was a false flag or double agent or whatever-the-term-is effort.) Kenney knew what would happen.

However you view this, add several points to the CPC tally in the next political poll.

Edited by August1991

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's another follow up.

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/muslim-group-says-pm-making-veil-issue-unnecessarily-205932737.html?cmp=cafb_news

I originally had a different opinion on this, but after reading the ruling, it has changed.

It's clear to me now, after learning more facts, that the Harper government is bent on pandering to voters who classify themselves as pro white, anti immigration, anti Islamic, etc, etc.

WWWTT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's clear to me now, after learning more facts, that the Harper government is bent on pandering to voters who classify themselves as pro white, anti immigration, anti Islamic, etc, etc.

I will give that every bit as much respect as I did when you said it was clear to you that China was a land of freedom and that its courts were more free and fair than Canadian courts. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will give that every bit as much respect as I did when you said it was clear to you that China was a land of freedom and that its courts were more free and fair than Canadian courts. :rolleyes:

Oh ya that reminds me buddy!

Thanks!

WWWTT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The other day I was walking through a mall and saw a woman wearing a Niqab. I have only seen this a handful of times living in Calgary. It kind of catches me off guard when I notice someone wearing one... I guess it is just because I rarely see it. It doesn't bother me. Why should it? I have no right to know why she is wearing it or what she looks like under it. It is none of my business... Period.

Do I want people in Canada to act the same as me in public? No. Why should I impose my beliefs as the standard for others? Nobody is forcing me to wear a Niqab.

The argument that I hear frequently is "This is Canada. If you don't like our culture/customs than don't come here and try to impose your beliefs etc on us!" Hmmm... makes me think pretty hard about what us settlers and explorers did to the Aboriginals in Canada when we first got here and continue to do recently. Did we not come to this country and force the Aboriginals apart from their customs/beliefs/religion and assimilate them to be more like us? Did we not force Christianity on their children when we stole them from their families and threw them in residential schools? Remember... remember???

Why do we get so offended when we see a woman in a Niqab? What about the man I saw with a Swastika tattoo on his neck at 7/11. He has the right to possess that? We will stand up for his rights to express himself even though it is very hurtful to many people?

I am proud to be Canadian, but not so proud of many of my fellow Canadians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do we get so offended when we see a woman in a Niqab?

Because it exists only to turn women into anonymous property of men. It is really no different than watching a man attach a leash to a woman an lead her around like a dog. Edited by TimG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because it exists only to turn women into anonymous property of men. It is really no different than watching a man attach a leash to a woman an lead her around like a dog.

The purpose is to make the woman unhuman, to turn her into a thing. The US troops in Afghanistan took to referring to the women they saw as "unidentified moving objects'. They're just sacks of cloth moving around.

I really don't understand why we would let such people come here, let alone gain citizenship. There are probably millions of Europeans who would be delighted to come here, given the economic situation in many countries there. Instead we bring in faceless sacks of cloth?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do we get so offended when we see a woman in a Niqab? What about the man I saw with a Swastika tattoo on his neck at 7/11. He has the right to possess that? We will stand up for his rights to express himself even though it is very hurtful to many people?

I am proud to be Canadian, but not so proud of many of my fellow Canadians.

I congratulate you on your tolerance - but in this instance, I believe it is mis-placed. I have a different opinion and it goes beyond the citizenship oath. Women have been fighting for equality for ages - equality between the sexes in enshrined in the Charter of Rights. Wearing a Niqab is not a religious obligation - it is a cultural "obligation". Common sense - at least as I see it - says that this cultural practice is nothing more than subjugation to their husbands - and enables "apartheid" in that a wife's face cannot be viewed by anyone but a direct relative. There are even more restrictive rules as to whom a woman can mix with without being accompanied by a direct relative. It is this inequality that I find offensive - and those who stand for Women's Rights should be the loudest proponents that there is no place in Canada for the Niqab. Is it too much to ask that if someone willingly wants to come to our country - that they be prepared to make some compromises to join other Canadians from all walks of life? If it is too much - then these immigrants simply prove that they are so rigid in their beliefs/culture that it makes little sense for them to leave their own country and instead, move to a country that embraces that rigidity.

Edited by Keepitsimple

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The purpose is to make the woman unhuman, to turn her into a thing. The US troops in Afghanistan took to referring to the women they saw as "unidentified moving objects'. They're just sacks of cloth moving around.

I really don't understand why we would let such people come here, let alone gain citizenship. There are probably millions of Europeans who would be delighted to come here, given the economic situation in many countries there. Instead we bring in faceless sacks of cloth?

Let me just interrupt your ongoing racist comments to remind you that under that sack of cloth is a person. One who, by the time they get to the citizenship ceremony, has met the legal requirements as equally as any of your favored white Europeans would have had to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me just interrupt your ongoing racist comments to remind you that under that sack of cloth is a person. One who, by the time they get to the citizenship ceremony, has met the legal requirements as equally as any of your favored white Europeans would have had to do.

Yes - under that "sack of cloth" is a person - one that you seem to not give a sh** about. You may be alright with the cultural subjugation of women - but you are way offside with the vast majority of Canadians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me just interrupt your ongoing racist comments to remind you that under that sack of cloth is a person. One who, by the time they get to the citizenship ceremony, has met the legal requirements as equally as any of your favored white Europeans would have had to do.

Which race am I being racist against when I decry the niquab? Or is that simply a handy epithet for you to fling around like a monkey flings its excrement?

I see no person in a shroud. I see an unidentified object. I favour Europeans not because they're skin has less pigmentation but because they are more culturally adaptable to our own culture, have much the same values, are likely to speak English much better, and will have education and skill sets more immediately applicable to our economy.

Also they're not likely to want to blow stuff up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will give that every bit as much respect as I did when you said it was clear to you that China was a land of freedom and that its courts were more free and fair than Canadian courts. :rolleyes:

Ya your a great guy for doing that bro!

Here's your reward.

Article 36. Citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of religious belief. No state organ, public organization or individual may compel citizens to believe in, or not to believe in, any religion; nor may they discriminate against citizens who believe in, or do not believe in, any religion. The state protects normal religious activities. No one may make use of religion to engage in activities that disrupt public order, impair the health of citizens or interfere with the educational system of the state. Religious bodies and religious affairs are not subject to any foreign domination.

WWWTT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ya your a great guy for doing that bro!

Here's your reward.

Article 36. Citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of religious belief. No state organ, public organization or individual may compel citizens to believe in, or not to believe in, any religion; nor may they discriminate against citizens who believe in, or do not believe in, any religion. The state protects normal religious activities. No one may make use of religion to engage in activities that disrupt public order, impair the health of citizens or interfere with the educational system of the state. Religious bodies and religious affairs are not subject to any foreign domination.

WWWTT

Cool story. I suppose it hasn't occurred to you that when the police raid Catholic church services and arrest the priests, or when they execute members of Falun Gong that this might be slightly against the sentiments of that noble sounding clause, hmm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because it exists only to turn women into anonymous property of men. It is really no different than watching a man attach a leash to a woman an lead her around like a dog.

Is this proven?

Let's see your proof.

And what about a woman's right to believe in religion?

I guess, according to you, your unfounded suspicions over ride the Canadian charter!

Ya that's really convincing!

WWWTT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I favour Europeans not because they're skin has less pigmentation but because they are more culturally adaptable to our own culture, have much the same values, are likely to speak English much better, and will have education and skill sets more immediately applicable to our economy.

Also they're not likely to want to blow stuff up.

This is just not true. You really do believe the crap you spout off here.

Read below:

"The vast majority of terrorist attacks in E.U. countries have for years been perpetrated by separatist organizations.

Of 152 terrorist attacks in 2013, 84 of were motivated by ethno-nationalist or separatist beliefs. That’s more than 55 percent. That’s down from 76 percent the year before. While the report notes this decline, it also states that a number of separatist groups are showing “greater sophistication, incremental learning and lethal intent.”

Despite the low frequency of Islamist militant attacks, fears around them are continually stokes by politicians, law enforcement officials, and even the media which tends to highlight religiously-motivated attacks over political or environmental ones.

In 2013, there were 152 terrorist attacks in the EU. Two of them were “religiously motivated.” In 2012, there were 219 terrorist attacks in EU countries, six of them were “religiously motivated.”

In 2011, not one of the 174 terrorist attacks in EU countries in 2011 were “affiliated or inspired” by terrorist organizations. 2010, 249 terrorist attacks,three of them were considered by Europol to be “Islamist.” In 2009, of 294 terrorist attacks, only one was related to Islamist militancy "

Edited by WestCoastRunner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes - under that "sack of cloth" is a person - one that you seem to not give a sh** about. You may be alright with the cultural subjugation of women - but you are way offside with the vast majority of Canadians.

I dont think I am. In any case, its not Canadas job to dismantle the structure and practices of the Muslim religion, nor any other for that matter, just because we may not agree with them. Should she choose to throw off her Niqab, Canadian law will uphold her right to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cool story. I suppose it hasn't occurred to you that when the police raid Catholic church services and arrest the priests, or when they execute members of Falun Gong that this might be slightly against the sentiments of that noble sounding clause, hmm?

Ya I'm sure there was millions killed in the process.

And....

WWWTT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I don't agree with women wearing the Niqab, I do question Harper's govt of appealing this decision. I suppose he is trying to show that his govt is the only govt who can defend Canada against Jihadi terrorism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which race am I being racist against when I decry the niquab? Or is that simply a handy epithet for you to fling around like a monkey flings its excrement?

I see no person in a shroud. I see an unidentified object. I favour Europeans not because they're skin has less pigmentation but because they are more culturally adaptable to our own culture, have much the same values, are likely to speak English much better, and will have education and skill sets more immediately applicable to our economy.

Also they're not likely to want to blow stuff up.

I think even you could figure out there is a person under that shroud, yet you prefer to call her only a sack of cloth. Now theres some real monkey doo doo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's see your proof.

The cultural origins as a tool to oppress women are well established but not particularly relevant. Clothing can be a symbol and to most Canadians the niqab is a symbol that means oppression of women and for that reason it is offensive.

And what about a woman's right to believe in religion?

The niqab is a cultural requirement. It is has no connection with religion. Edited by TimG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cultural origins as a tool to oppress women are well established but not particularly relevant. Clothing can be a symbol and to most Canadians the niqab is a symbol that means oppression of women and for that reason it is offensive.

The niqab is a cultural requirement. It is has no connection with religion.

Ok if you say so.

I hope you're ready to back this defense in your pursuit to change the supreme courts decisions upholding the charter.

WWWTT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cultural origins as a tool to oppress women are well established but not particularly relevant. Clothing can be a symbol and to most Canadians the niqab is a symbol that means oppression of women and for that reason it is offensive.

The niqab is a cultural requirement. It is has no connection with religion.

Hijab comes right out of the Quran. Niqab is part of the Hijab. Pretty strong connection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hijab comes right out of the Quran. Niqab is part of the Hijab. Pretty strong connection.

And religious oppression is positive in your view?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...