Election 2015

[PCB]

I love multiculturalism.  But there should be no confusion about the expectations and standards of this country.

 

You are free to practice your religion and culture, more free than some are in their own country.  But human rights and equality trumps that.  Is your wife allowed to make her own decisions, go where she wants, when she wants with whom she wants?  If not, dont come here.

 

The dream should not be to become a melting pot for distasteful cultural "traditions".  it should be to be a place where people want to be free and equal.  And if their culture works within that, great!  If not, change or **** off.

I think defining multiculturalism by your personal standards and expectations, which is what you're doing, is antithetical to the the very idea of multiculturalism.

[The Unknown Poster]

 

I love multiculturalism.  But there should be no confusion about the expectations and standards of this country.

 

You are free to practice your religion and culture, more free than some are in their own country.  But human rights and equality trumps that.  Is your wife allowed to make her own decisions, go where she wants, when she wants with whom she wants?  If not, dont come here.

 

The dream should not be to become a melting pot for distasteful cultural "traditions".  it should be to be a place where people want to be free and equal.  And if their culture works within that, great!  If not, change or **** off.

I think defining multiculturalism by your personal standards and expectations, which is what you're doing, is antithetical to the the very idea of multiculturalism.

 

Thats a lame point.  Its not an all or none proposition.  We cant enjoy each others cultural diversity unless we allow mistreatment of women on religious grounds?

 

Is the multiculturalism of Canada going to disappear because two women dont want to remove their face coverings while taking the oath?  Come on...

 

And according to the overwhelming majority, its not MY personal standards.  Its the nations.

[PCB]

 

 

I love multiculturalism.  But there should be no confusion about the expectations and standards of this country.

 

You are free to practice your religion and culture, more free than some are in their own country.  But human rights and equality trumps that.  Is your wife allowed to make her own decisions, go where she wants, when she wants with whom she wants?  If not, dont come here.

 

The dream should not be to become a melting pot for distasteful cultural "traditions".  it should be to be a place where people want to be free and equal.  And if their culture works within that, great!  If not, change or **** off.

I think defining multiculturalism by your personal standards and expectations, which is what you're doing, is antithetical to the the very idea of multiculturalism.

 

Thats a lame point.  Its not an all or none proposition.  We cant enjoy each others cultural diversity unless we allow mistreatment of women on religious grounds?

 

Is the multiculturalism of Canada going to disappear because two women dont want to remove their face coverings while taking the oath?  Come on...

 

And according to the overwhelming majority, its not MY personal standards.  Its the nations.

 

To me, your idea of multiculturalism seems more closely linked to assimilation.

 

In the court case were talking about, the individual asserted her religious right. I think multiculturalism, the idea you purport to love, councils that whether or not we agree with her religion on personal grounds we tolerate it. Again, S.1 allows for the deprivation of your religious rights if there's a sufficiently important objective, the Government of Canada did not even assert the issue, "mistreatment of women," that you bring up as a S.1. argument. Are you arguing the Government forgot to make that argument?

[The Unknown Poster]

Don't miscontrue. Not assimilation at all. Use common sense please.

Your idea of multi culturalism might be tolerate all other cultural aspects without limit. But that's clearly not reasonable. You want to make this an extreme thing the other way. It's a foolish argument.

Also there is a very good reason for no face covering during the oath. The person taking the oath must be seen actually saying the words or they do not become citizens.

[PCB]

Don't miscontrue. Not assimilation at all. Use common sense please.

Your idea of multi culturalism might be tolerate all other cultural aspects without limit. But that's clearly not reasonable. You want to make this an extreme thing the other way. It's a foolish argument.

Also there is a very good reason for no face covering during the oath. The person taking the oath must be seen actually saying the words or they do not become citizens.

I don't see how I'm misconstruing what you're saying. Here's the definition of assimilate: "to bring into conformity with the customs, attitudes etc., of a group, nation, or the like." You specifically brought up the nations standards in your definition.

 

And my idea of multiculturalism, and the law's, is not to tolerate all other cultural aspects without limit. As I said, all rights freedoms are limited by S.1. of the Canadian Charter.

 

And your argument would likely fail: she is willing to unveil for identification purposes to another woman and you can hear her saying the words during the oath. 

[The Unknown Poster]

 

Don't miscontrue. Not assimilation at all. Use common sense please.

Your idea of multi culturalism might be tolerate all other cultural aspects without limit. But that's clearly not reasonable. You want to make this an extreme thing the other way. It's a foolish argument.

Also there is a very good reason for no face covering during the oath. The person taking the oath must be seen actually saying the words or they do not become citizens.

I don't see how I'm misconstruing what you're saying. Here's the definition of assimilate: "to bring into conformity with the customs, attitudes etc., of a group, nation, or the like." You specifically brought up the nations standards in your definition.

 

And my idea of multiculturalism, and the law's, is not to tolerate all other cultural aspects without limit. As I said, all rights freedoms are limited by S.1. of the Canadian Charter.

 

And your argument would likely fail: she is willing to unveil for identification purposes to another woman and you can hear her saying the words during the oath. 

 

You're completely twisting what I said.

 

What is Canada's standard?  I'd say pretty welcoming to other cultures.  If wanting other religions and cultures to conform to our welcoming and embrace of multi culturalism is assimilation, then so be it.  Sort of warped though.

 

Why does someone coming to this country get to choose who identifies them?  What an odd thing.  And such a silly thing to argue about.  Two women.  Good grief.  What a waste of time and effort.  Oh you dont want to remove that symbol of oppression to take an oath to THIS country?  Okay.  No citizenship for you.  Oh you changed your mind?  Cool beans.

[Mark H.]

Oh it's silly all right - but somehow its been spun into an election issue. Two women. And all the have to do is swear the oath to a female official. Why is this even news?

[PCB]

You're completely twisting what I said.

 

What is Canada's standard?  I'd say pretty welcoming to other cultures.  If wanting other religions and cultures to conform to our welcoming and embrace of multi culturalism is assimilation, then so be it.  Sort of warped though.

 

Why does someone coming to this country get to choose who identifies them?  What an odd thing.  And such a silly thing to argue about.  Two women.  Good grief.  What a waste of time and effort.  Oh you dont want to remove that symbol of oppression to take an oath to THIS country?  Okay.  No citizenship for you.  Oh you changed your mind?  Cool beans.

 

No, I don't think I am. You just conceded that conforming is an inherent piece of your definition of multiculturalism. I think that's pretty hard to reconcile.

 

As was said, someone gets to "choose" because in this instance, it involves her religious beliefs. Because you don't agree with her beliefs, you don't think she should become a Canadian. I don't think that fits within the scope of multiculturalism. 

 

And I think its a fundamental piece of the Charter that, in the face of a majority who disagrees, it protects the rights of an individual. So two people or two million, it's irrelevant to the question at issue.

[Noeller]

Oh it's silly all right - but somehow its been spun into an election issue. Two women. And all the have to do is swear the oath to a female official. Why is this even news?

It's news because Stephen Harper wants it to be. He preys on dumb voters...

[The Unknown Poster]

You're completely twisting what I said.

What is Canada's standard? I'd say pretty welcoming to other cultures. If wanting other religions and cultures to conform to our welcoming and embrace of multi culturalism is assimilation, then so be it. Sort of warped though.

Why does someone coming to this country get to choose who identifies them? What an odd thing. And such a silly thing to argue about. Two women. Good grief. What a waste of time and effort. Oh you dont want to remove that symbol of oppression to take an oath to THIS country? Okay. No citizenship for you. Oh you changed your mind? Cool beans.

No, I don't think I am. You just conceded that conforming is an inherent piece of your definition of multiculturalism. I think that's pretty hard to reconcile.

As was said, someone gets to "choose" because in this instance, it involves her religious beliefs. Because you don't agree with her beliefs, you don't think she should become a Canadian. I don't think that fits within the scope of multiculturalism.

And I think its a fundamental piece of the Charter that, in the face of a majority who disagrees, it protects the rights of an individual. So two people or two million, it's irrelevant to the question at issue.

If you can't doscuss an issue with some Common sense don't bother.

[kelownabomberfan]

 

Oh it's silly all right - but somehow its been spun into an election issue. Two women. And all the have to do is swear the oath to a female official. Why is this even news?

It's news because Stephen Harper wants it to be. He preys on dumb voters...

 

 

I've been on a few other political forums and I've seen several people make this comment.  "Stephen Harper is pandering to racists".  Stephen Harper is counting on the dumb bigot faction...blah blah blah...and the people making this comment seem to be ignorant of the national polls on this issue.  Right now 70% of Canadians support the Conservatives on this issue, and over 80% in Quebec. So you are saying that 70% of Canadians are dumb and you are smart?  Sorry but that doesn't wash.  Everyone who thinks they are so smart and on the right side of this issue should read Barbara Kay's excellent column on this issue.  She's smarter than most of the posters on this forum put together.

 

Barbara Kay: Ten reasons to ban the niqab — in the public service

 

Libertarians are committed to the principle that every individual has the right to live his life as he pleases, as long as he does no harm to others. But the meaning of “harm” isn’t always as identifiable as a physical assault or “fire” shouted in a crowded theatre. Nor is the phrase “to others.” Add up enough “others” and you have a community; add more, a culture.

The National Post editorial board takes a libertarian line on the niqab (‘The niqab? Really?’ Sept. 26). Saturday’s editorial expresses astonishment that the niqab has morphed from “an otherwise straightforward issue of religious accommodation” into “moral panic.” The editorial concludes that the niqab is not doing “actual harm to anyone” and that the leaders should all feel ashamed for exploiting it politically.

 

Yet there is nothing “straightforward” about face covering in a supposedly open society. It is corrosive to the social reciprocity on which neighbourhoods depend for spontaneous camaraderie. And culturally speaking, Canadians’ opposition to the niqab is commendable, since it means most of us feel we still have an actual culture to be harmed, which is no small triumph in an era dominated by the pernicious laissez-faireism of cultural relativism.

Here are 10 justifications for banning the niqab, not just in citizenship ceremonies, but, as Quebec is rightly proposing, in the public sector generally:

1. The niqab is not a religious obligation, it is, according to many Islamic scholars, a regional custom. But even in Saudi Arabia, where it is considered a religious obligation, it is removed by women participating in the hajj. Why must Canada be more niqab-consistent than Saudi Arabia?
2. The niqab is indecent. Beyond “offence,” which can be cognitively managed, decency standards go to the heart of our psychological well-being in society, and is beyond our cognitive control. Our sense of decency is what regulates our comfort zone amongst strangers. Decency standards are not imposed by a charter, but spring up organically in all societies under a variety of historical and cultural influences. Decency standards differ amongst societies and shift with time, but the when-in-Rome principle is universally accepted by reasonable people.
3. Decency here resides in the perceived broad middle of a spectrum. Just as full nakedness provokes extreme discomfort in most Canadians, so does full cover. That full cover is almost invariably a Muslim custom is immaterial to those of us who find it indecent. (So enough, please, with the “Islamophobia” shtick.)
4. Double standards: it is inconceivable that we would allow men to mask themselves in civic interaction, even if they considered it a religious obligation, because masked men are threatening to women (and other men). We should not permit to women what we would not permit to men.
5. The only societies that mandate the niqab as a social norm are those in which women are considered sexual chattel with virtually no rights. Willed indifference to the niqab is more than tolerance; it is an endorsement of gender-rights relativism in our national home — equality for our women, inferior status for theirs.
6. The editorial notes that “only a tiny minority of women” opt to wear the niqab. This is precisely why it should be regulated now, when it is enforceable, not when potentially thousands of women adopt it and it is unenforceable.
7. Some women wearing the niqab have had it imposed on them against their will. What is the lesser evil: that all women should be forced to show us their faces while interacting with us in the public sector, or that we facilitate the lifelong misery of voiceless women? We should err on the side of support for vulnerable women yearning to fully integrate into Canadian life.
8. The niqab is a gross insult to Canadian men, as it suggests they require a physical barrier to prevent lascivious thoughts or behaviour.
9. The niqab is a gross insult to uncovered women, suggesting their “immodesty” invites sexual attention.
10. In the West, the niqab is often a political statement, a proud sign of militant Islamist activism. “Put on your niqab!” cried Hezbollah supporter Yvonne Ridley at a Montreal Canadian Islamic Congress fundraiser in 2007. It wasn’t modesty she was encouraging, but participation in the stealth jihad.

The niqab differs from other fashion accessories that promote faith and modesty like the kippah or hijab, and to pretend otherwise is disingenuous. The arc of contemporary Islamism, still in its ascendancy, frightens us. Our alleged “moral panic” is actually moral revulsion. When a symbol comes with this much baggage, libertarian rigidity in its support looks less like principled idealism and more like cultural self-sabotage. No leader who grasps and uproots this nettle need feel ashamed. True patriot love demands nothing less.

 

 

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/barbara-kay-ten-reasons-to-ban-the-niqab-in-public

[Mr Dee]

Wow..

Oh it's silly all right - but somehow its been spun into an election issue. Two women. And all the have to do is swear the oath to a female official. Why is this even news?

It's news because Stephen Harper wants it to be. He preys on dumb voters...

I agree, but I would use the word ignorant.

[The Unknown Poster]

Yup 70% of Canadians are dumb. But only if you're anti Conservative. If that many people agreed on anything NDP they'd be touting it big time.

Once again, the right think everyone has an opinion. The left think you're dumb if you disagree. Lol

[Mr Dee]

D

I

S

T

R

A

C

T

I

O

N

Look at this and avoid what really needs to be looked at...

[PCB]

If you can't doscuss an issue with some Common sense don't bother.

 

You're right the judges who decided this case at trial and on appeal, as well as the Canadian judicial system, whose principals I'm repeating, lack the common sense required to discuss this issue.

 

I also find it interesting, that you say the left treats people who disagree with them as dumb (which I do think can be true), yet because I disagree with you, you've insinuated I'm too dumb to discuss this issue.

[The Unknown Poster]

Not at all. I'm saying you twisted what you knew to be by meaning into a different argument altogether. Thinking people should embrace values of Canada does not

Mean an end to multiculturalism.

And if the debate is a mere distraction well tell that to the vast majority of Canadians. As I said before it's silly

Common sense should prevail. But the opposition can't argue effectively because they don't want to agree with the government but disagreeing offends most Canadians.

[PCB]

Not at all. I'm saying you twisted what you knew to be by meaning into a different argument altogether. Thinking people should embrace values of Canada does not

Mean an end to multiculturalism.

And if the debate is a mere distraction well tell that to the vast majority of Canadians. As I said before it's silly

Common sense should prevail. But the opposition can't argue effectively because they don't want to agree with the government but disagreeing offends most Canadians.

Thinking people should sacrifice their religious beliefs because you or even the majority of Canadians disagree with them does conflict with multiculturalism, however. That you think wearing the niqab is a symbol of oppression is irrelevant. Because it's not about your beliefs; it's about her beliefs.

 

And its pretty arrogant to say "common sense should prevail." Again, two levels of the Canadian judicial system have found in favour of the woman in this case. Are you really trying to argue that they don't understand this issue?

[Mark H.]

Since when do a few polls represent the vast majority of Canadians?

[bigg jay]

Since when do a few polls represent the vast majority of Canadians?

I guess I missed the referendum because I never got to cast my vote.

[Noeller]

Wow..

Oh it's silly all right - but somehow its been spun into an election issue. Two women. And all the have to do is swear the oath to a female official. Why is this even news?

It's news because Stephen Harper wants it to be. He preys on dumb voters...

I agree, but I would use the word ignorant.

You are one hundred percent correct. Ignorant is the perfect word. It's the same people who voted Con because of the reduction in GST. Ugh.

[Fatty Liver]

 

 

 

 

It's not a law of the state. It was struck down as unconstitutional.

 

 

It's not just Christian symbols affected by government rules.

 

 

So what's next then?  What happens when some judge (unelected) decides that not allowing Muslim men to discipline their wives according to sharia law is "unconstitutional"?  Where is the end of the slippery slope?  Are you going to defend that man's right to beat the snot out of his wife because his religion allows it and some judge no one voted for ruled that he can?  I am just trying to find out where the breaking point for people truly lies.  Because if you use the excuse that judges dictate what is right and wrong, then you can't turn around and disagree later when you've fallen all the way down the slope. 

 

I also don't get how a nativity scene on government property can be constitutionally removed while deeply offending Christians, but it's unconstitutional to say that you have to abide by laws regarding revealing your face because it offends your Islamic faith.  I honestly don't think I will ever understand that.

 

To distinguish between not unveiling at a citizenship ceremony and stoning individuals to death, there is a constitutional provision and an accompanying test. Section 1 of the Charter "guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject to only such reasonable limits prescribed law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." For a charter violation to be saved by Section 1, the law must be promote a sufficiently important objective. I think preventing the murder of individuals is a sufficiently important objective to justify depriving an individual, who argues he has such a right, of their religious right to stone their wives. 

 

 

OK - but allowing someone to murder someone else is the most radical case.  What if it's just a casual daily/weekly beating?  No stoning.  Just a little beating.  Are you good with that?

 

 

Nope, that's against the law.  Wearing a niqab is not.

[kelownabomberfan]

 

 

 

 

 

It's not a law of the state. It was struck down as unconstitutional.

 

 

It's not just Christian symbols affected by government rules.

 

 

So what's next then?  What happens when some judge (unelected) decides that not allowing Muslim men to discipline their wives according to sharia law is "unconstitutional"?  Where is the end of the slippery slope?  Are you going to defend that man's right to beat the snot out of his wife because his religion allows it and some judge no one voted for ruled that he can?  I am just trying to find out where the breaking point for people truly lies.  Because if you use the excuse that judges dictate what is right and wrong, then you can't turn around and disagree later when you've fallen all the way down the slope. 

 

I also don't get how a nativity scene on government property can be constitutionally removed while deeply offending Christians, but it's unconstitutional to say that you have to abide by laws regarding revealing your face because it offends your Islamic faith.  I honestly don't think I will ever understand that.

 

To distinguish between not unveiling at a citizenship ceremony and stoning individuals to death, there is a constitutional provision and an accompanying test. Section 1 of the Charter "guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject to only such reasonable limits prescribed law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." For a charter violation to be saved by Section 1, the law must be promote a sufficiently important objective. I think preventing the murder of individuals is a sufficiently important objective to justify depriving an individual, who argues he has such a right, of their religious right to stone their wives. 

 

 

OK - but allowing someone to murder someone else is the most radical case.  What if it's just a casual daily/weekly beating?  No stoning.  Just a little beating.  Are you good with that?

 

 

Nope, that's against the law.  Wearing a niqab is not.

 

 

[Fatty Liver]

Oh it's silly all right - but somehow its been spun into an election issue. Two women. And all the have to do is swear the oath to a female official. Why is this even news?

 

What pisses me off is Harper will spend millions of tax-payers money fighting this in the courts.  It's a non-issue, so stop wasting my frickin' money!!!

[FrostyWinnipeg]

Thank god we are finished with the debates. Still can't believe the PQ get invited to some. That peeves me off to no end.

[Mark H.]

 

Oh it's silly all right - but somehow its been spun into an election issue. Two women. And all the have to do is swear the oath to a female official. Why is this even news?

 

What pisses me off is Harper will spend millions of tax-payers money fighting this in the courts.  It's a non-issue, so stop wasting my frickin' money!!!

 

 

No problem - he can just take some of the 15 billion from the Saudi arms deal.  But never mind all that, we're still protected from terrorism and Comrade Harper is always right.

 

The fact that this is an election issue that is actually shifting the polls is disturbing to say the least.