U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Canada
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 09-17-2013, 12:25 PM
 
1,701 posts, read 1,998,543 times
Reputation: 1027

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jambo101 View Post
Yeah in my opinion waring something like this burqa and walking around in downtown Montreal or Toronto is something i would call hazardous to your well being
You call this hazardous? I call this appropriate winter wear for Toronto and Montreal in the months of January and February.

Jambo, you can keep defending your logic - which frankly, has fallen flat on its head ...... this continues to make no sense. You deem a burqa to be hazardous? This is only laughable.
What is more hazardous? Wearing a burqa vs skateboarding on Toronto streets vs not wearing a winter jacket during a cold Toronto winter? What laws will you pass now?

Hijab = religious freedom
Burqa = hazard? LMAO!


Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-17-2013, 12:32 PM
 
Location: Gatineau, Québec
21,962 posts, read 27,410,308 times
Reputation: 8623
Quote:
Originally Posted by jambo101 View Post
Yeah in my opinion waring something like this burqa and walking around in downtown Montreal or Toronto is something i would call hazardous to your well being.


i got no problem with this hijab
Oddly enough, I am not nearly as outraged by the charter as jambo seems to be, and yet I personally don't see a big problem with walking down the street on your own free time wearing a burqa. (Although as I said I do know what the burqa really stands for - but that's a slightly different debate.)

Which really points to the fact that maybe the righteous indignation on the part of jambo and others here isn't so much about what's in the charter, but more about WHO proposed it.

Think about this - let's say the PQ government wanted to ban red Smarties. I suppose there would be a big hue and cry from the same people about this being fascist, xenophobic, Nazi and the first stage on a slippery slope towards concentration camps...

I mean, did you people know that one of the first things Hitler did when he took power after the Reichstag fire is making Rotschmarties verboten!

And people, do you know what Rotschmarties are? RED SMARTIES!

I tell you - this is NOT a simple matter of coincidence!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2013, 12:34 PM
 
Location: Vancouver
12,706 posts, read 8,786,090 times
Reputation: 7319
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandman249 View Post
While few in number, many present/ past religious acts in Canada have broken the law and have not been prosecuted:
1. Hate speeches against the U.S. and other NATO countries in several religious institutions in Canada
2. Ongoing abuse/ subjugation of women in some segments of societies

And many of the "what if's" that you mock were the basis of The Supreme court of Canada judgement on Thursday, December 20, 2012 - it ruled that the niqab would not be permissible in courts of law in the majority of cases.


Teachers have been fired because of the nature of their present/past jobs. A whole lot of them involve wearing bikinis.
" While few in number ". Yes, so your point is what? That we in Canada should be making laws and restricting our values as a democracy because of some haters out there? Baloney. Hate speeches. So you are painting whole religious communities with one brush because of people making hate speeches outside of Canada? Hate speech within can be dealt with on a case by case basis IN Canada.

I am not mocking " what if's ". I am simply pointing out that many here are going by " what if's ". Even if someone could give ONE example of a pubic employee in Quebec being an issue because of their chosen religious expression I still say deal with it on a case to case basis.

Such a sweeping law is overkill.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2013, 12:40 PM
 
Location: Vancouver
12,706 posts, read 8,786,090 times
Reputation: 7319
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
Oddly enough, I am not nearly as outraged by the charter as jambo seems to be, and yet I personally don't see a big problem with walking down the street on your own free time wearing a burqa. (Although as I said I do know what the burqa really stands for - but that's a slightly different debate.)

Which really points to the fact that maybe the righteous indignation on the part of jambo and others here isn't so much about what's in the charter, but more about WHO proposed it.

Think about this - let's say the PQ government wanted to ban red Smarties. I suppose there would be a big hue and cry from the same people about this being fascist, xenophobic, Nazi and the first stage on a slippery slope towards concentration camps...

I mean, did you people know that one of the first things Hitler did when he took power after the Reichstag fire is making Rotschmarties verboten!

And people, do you know what Rotschmarties are? RED SMARTIES!

I tell you - this is NOT a simple matter of coincidence!
In my case no. This charter would be criticized regardless of who proposed it. Righteous indignation has a tone of superiority about it. I find that offensive. Is someone who gets upset over the rights of others to be put down because someone who thinks otherwise feel that they are doing it just to be superior or getting some pleasure in thinking they are?
I am one of the most down to earth people you could meet. My indignation is heartfelt.

Red Smarties? More like a red herring.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2013, 12:40 PM
 
Location: Gatineau, Québec
21,962 posts, read 27,410,308 times
Reputation: 8623
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natnasci View Post
" While few in number ". Yes, so your point is what? That we in Canada should be making laws and restricting our values as a democracy because of some haters out there? Baloney. Hate speeches. So you are painting whole religious communities with one brush because of people making hate speeches outside of Canada? Hate speech within can be dealt with on a case by case basis IN Canada.

I am not mocking " what if's ". I am simply pointing out that many here are going by " what if's ". Even if someone could give ONE example of a pubic employee in Quebec being an issue because of their chosen religious expression I still say deal with it on a case to case basis.

Such a sweeping law is overkill.
I wonder what legal experts would say about dealing with things like this as one-offs as opposed to having a clear policy up front that you can automatically point to that says "them's the rules for everyone".

This is a question I am asking more than an opinion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2013, 12:42 PM
 
Location: Vancouver
12,706 posts, read 8,786,090 times
Reputation: 7319
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
I wonder what legal experts would say about dealing with things like this as one-offs as opposed to having a clear policy up front that you can automatically point to that says "them's the rules for everyone".

This is a question I am asking more than an opinion.
There are already rules. Making new ones to create policy issues for a few that have done NOTHING to deserve it is wrong.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2013, 12:48 PM
 
Location: Gatineau, Québec
21,962 posts, read 27,410,308 times
Reputation: 8623
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natnasci View Post
In my case no. This charter would be criticized regardless of who proposed it. Righteous indignation has a tone of superiority about it. I find that offensive. Is someone who gets upset over the rights of others to be put down because someone who thinks otherwise feel that they are doing it just to be superior or getting some pleasure in thinking they are?
I am one of the most down to earth people you could meet. My indignation is heartfelt.

Red Smarties? More like a red herring.
I did not name you specifically. That said many of the reactions on here and elsewhere are completely over the top and basically confirm my hypothesis.

Some of the generalized comments about Québécois and French Canadians that are being thrown around in reaction to the charter are way more racist than the charter itself or its proponents could ever be.

Somehow the irony is lost on some people that labelling an entire group of 8 million people (fairly easily identifiable by its characteristics that distinguish it from the rest of the country) as racists, is actually racist in itself.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2013, 01:10 PM
 
1,701 posts, read 1,998,543 times
Reputation: 1027
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natnasci View Post
" While few in number ". Yes, so your point is what? That we in Canada should be making laws and restricting our values as a democracy because of some haters out there? Baloney. Hate speeches. So you are painting whole religious communities with one brush because of people making hate speeches outside of Canada? Hate speech within can be dealt with on a case by case basis IN Canada.
You said something about religious freedom and existing laws. I simply gave you examples where existing laws are not applied strictly enough precisely because the crime is committed within the garb of religion.

While this is a different debate, many religious scholars have argued that the burqa is nothing but a symbol of misogyny/ female subjugation. That said, in many cases, wearing the burqa breaks a host of Canadian laws - so are you now is favor of banning the burqa?

And what religious community am I painting with the same brush? Is this a phrase people just like throwing around on this forum every time someone questions religion.

Quote:
I am not mocking " what if's ". I am simply pointing out that many here are going by " what if's ". Even if someone could give ONE example of a pubic employee in Quebec being an issue because of their chosen religious expression I still say deal with it on a case to case basis.
What if's are the basis of a debate like this. What if's were used in the Supreme Court to ban the niqab during court proceedings.

You clearly do not understand how Canadian law operates. You earlier said that someone in a bikini would probably not be hired as a school teacher. You are right. But would someone in a burqa be hired as a school teacher? If No - then could this person go to court citing "discrimination on religious grounds"? So you cannot deal with this on a case by case basis.

Quote:
Such a sweeping law is overkill.
You are probably right. Some say that this law it too much, others argue that it does not go far enough. One day you will understand the true motive behind this proposal (someone <brilliantly> alluded to the REAL REASON on this very thread).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2013, 01:18 PM
 
1,701 posts, read 1,998,543 times
Reputation: 1027
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
Oddly enough, I am not nearly as outraged by the charter as jambo seems to be, and yet I personally don't see a big problem with walking down the street on your own free time wearing a burqa. (Although as I said I do know what the burqa really stands for - but that's a slightly different debate.)
JAMBO is displaying what is commonly known as FAKE OUTRAGE.
I am not sure how you can be against the burqa in a world where the niqab, turban, etc are allowed. This is blatant discrimination against a specific group of people that wear the burqa. And the cherry on the cake - he is citing "hazard" to justify this ban!

How can you not laugh at this? How old is Jambo?

All this talk about the Government staying out of the clothing business .... and now he wants to ban the burqa cause it is hazardous.
This cannot be taken seriously anymore.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2013, 01:24 PM
 
Location: Gatineau, Québec
21,962 posts, read 27,410,308 times
Reputation: 8623
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandman249 View Post
JAMBO is displaying what is commonly known as FAKE OUTRAGE.
I am not sure how you can be against the burqa in a world where the niqab, turban, etc are allowed. This is blatant discrimination against a specific group of people that wear the burqa. And the cherry on the cake - he is citing "hazard" to justify this ban!

How can you not laugh at this? How old is Jambo?

All this talk about the Government staying out of the clothing business .... and now he wants to ban the burqa cause it is hazardous.
This cannot be taken seriously anymore.
Hence my reference to the red Smarties! He would leap to their defence with similar hyperbole and bombast... provided it was the PQ on the other side.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Canada
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top