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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-11-2015, 08:15 AM
 
18,268 posts, read 10,371,545 times
Reputation: 13325

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Natnasci View Post
I think most Canadians are, but it's how we approach the issue.

I agree with the sentiment that forcing a women NOT to wear something, is just the same as forcing her to wear something.

If we ban it all together, what will these women do? Never leave the house? It's best for them to be out and about and engaged as much as possible.
I think a reasonable approach would be to separate out the personal aspects that serve only to cloud the issue.

Would Canada seek to ban someone from wearing it if they genuinely believe it was part of their religious understandings.

Would someone feeling empowered by the wearing of it, demand that "feeling" of empowerment should be maintained throughout a ceremony that is someone else's traditional belief?

Should that person who is wearing it for personal satisfaction have priority rights over a country's past traditions of believing the wearing of it signifies subservience and submission to only one of the sexes?

Authoritative sources should be sought to determine just what religious status it enjoys versus simply that of hierarchal males imposition of will.

All of this 'Harper thinks this' and 'Zunera thinks that' nonsense reduces this down to two protagonists facing off across a boxing ring. That lends assigning bigot and zealot to the two sides of the issue rather than looking at it from the perspective of women's rights in conjunction with a country's progress.

I harken back to the day when these things were discussed in terms of the 'Gov't of Canada says this' and an 'immigrant representative says that' rather than these tendencies to personalize the issues of governance versus an individual's beliefs.

Harper and others have done no service to the governing of a country by micro-managing the smallest of things to the point the press uses "Harper" rather than "Prime Minister" or "The Government".

If he's being made to play the role of a bigot it's because he put himself at center stage wearing a white sheet over his head. "It's all about me and ONLY me". We play the dutiful audience and allow this girl to do the same thing.

This should not be the way for a country's governance to be patterned and also no way for an intelligent populace to encourage it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-11-2015, 09:33 AM
 
Location: Toronto
12,581 posts, read 11,135,736 times
Reputation: 3738
From my vantage point Canada is a secular country.. I wouldn't vault religious/beliefs or religious understanding ahead of any other personal belief system. This would go for Christianity as well.. It may have more traditional and majority roots in this country, but to me it is no greater or no less than any other personal belief system.

To me, most religious people who ascribe to the beliefs of ancient texts are bound to a belief system that is dated and whose text oppresses the rights and freedoms of people and really have no purpose in modern day life.. That is my personal belief system.. Should I be rescued from the Christian majority? Should I be rescued from Hindu's? Should I be rescued from Muslims? No thanks I've read some of these texts and there are things in the bible that make me shudder and think, how the heck can someone in 2015 connect with this and call themselves a Catholic etc.

So this goes to women wearing the Niqab.. It Is part of their belief system. Do they choose it or is it oppressive to women, most likely from my vantage point they are oppressed but ultimately it is THEIR belief system and they are FREE in this secular country to break free from that oppression. We are ALL free to break free from the many things that oppress us... Lets leave the personal evolution of these women to break free of the niqab or from my vantage point, leave it to Christians and Muslims etc to break free from their personal belief of ancient texts written by men. Heck, many of you may think I need to break free from agnosticism and connect with Christianity or Islam or Buddhism etc because I am oppressed -not likely to happen lol but that would be my personal 'evolution'. Let's not mettle in the affairs of one's personal evolution in this country. We provide the environment for this to happen if the person so chooses! No man in this country can force a woman to wear a Niqab if she chooses not to wear one.

If we as a nation take practical measures to ensure that we can validate their identity and ensure the niqab isn't interfering with their ability to take the oath than we should accommodate their belief system. This is actually advocating for a more hands off approach from the government as well.

Last edited by fusion2; 10-11-2015 at 10:01 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2015, 10:17 AM
 
5,097 posts, read 2,485,057 times
Reputation: 4657
Quote:
Originally Posted by fusion2 View Post
From my vantage point Canada is a secular country.. I wouldn't vault religious/beliefs or religious understanding ahead of any other personal belief system. This would go for Christianity as well.. It may have more traditional and majority roots in this country, but to me it is no greater or no less than any other personal belief system.

To me, most religious people who ascribe to the beliefs of ancient texts are bound to a belief system that is dated and whose text oppresses the rights and freedoms of people and really have no purpose in modern day life.. That is my personal belief system.. Should I be rescued from the Christian majority? Should I be rescued from Hindu's? Should I be rescued from Muslims? No thanks I've read some of these texts and there are things in the bible that make me shudder and think, how the heck can someone in 2015 connect with this and call themselves a Catholic etc.

So this goes to women wearing the Niqab.. It Is part of their belief system. Do they choose it or is it oppressive to women, most likely from my vantage point they are oppressed but ultimately it is THEIR belief system and they are FREE in this secular country to break free from that oppression. We are ALL free to break free from the many things that oppress us... Lets leave the personal evolution of these women to break free of the niqab or from my vantage point, leave it to Christians and Muslims etc to break free from their personal belief of ancient texts written by men. Heck, many of you may think I need to break free from agnosticism and connect with Christianity or Islam or Buddhism etc because I am oppressed -not likely to happen lol but that would be my personal 'evolution'. Let's not mettle in the affairs of one's personal evolution in this country. We provide the environment for this to happen if the person so chooses! No man in this country can force a woman to wear a Niqab if she chooses not to wear one.

If we as a nation take practical measures to ensure that we can validate their identity and ensure the niqab isn't interfering with their ability to take the oath than we should accommodate their belief system. This is actually advocating for a more hands off approach from the government as well.
It seems Canadians are falling back on good old fashioned Canadian humour, and showing up to vote with face coverings. Clearly, no one is taking the niquab issue too seriously anymore. Every Canadian has the right to cover the face when participating in all things related to citizenship - such as the vote - and they are practicing that freedom. All is well that ends well - and this appears to have ended well. We have one more new Canadian who managed to change law in order to be a Canadian, and that is most likely something unique to Canada; a country that offers more human rights than probably any other country in the world. Well done Canada!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2015, 10:37 AM
 
Location: Toronto
12,581 posts, read 11,135,736 times
Reputation: 3738
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lieneke View Post
It seems Canadians are falling back on good old fashioned Canadian humour, and showing up to vote with face coverings. Clearly, no one is taking the niquab issue too seriously anymore. Every Canadian has the right to cover the face when participating in all things related to citizenship - such as the vote - and they are practicing that freedom. All is well that ends well - and this appears to have ended well. We have one more new Canadian who managed to change law in order to be a Canadian, and that is most likely something unique to Canada; a country that offers more human rights than probably any other country in the world. Well done Canada!
Its just timing and of course people will make fun of it. Wearing a potato head or ghost covering is just that, making fun of an issue but that will pass.

As for the last part of what you said, that is what i'm proud of about this nation. Among the first to allow gay marriage for example. There was a time when that was not a right (people made fun of that too) so the fact that we are an evolved state that does not deny rights even when we may not entirely comfortable with those rights means we are a mature nation and we are indeed comfortable in our own skin.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2015, 10:42 AM
 
18,268 posts, read 10,371,545 times
Reputation: 13325
Quote:
Originally Posted by fusion2 View Post
From my vantage point Canada is a secular country.. I wouldn't vault religious/beliefs or religious understanding ahead of any other personal belief system. This would go for Christianity as well.. It may have more traditional and majority roots in this country, but to me it is no greater or no less than any other personal belief system.

To me, most religious people who ascribe to the beliefs of ancient texts are bound to a belief system that is dated and whose text oppresses the rights and freedoms of people and really have no purpose in modern day life.. That is my personal belief system.. Should I be rescued from the Christian majority? Should I be rescued from Hindu's? Should I be rescued from Muslims? No thanks I've read some of these texts and there are things in the bible that make me shudder and think, how the heck can someone in 2015 connect with this and call themselves a Catholic etc.

So this goes to women wearing the Niqab.. It Is part of their belief system. Do they choose it or is it oppressive to women, most likely from my vantage point they are oppressed but ultimately it is THEIR belief system and they are FREE in this secular country to break free from that oppression. We are ALL free to break free from the many things that oppress us... Lets leave the personal evolution of these women to break free of the niqab or from my vantage point, leave it to Christians and Muslims etc to break free from their personal belief of ancient texts written by men. Heck, many of you may think I need to break free from agnosticism and connect with Christianity or Islam or Buddhism etc because I am oppressed -not likely to happen lol but that would be my personal 'evolution'. Let's not mettle in the affairs of one's personal evolution in this country. We provide the environment for this to happen if the person so chooses! No man in this country can force a woman to wear a Niqab if she chooses not to wear one.

If we as a nation take practical measures to ensure that we can validate their identity and ensure the niqab isn't interfering with their ability to take the oath than we should accommodate their belief system. This is actually advocating for a more hands off approach from the government as well.
That's the discussion that needed to take place at the beginning of this fracas by consulting with theological experts on the Religion of Islam and ask them if it would be imperative for any women to remain covered? What about married versus single Muslim females? What about age groupings?

A consultation process should have taken place in the same context that we as Canadians would try to accommodate any demographic making the claim that they were being discriminated against.

I hate elections being crafted or even influenced around wedge issues.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2015, 10:42 AM
 
Location: Canada
5,691 posts, read 6,536,431 times
Reputation: 8193
Quote:
Originally Posted by fusion2 View Post
From my vantage point Canada is a secular country.. I wouldn't vault religious/beliefs or religious understanding ahead of any other personal belief system. This would go for Christianity as well.. It may have more traditional and majority roots in this country, but to me it is no greater or no less than any other personal belief system.

To me, most religious people who ascribe to the beliefs of ancient texts are bound to a belief system that is dated and whose text oppresses the rights and freedoms of people and really have no purpose in modern day life.. That is my personal belief system.. Should I be rescued from the Christian majority? Should I be rescued from Hindu's? Should I be rescued from Muslims? No thanks I've read some of these texts and there are things in the bible that make me shudder and think, how the heck can someone in 2015 connect with this and call themselves a Catholic etc.

So this goes to women wearing the Niqab.. It Is part of their belief system. Do they choose it or is it oppressive to women, most likely from my vantage point they are oppressed but ultimately it is THEIR belief system and they are FREE in this secular country to break free from that oppression. We are ALL free to break free from the many things that oppress us... Lets leave the personal evolution of these women to break free of the niqab or from my vantage point, leave it to Christians and Muslims etc to break free from their personal belief of ancient texts written by men. Heck, many of you may think I need to break free from agnosticism and connect with Christianity or Islam or Buddhism etc because I am oppressed -not likely to happen lol but that would be my personal 'evolution'. Let's not mettle in the affairs of one's personal evolution in this country. We provide the environment for this to happen if the person so chooses! No man in this country can force a woman to wear a Niqab if she chooses not to wear one.

If we as a nation take practical measures to ensure that we can validate their identity and ensure the niqab isn't interfering with their ability to take the oath than we should accommodate their belief system. This is actually advocating for a more hands off approach from the government as well.
One of the things that pissed Zunera off is how the PM spinned her hijab-wearing request as though she was refusing to identify herself, when in fact, she has no issue with that at all. What she wanted, after she had identified herself, was to cover herself back up and take the oath.

And one of the many ways that Canada has worked around religious beliefs, is, for example, the traditional Mennonite refusal to swear oaths. Based on the Biblical verse, of 'swear not at all. Let your yes be yes and your no be no.' Mennonites 'affirm' in the place of oaths when some sort of oath is required. I have been in court as a witness and have chosen to affirm.

I know the space between 'affirming' and 'swearing' is largely a matter of semantics but there is an underlying principle beyond the Bible that is at stake. Swearing to tell the truth is meaningless to a liar. If your basic yes or no has no meaning, neither will swearing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2015, 10:48 AM
 
Location: Toronto
12,581 posts, read 11,135,736 times
Reputation: 3738
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruSan View Post
That's the discussion that needed to take place at the beginning of this fracas by consulting with theological experts on the Religion of Islam and ask them if it would be imperative for any women to remain covered? What about married versus single Muslim females? What about age groupings?

A consultation process should have taken place in the same context that we as Canadians would try to accommodate any demographic making the claim that they were being discriminated against.

I hate elections being crafted or even influenced around wedge issues.
So you are looking for a religion to validate a personal belief Bru? That was the point of my post is that religion is simply that a personal belief so it has no greater influence on the matter than say the movement of the rainbow coloured Niqab wearers founded circa 1997.. From my perspective, tacking on 100's or 1000's of years and calling it a religion does no more to validate the belief. They are as delusional as men who feel the need to force women to cover their face.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2015, 10:48 AM
 
Location: Canada
5,691 posts, read 6,536,431 times
Reputation: 8193
Quote:
Originally Posted by fusion2 View Post
Its just timing and of course people will make fun of it. Wearing a potato head or ghost covering is just that, making fun of an issue but that will pass.

As for the last part of what you said, that is what i'm proud of about this nation. Among the first to allow gay marriage for example. There was a time when that was not a right (people made fun of that too) so the fact that we are an evolved state that does not deny rights even when we may not entirely comfortable with those rights means we are a mature nation and we are indeed comfortable in our own skin.
That is what impressed me about Calgary's mayor. He did not forget that he too is part of a minority that has in the past been demonized. It's always interesting to me how short a time it takes for a formerly discriminated against minority to turn around once they are 'in' and then forget themselves and discriminate in turn against the next group to come along. Calgary's mayor wasn't one of them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2015, 10:56 AM
 
Location: Vancouver
12,685 posts, read 8,747,108 times
Reputation: 7299
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruSan View Post
I think a reasonable approach would be to separate out the personal aspects that serve only to cloud the issue.

Would Canada seek to ban someone from wearing it if they genuinely believe it was part of their religious understandings.

Would someone feeling empowered by the wearing of it, demand that "feeling" of empowerment should be maintained throughout a ceremony that is someone else's traditional belief?

Should that person who is wearing it for personal satisfaction have priority rights over a country's past traditions of believing the wearing of it signifies subservience and submission to only one of the sexes?

Authoritative sources should be sought to determine just what religious status it enjoys versus simply that of hierarchal males imposition of will.

All of this 'Harper thinks this' and 'Zunera thinks that' nonsense reduces this down to two protagonists facing off across a boxing ring. That lends assigning bigot and zealot to the two sides of the issue rather than looking at it from the perspective of women's rights in conjunction with a country's progress.

I harken back to the day when these things were discussed in terms of the 'Gov't of Canada says this' and an 'immigrant representative says that' rather than these tendencies to personalize the issues of governance versus an individual's beliefs.

Harper and others have done no service to the governing of a country by micro-managing the smallest of things to the point the press uses "Harper" rather than "Prime Minister" or "The Government".

If he's being made to play the role of a bigot it's because he put himself at center stage wearing a white sheet over his head. "It's all about me and ONLY me". We play the dutiful audience and allow this girl to do the same thing.

This should not be the way for a country's governance to be patterned and also no way for an intelligent populace to encourage it.
Getting religious people to agree on anything is always a challenge. Even if they do, another person will disagree. Who gets to choose who decides? That process alone will probably be challenged.

In this case, she herself has stated her reasons, the courts have agreed, it's done, the world didn't end etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2015, 10:56 AM
 
18,268 posts, read 10,371,545 times
Reputation: 13325
Quote:
Originally Posted by netwit View Post
One of the things that pissed Zunera off is how the PM spinned her hijab-wearing request as though she was refusing to identify herself, when in fact, she has no issue with that at all. What she wanted, after she had identified herself, was to cover herself back up and take the oath.

And one of the many ways that Canada has worked around religious beliefs, is, for example, the traditional Mennonite refusal to swear oaths. Based on the Biblical verse, of 'swear not at all. Let your yes be yes and your no be no.' Mennonites 'affirm' in the place of oaths when some sort of oath is required. I have been in court as a witness and have chosen to affirm.

I know the space between 'affirming' and 'swearing' is largely a matter of semantics but there is an underlying principle beyond the Bible that is at stake. Swearing to tell the truth is meaningless to a liar. If your basic yes or no has no meaning, neither will swearing.
Yes, but that is just applying good old common sense and where governments are concerned, that is rarer than the proverbial hen's teeth.

I have taken an oath on more than one occasion and while I'm not a screaming anti-royalist, my armed forces oath of the early 60's still rankles when thought of to this very day with mention of the "Queen, her heirs and successors". I remember as a teen thinking "what the hell, I'm volunteering fer chrissake; what better commitment do you freak'n need? Why would any oath to defend my country include her and her stupid progeny.?"

I've aged and mellowed (scouts honour) so assign that reference a value should I ever be occasioned to have to swear another oath with her mention within and would very likely just tune out completely for that part without the obvious holding of nose with left hand while raising right hand.
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