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 09-20-2015, 11:23 AM
 
Location: Canada
5,691 posts, read 6,537,402 times
Reputation: 8193

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
No, not at all. I don't see how one might come to that conclusion based on the post of mine that was quoted.

Obviously we should and will evolve. But it's desirable for evolution to take place in a positive direction. Evolution supposes progress, not regression. Changes in society that lead to a greater acceptance of cultural and religious practices that favour the subjugation of women, for example, is not ''evolution'' to me.

I don't think I and others should be seen as dinosaurs because we (mildly TBQH) resist that type of crap. Quite the contrary.
What I meant by that is that there seems to be a sentiment here that the French and the English as the two founding nations get the final say so in how this country evolves. See, I don't think this country has finished baking yet. And what I am wondering, in a nation of immigrants, how exactly are those lines set? We are a laughably young country and with many ethnicities having come here, only what Harper called 'old stock' Canadians get to define it? The 'old stock' here is not that old when they are still able to trace where they came from.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-20-2015, 12:46 PM
 
5,097 posts, read 2,486,575 times
Reputation: 4657
Quote:
Originally Posted by netwit View Post
Let me go wash that makeup off my face before someone sees me.

Well, you would be quite wrong about Mennonites and makeup as a general rule for starters. And western countries change cultures over time, and they, in turn, add to it. And as I'm sure you know was pointed out in another thread, culture and religion are knotted together. Old Order Mennonites may indeed shun makeup and many other things as part of their particular rendition of Mennonite culture, but it is far from true among the Mennonite family. It is culture expressed religiously.

With your last sentence you seem to be saying by inference you would be completely fine with face covering if it were written on tablets of stone?
We'll just have to disagree on whether Mennonite women traditionally were prohibited from decorating themselves with buttons, jewellery, and cosmetics. We know that this particular practice of modesty has never been part of Islam.

I would be willing to consider a statement that a personal choice was based on religion if someone could point out that supporting statement in a religious book, such as the Bible. However, we know that there is no statement in the Koran demanding that women cover their faces or bodies, so that ends the discussion about whether the choice is based on religion. When it comes to carrying concealed daggers, I think the safety of society is more important than an ancient believe that everyone should have the right to carry a concealed weapon.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-20-2015, 12:50 PM
 
5,097 posts, read 2,486,575 times
Reputation: 4657
Quote:
Originally Posted by fusion2 View Post
This may sound like a dumb question (and I agree with the sentiment of practically everyone in here btw just take the thing off when you're getting government photo idea or for crying out loud becoming a Canadian Citizen lol).. Anyway my question is, in these countries where women wear the Niqab and they get government photo I.D ie a passport etc are they allowed to wear it and cover their face? I really don't know so don't be rude when answering.

If its in your own time than by all means wear a darth vader mask but if you are getting a passport photo, a cop stops you or you're taking an oath - take it off!
I'd like to know the answer to that too.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-20-2015, 01:18 PM
 
Location: British Columbia ♥ 🍁 ♥
7,235 posts, read 6,581,911 times
Reputation: 14203
Quote:
Originally Posted by fusion2 View Post

......Anyway my question is, in these countries where women wear the Niqab and they get government photo I.D ie a passport etc are they allowed to wear it and cover their face? ......
I did an internet search on that and checked out info on several sites.

The answer is no, they are not allowed to cover the face for important photos. For passport photo, driver's license photo, other officially required government ID photos there can be no face covering for the photograph. Coverings of the head and ears, neck and body are permissable for the photos but the entire face must be visible for the photo. Some countries may also require fingerprints but fingerprints are not good enough for sole ID and facial recognition is an official requirement in all countries.

As has been pointed out already, the face cover is not a religious requirement, it is a cultural affectation.

.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-20-2015, 01:47 PM
 
Location: Canada
5,691 posts, read 6,537,402 times
Reputation: 8193
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lieneke View Post
We'll just have to disagree on whether Mennonite women traditionally were prohibited from decorating themselves with buttons, jewellery, and cosmetics. We know that this particular practice of modesty has never been part of Islam.

I would be willing to consider a statement that a personal choice was based on religion if someone could point out that supporting statement in a religious book, such as the Bible. However, we know that there is no statement in the Koran demanding that women cover their faces or bodies, so that ends the discussion about whether the choice is based on religion. When it comes to carrying concealed daggers, I think the safety of society is more important than an ancient believe that everyone should have the right to carry a concealed weapon.
I am a Mennonite. Not all Mennonites run around in a horse and a buggy and even the Old Order Mennonites used to be in style at one point. Then they just stopped. Without taking the thread too much off the point, feel free to google Russian Mennonites as one example. We never dressed differently than English kids when we were growing up. Yes, my mother nagged me about my shorts being too short or my bikini too tiny, or my skirt too short, but non Mennonite parents did that too. The difference was in our name, and our language, not in our dress. Our weltanschauung is quite different and I find in threads like this I hit up against it and I'm not sure I'm expressing myself correctly.

Our last names instantly made us non "old stock" Canadians and while we were tolerated, we just weren't, well, old stock Canadians. And to become that meant to give up the intangibles that did actually define who we were. Yet no one can say that Mennonites have not enriched Canada so despite the outsider status, we generally have been loyal, contributing citizens. Winter wheat was introduced to North America via Russian Mennonites. And I expect that Muslims will also contribute something to the landscape of Canada. They are just having a few growing pains.

The nearest thing to a creed Mennonites have is the Sermon on the Mount. Biblical injunctions to dress modestly are interpreted differently as is the injunction in the Koran to dress modestly. So I'm not seeing a difference there. The question of interpretation of doctrine is via culture. You or I may not like that culture, but it doesn't change the basic fact of it and in the case of new immigrants, Canada and the dominant culture will press on it the way it has pressed on every other culture.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-20-2015, 01:48 PM
 
358 posts, read 222,477 times
Reputation: 234
It should be banned in public completely
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-20-2015, 02:22 PM
 
Location: Gatineau, Québec
21,947 posts, read 27,348,673 times
Reputation: 8603
Quote:
Originally Posted by netwit View Post
What I meant by that is that there seems to be a sentiment here that the French and the English as the two founding nations get the final say so in how this country evolves. See, I don't think this country has finished baking yet. And what I am wondering, in a nation of immigrants, how exactly are those lines set? We are a laughably young country and with many ethnicities having come here, only what Harper called 'old stock' Canadians get to define it? The 'old stock' here is not that old when they are still able to trace where they came from.
No, I don't think it's just the English or French that get to define the country. We're not really ''English'' or ''French'' in the sense of the old countries anyway. But we are definitely a ''western'' society, for what it's worth.

It's definitely up to the Canadians who are living here right now, regardless of origin, to determine the future of the country.

But on the other hand I don't think that Canada belongs to everyone in the world, which is what some of the more extreme multiculturalist thinking seems to suggest.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-20-2015, 04:16 PM
 
Location: Toronto
12,581 posts, read 11,139,702 times
Reputation: 3738
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoisite View Post
I did an internet search on that and checked out info on several sites.

The answer is no, they are not allowed to cover the face for important photos. For passport photo, driver's license photo, other officially required government ID photos there can be no face covering for the photograph. Coverings of the head and ears, neck and body are permissable for the photos but the entire face must be visible for the photo. Some countries may also require fingerprints but fingerprints are not good enough for sole ID and facial recognition is an official requirement in all countries.

As has been pointed out already, the face cover is not a religious requirement, it is a cultural affectation.

.
Thanks for looking into that... Some things transcend culture/religion and just make practical sense.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-20-2015, 06:50 PM
 
5,097 posts, read 2,486,575 times
Reputation: 4657
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoisite View Post
I did an internet search on that and checked out info on several sites.

The answer is no, they are not allowed to cover the face for important photos. For passport photo, driver's license photo, other officially required government ID photos there can be no face covering for the photograph. Coverings of the head and ears, neck and body are permissable for the photos but the entire face must be visible for the photo. Some countries may also require fingerprints but fingerprints are not good enough for sole ID and facial recognition is an official requirement in all countries.

As has been pointed out already, the face cover is not a religious requirement, it is a cultural affectation.

.
Thank you for looking into that! I have to wonder why the court that is making the decision is not looking into practices in countries where Islam is the majority religion. If what is requested is not done in those countries, why is Canada thinking that it should be done in Canada on the basis of "religious" beliefs?

What is happening that the Canadian court has made a decision that goes against the Canadian government, the Canadian people, and Islam practices in countries where that religion is practiced by the majority? Something clearly isn't right with this picture.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-20-2015, 09:01 PM
 
Location: Gatineau, Québec
21,947 posts, read 27,348,673 times
Reputation: 8603
I've been looking into this and from what I gather the current legal framework we have is likely to lead to the Supreme Court siding with the people who want the burqa worn during citizenship ceremonies. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms leads to a very open interpretations of religious freedoms and it's highly unlikely that just because the burqa isn't explicitly mentioned in the Qran that they'll say that it's not a legitimate form of religious expression.

There aren't many ways the government could get around such a ruling, except maybe by invoking the notwithstanding clause. And we know how popular that its.
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