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 10-03-2015, 10:43 AM
 
Location: Gatineau, Québec
21,946 posts, read 27,348,673 times
Reputation: 8603

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by fusion2 View Post
Oh definitely he is playing to his base and his base is solidly behind him.. 25-30 percent of Canadians will vote conservative period.. Where the Niqab thing comes in for him is to sway the 10 percent that are centrists who will as easily vote for blue as they would orange or red.. This 10 percent maybe a bit more will decide the election as long as we have more than two major parties.

Just reading your points and I must say on this particular issue (and even though I do agree with you Harper is definitely using this to his advantage), I actually do agree with his stance. Not so much about 'core' Canadian values nonsense - but simply because to me it makes practical sense. Just like it makes sense when you get a passport photo, go through customs, stopped by the police or in court.

Marijuana is another topic - but I do think it is an important issue and one about fundamental rights and freedoms we should have. I think this is simply another prohibition and i'm definitely in the legalize it camp.
I think we need a "non-niqab, non-Tory'' movement in Canada, and we need it in a hurry!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-03-2015, 11:00 AM
 
Location: Canada
5,691 posts, read 6,536,431 times
Reputation: 8193
The trouble is that you either have freedom of religion for everyone, or you end up having it for no one. This niqib debate reminds me a lot of my BIL who is a fundamentalist Christian, and therefore against the niqib (because Canada should be christian) and he doesn't realise his freedom of religion is dependent on the freedom of others who are not of his faith to also have their freedom. My BIL is also one of those people who talks about 'the gay agenda.' I ask him what gay agenda he is talking about - does he think someone is going to make him, a heterosexual man, marry another man?

There is no danger of any sort of niqib police in Canada forcing everyone to cover their faces. This debate, notwithstanding the attempts of people to turn it into a passport debate, is about a citizenship ceremony in a multicultural country, a democracy. A democracy that is more than strong enough to outlast the niqib. And women who are subjugated by their cultures in other countries, do not need to be victimized twice. It is their immigration to countries like Canada that provides them with the opportunity to become educated and join an educated, free class of thier own people. The west will not bring democracy to certain other countries except through those nations own citizens returning and taking it there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2015, 11:10 AM
 
Location: Toronto
12,581 posts, read 11,137,980 times
Reputation: 3738
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
I think we need a "non-niqab, non-Tory'' movement in Canada, and we need it in a hurry!
Another political party lol... Yeah we need that

What I don't get is who was advising Mulcair on the QC file with respect to this subject? QC was their up Rock of Gibraltar throughout the campaign pre-niqab.. Truly baffling that they were so out of touch!

It'll be interesting to see what happens with those voters on the fence between NDP and Libs who simply are not part of the Harper base and would never vote for him (people like me - i'd literally vote Bloq over Conservative if those were the only two options in my riding lol).. I think that is a lot of people and it may actually work to the Libs favour in the R.O.C (not sure in Q.C but I think Justin's stance on the clarity act and other Q.C issues really hurts him there) because we see that the NDP is crashing in QC it might be the catalyst to simply turn red. In that case, this could actually blow up in Harpers face too.

Last edited by fusion2; 10-03-2015 at 11:23 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2015, 11:45 AM
 
261 posts, read 202,997 times
Reputation: 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
I think we need a "non-niqab, non-Tory'' movement in Canada, and we need it in a hurry!
It's called the Bloc!

Quote:
Originally Posted by fusion2 View Post
Just reading your points and I must say on this particular issue (and even though I do agree with you Harper is definitely using this to his advantage), I actually do agree with his stance. Not so much about 'core' Canadian values nonsense - but simply because to me it makes practical sense. Just like it makes sense when you get a passport photo, go through customs, stopped by the police or in court.
True, but in this case women need to remove their niqab before the ceremony when they have to prove their identity, they're just allowed to put it back on when swearing the oath. Mulcair's been pointing out this fact several times during debates.

Not only is Harper using this to his advantage, but he's actually planned his timing so the issue would come out right now. It's a joker he had in his sleeve for the campaign. And even though he's now trying to present himself as defender of the Canadian value of gender equality, he could have solved this a long time ago. The recent court decision doesn't even say that forbidding wearing a niqab at citizenship ceremonies is against the charter, it just says that the ministerial directive to this effect is in conflict with other laws and rules. It's all very Harperian.

The Bloc's position, which I don't entirely agree with, is much more honest. It says that all public services should be given and received with an uncovered face. I agree with given; for received I think it depends on what actual service is being received. But it's consistent, while Harper is being transparently demagogic. Of course Duceppe is also using the situation to his advantage, while accusing Harper of hypocrisy.

What I'm wondering now is what accessories I am allowed to wear while being inducted as Canadian citizen, and if there are some restrictions on philosophical or political symbols. For example, could I become a Canadian citizen if I have a visible swastika tattoo? What about if I wear a pin on my clothing that reads "Je suis souverainiste"? The answer to these questions could tell us if it's possible to forbid wearing a niqab on values grounds alone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Souriquois View Post
It depends on context.

Has it been used to oppress women in many parts of the world? Absolutely!

HOWEVER, it's more nuanced than that. Many women, yes, CHOOSE to wear it. And there is nothing more of a step backwards for women's rights than to legislate what a woman can or cannot wear.
Just because some women would choose to wear a niqab doesn't mean I have to consider it empowering. Some women want to stay with their abusive husbands, too; doesn't mean I have to think it's a great victory for women's rights. But you're right that there's currently a divide in the feminist movement over whether we should tolerate women doing things that are harmful to women. We see this here, with people arguing for or against niqabs based on feminist arguments.

This also makes me think of the current process to reform the Quebec Civil Code to change the recognition informal unmarried couples receive. In contrast to other Canadian provinces, it's extremely common in Quebec for couples to never marry, and unmarried couples are also totally unrecognized in law while other provinces have a concept of common-law marriage. But some people, notably lawyer Anne-France Goldwater, were arguing on feminist grounds that the current law is harmful to women because it allows men to spend years working on their careers while their (unmarried) spouse often drops theirs to concentrate on the couple, only to end up with nothing when they get dumped. So giving more choices to women (get married, or have a more informal legal arrangement with one's spouse) was characterized as anti-woman. It really is a complicated issue.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2015, 12:04 PM
 
Location: Canada
4,811 posts, read 4,437,604 times
Reputation: 3257
If women want to walk around dressed like ninjas, then they should be a 100% free to do so, but I don't see asking muslim women to remove the niqab while they make an oath or to properly identify themselves in certain places ( security checks, applying for license, government offices etc) as too much to ask, it seems pretty reasonable to me. If it is too much to ask for them to remove the niqab for Oath of citizenship, will they have a passport picture with their face covered as well? Good luck travelling with that. This is not a question about religious freedoms, I have yet to hear anyone say Muslim women shouldn't be free to practice their religion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2015, 12:25 PM
 
5,097 posts, read 2,485,759 times
Reputation: 4657
Everyone should be free to practice whatever religious beliefs they have, but face concealment is not a part of any religion. People who claims that religion requires them to conceal their face are not telling the truth. Clearly those who want to conceal their face while swearing an oath to obtain citizenship have another agenda.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2015, 01:15 PM
 
Location: Canada
5,691 posts, read 6,536,431 times
Reputation: 8193
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lieneke View Post
Everyone should be free to practice whatever religious beliefs they have, but face concealment is not a part of any religion. People who claims that religion requires them to conceal their face are not telling the truth. Clearly those who want to conceal their face while swearing an oath to obtain citizenship have another agenda.
You have said this repeatedly and just as repeatedly that is simply not true. The Bible used by Christians of all denominations contains an admonishment to dress modestly. This is interpreted in different ways by the many different denominations, your refusal to understand that notwithstanding. It isn't any different for the Koran.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2015, 01:31 PM
 
Location: Kanada 🍁
120,060 posts, read 14,290,773 times
Reputation: 58596
I thought about this issue many times and I think the problem could be solved if once or twice a year there would be a swearing in just for women who wear a niqāb .In front of a woman judge they would be able to remove their niqāb They may have to travel to Ottawa to attend the swearing in. This is just my personal thought to live in peace.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2015, 01:39 PM
 
5,097 posts, read 2,485,759 times
Reputation: 4657
Quote:
Originally Posted by netwit View Post
You have said this repeatedly and just as repeatedly that is simply not true. The Bible used by Christians of all denominations contains an admonishment to dress modestly. This is interpreted in different ways by the many different denominations, your refusal to understand that notwithstanding. It isn't any different for the Koran.
If the Bible required Christians to wear a sack on their head to comply with "modesty", they would. Clearly the definition of modesty, per any religion, does not include concealing one's nose.

But, by all means, if there's something in the Bible about ensuring that the nose is covered at all time, please point me in the right direction. I would love read that part of the book.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2015, 01:42 PM
 
5,097 posts, read 2,485,759 times
Reputation: 4657
Quote:
Originally Posted by Almrausch View Post
I thought about this issue many times and I think the problem could be solved if once or twice a year there would be a swearing in just for women who wear a niqāb .In front of a woman judge they would be able to remove their niqāb They may have to travel to Ottawa to attend the swearing in. This is just my personal thought to live in peace.
Alternatively, Canada could follow the sound advice of the Grand Mufti, Egypt's top religious authority, and require that everyone reveal their mouth to ensure that clear communication is possible.
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