PDA

View Full Version : Poll ordered by Harper found strong support for niqab ban at citizenship ceremonies



Forbes/Hutton
09-24-2015, 11:05 PM
A public-opinion poll ordered by Prime Minister Stephen Harper earlier this year found overwhelming support among Canadians for the requirement that women remove their niqabs or burkas at citizenship ceremonies.

The March telephone survey by Léger Marketing found 82 per cent of Canadians favoured the policy somewhat or strongly, with just 15 per cent opposed. Support was widespread, but especially strong in Quebec, where 93 per cent were in favour of the requirement.

The government has tried to impose a ban on face coverings at citizenship ceremonies, but the Federal Court ruled earlier this month that such a ban is unlawful. The Conservatives have said they will appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Léger survey results, delivered March 31 to the Privy Council Office, were posted Thursday, the day of the first French-language leaders' debate, on a government website under a policy that requires publication of taxpayer-paid polls within six months.

CBC News had asked about the Léger poll results in June, but a spokesman for the office at the time declined to provide details.

The survey of 3,000 Canadians, plus a series of 12 related focus groups, cost $133,000 and were last-minute additions to the regular polling the prime minister's department commissions each year. In 2014-15, with an election in the offing, the department spent more than $410,000 on polling, the highest level since 2008.

The survey and focus groups asked key questions about the economy, Canada's military role in countering ISIS, Canada's efforts to assist Ukraine and the niqab/burka question.

On the economy, low oil prices and a sagging dollar were largely blamed for weak growth, and job creation was seen as a priority. The word "fragile" was used frequently by respondents to describe the economic climate.

Canada's contribution to airstrikes against ISIS got plaudits, with 59 per cent of respondents voicing support compared with 37 per cent who were opposed. The poll found 62 per cent supported economic sanctions on Russia over its involvement in the conflict between Ukrainian forces and pro-Russia separatists in eastern Ukraine, but 50 per cent of survey respondents opposed sending weapons and military supplies to the Ukrainian government.

Last-minute additions
Léger says the results are accurate to within 1.8 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

The Léger survey and focus groups were not the only last-minute additions to the regular spring and fall polls the Privy Council Office approves months ahead of time. The government also added a $26,000 series of focus groups in the wake of the Oct. 22 shootings at Parliament Hill.

Pollster Stephen Kiar, CEO and owner of Ottawa-based Phoenix SPI, says public-opinion research normally winds down as a federal election approaches, but that fixed election dates may be changing the dynamics of polling and advertising.
Knowing the election date well in advance means a longer campaign period and more time to plan — and poll and advertise, he said.

"When you're the government in power, that gives you levers … and the resources that go with being the governing party that you're able to bring to bear in advance of the election," Kiar said.

The Privy Council Office also ordered a Harris Decima poll in June this year that asked questions about taxes, ISIS and whether the Senate should be abolished. Those results, and the cost to taxpayers, have not been released publicly.

In the current election campaign, the Conservative Party has focused on issues for which the Léger survey found strong support: job-creation, fighting ISIS and, more recently, the banning of niqabs at citizenship ceremonies.

Léger also found strong support among Canadians for the niqab ban in a separate poll conducted in March for the Association for Canadian Studies. That survey of 1,700 Canadians found seven out of 10 Canadians believe women should remove the niqab in such circumstances.

A spokeswoman for Citizenship and Immigration, Nancy Caron, says the department does not track the number of people who wear full face coverings at citizenship ceremonies.

"Anecdotal evidence indicates the number is small and that the number of candidates who decline to unveil for the oath is smaller still," she said in an email.

Follow@DeanBeebyon Twitter
How to watch Thursday's debate
The French-language leaders' debate will be broadcast live and live streamed online 8 p.m. to 10 p.m. ET Thursday.
You can watch the debate in simultaneous English translation on CBC News Network and online at CBCNews.ca/Canada Votes beginning with a Power & Politics pre-debate special at 7 p.m. ET. The debate will be broadcast in French by Radio-Canada (check local listings) and live streamed online at ICI Radio-Canada.ca.
The debate is being produced by a partnership of Radio-Canada, La Presse, Télé-Québec, CBC News, CTV News and Global News, together with Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Vine, Google, YouTube and CPAC.

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/poll-ordered-harper-found-strong-181507567.html

Next week's news: 40% of CBC staff file disability claims for PTSD after having to admit Harper is right and the other two are, by default, WRONG.

soulchaser
09-24-2015, 11:13 PM
And this is news WHY?

Oh right, they think it will hurt harper.

NEWSFLASH - Governments order polling ALL THE TIME.

Foxer
09-24-2015, 11:21 PM
The news story could backfire if they think it'll hurt them. It's canadian nature to want to be in sync with other Canadians, and if a poll says nobody likes the naquib then most canadians reading that will tend to think "well maybe I shouldn't like it either".

Doug_M
09-25-2015, 05:54 AM
This isn't surprising. The media seems to be more and more out of touch with the populace with each passing year. That's the problem when they are run by Toronto elites. Average Canadian isn't fooled by those claiming the niqab is religious freedom. It looks like oppression because it is oppression. Only those with HDS and the extremely naive claim otherwise.

TheCenturion
09-25-2015, 06:08 AM
I'm all for multiculturalism. If your religious requirements require you to go veiled, fine. If you want to take the citizenship oath, be photographed for official identification, off comes the veil. If you'd feel more comfortable giving the oath in a closed session to a female official, fine. If you'd feel more comfortable having your ID photo taken in a closed room with a female photographer, fine. But ID isn't ID if all it is, is a picture of cloth and two eyes. If that's not a concession you can make, then you choose not to live in certain countries/cultures, including this one. Your choice.

kennymo
09-25-2015, 06:09 AM
I was just reading a Rebel article saying the NDP has been losing a point per day in Quebec since Mulcair came out in support of the court decision.....polls over the next couple days could get interesting.

kent
09-25-2015, 06:26 AM
I must be a bigot because I tend to agree. But I think we went through this with the Legion and the RCMP a few years back. I guess I'm just a "old time Canadian"

soulchaser
09-25-2015, 06:30 AM
I was just reading a Rebel article saying the NDP has been losing a point per day in Quebec since Mulcair came out in support of the court decision.....polls over the next couple days could get interesting.

Then since they have the same position, logically, the Liberals should be losing support too.

Doug_M
09-25-2015, 06:33 AM
I'm all for multiculturalism. If your religious requirements require you to go veiled, fine. If you want to take the citizenship oath, be photographed for official identification, off comes the veil. If you'd feel more comfortable giving the oath in a closed session to a female official, fine. If you'd feel more comfortable having your ID photo taken in a closed room with a female photographer, fine. But ID isn't ID if all it is, is a picture of cloth and two eyes. If that's not a concession you can make, then you choose not to live in certain countries/cultures, including this one. Your choice.

I disagree. I am for a secular society and in such we don't/shouldn't make special accommodations in this manner. Besides, we are being lied to. The burka and niqab are NOT part of the muslim faith. It is an import from Saudi Arabia (to other muslim nations) and is not in the Quran nor even is it "interpreted" from a passage in the Quran. In fact, the more this has been in the news the more I am against it period, forget ID's and citizenship ceremonies. It represents the oppression of women and we as a nation should be disgusted by it and not tolerate it. When we accept it we are aiding the oppressors.

Mark-II
09-25-2015, 06:35 AM
I don't think that Tommy is going to get brownie points over that.

If you are willing to sell out the values that make this country what it is, then you yourself have none.

Islamic countries do not place any value on women as human beings. They are property.

Start calling a spade an effing spade and if anything out some investment into deprogramming and empowering these people.

But, of course, you can't expect that from a socialist mindset that thinks enabling junkies to shoot up cleanly is more compassionate than getting them off the junk.

kennymo
09-25-2015, 06:44 AM
Then since they have the same position, logically, the Liberals should be losing support too.

One can hope. Maybe drive voters back to the Bloq, I have trouble seeing the CPC doing well in Quebec, but stranger things have happened....

speedloader
09-25-2015, 06:54 AM
it totally is a symbol of oppression against women
so why is this such an issue? oh I know the Liberal courts will not enforce the law again
the stupid part is they get away with this , the law is written by the governing party of Canada
why do they constantly get to choose not to do their jobs is my question

Deuce-deuce
09-25-2015, 07:52 AM
I honestly don't care if they want to dress up like bee keepers... But if you want a drivers licence, have to go to court, citizenship, passport, or anything else you had better take off the mask and show off that mustache.

oh and foxer, I don't need a poll to tell me what to think. I come up with my goofy opinions all by myself. :)

Deuce-deuce
09-25-2015, 07:54 AM
I'm all for multiculturalism. If your religious requirements require you to go veiled, fine. If you want to take the citizenship oath, be photographed for official identification, off comes the veil. If you'd feel more comfortable giving the oath in a closed session to a female official, fine. If you'd feel more comfortable having your ID photo taken in a closed room with a female photographer, fine. But ID isn't ID if all it is, is a picture of cloth and two eyes. If that's not a concession you can make, then you choose not to live in certain countries/cultures, including this one. Your choice.

Hey, that's what I was trying to say...

TheCenturion
09-25-2015, 09:14 AM
I disagree. I am for a secular society and in such we don't/shouldn't make special accommodations in this manner. Besides, we are being lied to. The burka and niqab are NOT part of the muslim faith. It is an import from Saudi Arabia (to other muslim nations) and is not in the Quran nor even is it "interpreted" from a passage in the Quran. In fact, the more this has been in the news the more I am against it period, forget ID's and citizenship ceremonies. It represents the oppression of women and we as a nation should be disgusted by it and not tolerate it. When we accept it we are aiding the oppressors.

Ok, here's the thing about this. From the outside, yes, all your points are valid. And I agree with you about the veils being bad. However, for somebody raised in a culture and/or religion, it can be hard to shake that off. It's their beliefs that matter here, not yours, not mine. We don't get to dicate what a woman wears; we can't tell her to wear skirts, or not wear skirts. We can't tell her to wear pants, or not wear pants. We can't tell her to wear a veil, or not wear a veil. The best we can do is explain why we disagree with it, and give her a choice.

If a woman prefers to be photographed by another woman, fine. It's not a hardship or burden on anybody to accommodate that request, any more than a woman preferring a female OB/GYN, or something along that lines.

As to 'it's not part of the faith,' sure it is. There's tons of stuff in ANY religion that's evolved over time as an add-on, and isn't in 'The Book.' And again, that's not your or my call to make.

Edward Teach
09-25-2015, 09:47 AM
Saudis don't allow their women to drive, so if you show up at the licensing office in one of their bee suits, maybe we should honour that cultural tradition and deny you a drivers license too.

Doug_M
09-25-2015, 10:01 AM
Ok, here's the thing about this. From the outside, yes, all your points are valid. And I agree with you about the veils being bad. However, for somebody raised in a culture and/or religion, it can be hard to shake that off. It's their beliefs that matter here, not yours, not mine. We don't get to dicate what a woman wears; we can't tell her to wear skirts, or not wear skirts. We can't tell her to wear pants, or not wear pants. We can't tell her to wear a veil, or not wear a veil. The best we can do is explain why we disagree with it, and give her a choice.

If a woman prefers to be photographed by another woman, fine. It's not a hardship or burden on anybody to accommodate that request, any more than a woman preferring a female OB/GYN, or something along that lines.

As to 'it's not part of the faith,' sure it is. There's tons of stuff in ANY religion that's evolved over time as an add-on, and isn't in 'The Book.' And again, that's not your or my call to make.

Well I strongly believe our beliefs matter over theirs. We are Canada, they are immigrants. Conform to Canada, not the other way around. And while I agree that we don't dictate what people wear, that is also my point. None of these woman are wearing it by choice, none. Every single one of them has been indoctrinated by men from birth. And no it isn't something that has evolved to be part of their religion. It is separate from their religion and about the subjugation of women. It's greatest espousers are ISIS, Boko Haram, Al Queda and the Taliban.

And as a Canadian it is absolutely my call to say "this is un-Canadian and I will not stand for it".


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlWyQBrs-SI

TheCenturion
09-25-2015, 10:12 AM
Well I strongly believe our beliefs matter over theirs. We are Canada, they are immigrants. Conform to Canada, not the other way around. And while I agree that we don't dictate what people wear, that is also my point. None of these woman are wearing it by choice, none. Every single one of them has been indoctrinated by men from birth. And no it isn't something that has evolved to be part of their religion. It is separate from their religion and about the subjugation of women. It's greatest espousers are ISIS, Boko Haram, Al Queda and the Taliban.

And as a Canadian it is absolutely my call to say "this is un-Canadian and I will not stand for it".



Well, I happen to feel that dictating belief and expression of belief is un-Canadian. Who wins?

speedloader
09-25-2015, 10:15 AM
well if you want to be a Canadian here's our rules that we all follow
for a reason that has nothing to do with religion or beliefs
and is really not that much to ask unless you have something to hide
but feel free to turn around and go right back where you came from if its a problem........

Zinilin
09-25-2015, 10:38 AM
Would it be better if the gown and facial mask were white, with perhaps a pointy hat?

A group of men wearing a Ku Klux Klan outfit, a motorbike helmet and a Muslim niqab have tried to enter Parliament House in Canberra to argue in favour of a nationwide ban on the burka.


They were met by a security official outside the building, who advised the men that the helmet and the KKK hat were not allowed inside.
He told the protester wearing the niqab that his face would have to be revealed during the normal security screening process.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-27/men-wearing-kkk-outfit-niqab-try-to-enter-parliament-house/5843762

DanN
09-25-2015, 11:04 AM
I believe in freedom of religion. And freedom from it. If the Flying Spaghetti Monster is your deity and you want to wear a colander on your head, feel free.

But if you wear something that obfuscates your identity, you should be prepared to remove it in certain ID-sensitive circumstances. It's fine with me if the person who verifies your identity is a woman. With some of these garments you'd be hard pressed to correctly assess gender, let alone identity.

Doug_M
09-25-2015, 11:15 AM
Well, I happen to feel that dictating belief and expression of belief is un-Canadian. Who wins?

I get what you're saying, but there are also times when one belief must triumph over another. The belief that women should not be oppressed should triumph over the belief that niqab's are a religious freedom. We don't allow everything and anything in the name of religious freedom.

TheCenturion
09-25-2015, 12:38 PM
I get what you're saying, but there are also times when one belief must triumph over another. The belief that women should not be oppressed should triumph over the belief that niqab's are a religious freedom. We don't allow everything and anything in the name of religious freedom.

I agree that 'religious freedom' often needs to lose to 'public interest.' For example, the veil comes off for the citizenship and ID.

However, the fact that you believe the veil to be a tool of oppression, that I feel the veil to be a tool of oppression, and that even deep down, *she* probably knows it's a tool of oppression, still does not allow you to deny her the right to wear the veil, except in very specific circumstances.

Doug_M
09-25-2015, 12:40 PM
I agree that 'religious freedom' often needs to lose to 'public interest.' For example, the veil comes off for the citizenship and ID.

However, the fact that you believe the veil to be a tool of oppression, that I feel the veil to be a tool of oppression, and that even deep down, *she* probably knows it's a tool of oppression, still does not allow you to deny her the right to wear the veil, except in very specific circumstances.

Legally or morally speaking?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Smokechecker
09-26-2015, 06:10 AM
Bottom line: our country, our rules. If they don't like it, ---> there's the door back their former shithole.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

TheCenturion
09-26-2015, 07:46 AM
Legally or morally speaking?
Either way. If you'll ban Muslims from wearing niqabs and burkas, will you ban Mennonite and similar women from wearing the chin-to-toe outfits with the head scarves? Exact same principal, with one less piece of cloth. Do you advocate the banning of Catholic women wearing crucifixes, the symbol of their religion, which explicitly denies them rights, such as free agency (can't get a divorce) or rights to make their own choices regarding starting a family (no contraception)?

Other people's choices are other people's choices. You don't get to be thought police and ban what you consider to be thoughtcrime. If somebody wants to wear a veil, for whatever reason, that's their choice. If a muslim woman chooses to wear it, that's her business. If her husband, or father, forces her to wear it, that's a problem. If it gets in the way of the public good, that's a problem.

conger
09-26-2015, 08:54 AM
[QUOTE=TheCenturion; If somebody wants to wear a veil, for whatever reason, that's their choice. If a muslim woman chooses to wear it, that's her business. If her husband, or father, forces her to wear it, that's a problem. If it gets in the way of the public good, that's a problem.[/QUOTE]


In many circumstances being made to wear it, is the case. The husband rules the house with an iron fist and imposes his discipline. The threat of beatings is there and also of having her children taken away. This is usually supported by extended male family members. The women aren't considered to be much more than property. Shariah law is being lived in these homes and something those men want to have here. Also burqas and niqabs have nothing to do with the Muslim faith.


Sent from my SGH-I747M using Tapatalk

TheCenturion
09-26-2015, 10:25 AM
In many circumstances being made to wear it, is the case. The husband rules the house with an iron fist and imposes his discipline. The threat of beatings is there and also of having her children taken away. This is usually supported by extended male family members. The women aren't considered to be much more than property. Shariah law is being lived in these homes and something those men want to have here. Also burqas and niqabs have nothing to do with the Muslim faith.

Again, you don't get to determine what is and isn't part of somebody else's faith. And also again, if somebody's being forced to wear it, that's a problem. And should be dealt with as any other example of somebody forcing somebody else to do something. Such as forcing women to wear or not wear certain pieces of clothing.

See how that works? The husband shouldn't have a say, and neither should you.

conger
09-26-2015, 11:01 AM
Again, you don't get to determine what is and isn't part of somebody else's faith. And also again, if somebody's being forced to wear it, that's a problem. And should be dealt with as any other example of somebody forcing somebody else to do something. Such as forcing women to wear or not wear certain pieces of clothing.

See how that works? The husband shouldn't have a say, and neither should you.
I'm just stating facts is all. You are right the problem goes much higher deeper than banning a burka can solve. I'm saying that the women that are in these situations have very few options. It can be literally dangerous for them to refuse their husband and family's rule.

Sent from my SGH-I747M using Tapatalk

Doug_M
09-26-2015, 11:36 AM
Either way. If you'll ban Muslims from wearing niqabs and burkas, will you ban Mennonite and similar women from wearing the chin-to-toe outfits with the head scarves? Exact same principal, with one less piece of cloth. Do you advocate the banning of Catholic women wearing crucifixes, the symbol of their religion, which explicitly denies them rights, such as free agency (can't get a divorce) or rights to make their own choices regarding starting a family (no contraception)?

Other people's choices are other people's choices. You don't get to be thought police and ban what you consider to be thoughtcrime. If somebody wants to wear a veil, for whatever reason, that's their choice. If a muslim woman chooses to wear it, that's her business. If her husband, or father, forces her to wear it, that's a problem. If it gets in the way of the public good, that's a problem.

Well actually you are comparing apples to oranges. The Mennonite garb is comparable to the Hijab. I don't have a problem with religions that want moderate dress and/or a head scarf. I have a problem when the religion discriminates. For example, with the Amish both sexes wear moderate clothes of a similar fashion. If those men who have their women wear Niqabs also covered themselves then the issue would just be one of revealing oneself during the citizenship ceremony etc. But it isn't. It is women must cover themselves but not men. There is a religious group here in NS (don't know if they're Mennonite or what) that I see from time to time where the woman wear old fashioned dresses from neck to toe and a head scarf. The men, well they wear jeans and t-shirts. That to me is also oppression and I don't support it. The Catholic Churches discrimination against women has been well publicized and discussed in Canada (and elsewhere) and their numbers are shrinking because of it. The Pope is relaxing the rules (very slowly). But, there are no honour killings by Catholic men. It is not the same degree. Again, Niqabs are not part of the Muslim faith. They are doctrine from Wahhabi Islam exported by Saudi Arabia and enforced by violence by the Taliban, ISIS, Al Qaeda and Boko Harem. But even Saudi Arabia bans the Niqab during Hajj.

Doug_M
09-26-2015, 11:42 AM
Again, you don't get to determine what is and isn't part of somebody else's faith. And also again, if somebody's being forced to wear it, that's a problem. And should be dealt with as any other example of somebody forcing somebody else to do something. Such as forcing women to wear or not wear certain pieces of clothing.

See how that works? The husband shouldn't have a say, and neither should you.

So woman being forced to wear Niqabs by their husbands/fathers (which is the case for ALL of these women, they are indoctrinated) is bad. Great. Now, when they become Canadian we should show them that we don't stand for oppression and that women DO NOT have to wear what they are told to. Otherwise, allowing them to wear the Niqab during the ceremony is not accepting the woman's choice, it is reinforcing the oppression of the Wahhabi men in her life. The time for these women to know that it is okay to reveal themselves is not with outreach programs after the fact, it is from the very moment they become Canadian.

As Conger pointed out, Sharia law is being lived in these homes. Sharia law is the line in the sand that Canada must draw. All women in Canada must be able to live their lives under Canadian law, not some imported draconian patriarchical scurge.

TheCenturion
09-26-2015, 07:14 PM
So woman being forced to wear Niqabs by their husbands/fathers (which is the case for ALL of these women, they are indoctrinated) is bad. Great. Now, when they become Canadian we should show them that we don't stand for oppression and that women DO NOT have to wear what they are told to. Otherwise, allowing them to wear the Niqab during the ceremony is not accepting the woman's choice, it is reinforcing the oppression of the Wahhabi men in her life. The time for these women to know that it is okay to reveal themselves is not with outreach programs after the fact, it is from the very moment they become Canadian.

As Conger pointed out, Sharia law is being lived in these homes. Sharia law is the line in the sand that Canada must draw. All women in Canada must be able to live their lives under Canadian law, not some imported draconian patriarchical scurge.

And again, you're advocating allowing women the choice to wear or not wear something..by taking away that choice.

Do you honestly believe that, the sort of religiously minded husband who will beat his wife and daughter should they not wear their veil, will say 'whoops, it's not legal, so I guess now they can go unveiled!' You're not fixing anything.

I agree completely that education, outreach programs, safe havens, all that sort of thing is good, and required. These women *should* be educated that they don't have to wear the veil. They *should* be educated that living in Canada means they don't need to submit, in literally the biblical sense, to their husbands. Outlawing a piece of cloth worn on a part of the body, however, does none of these things. If anything, it puts the women in a worse situation. "Hmmm, wear the veil and get hassled by the cops, or don't wear the veil and get beaten, and ostracized by my community and faith. Decisions, decisions."

Saying 'banning the niqab will stop, or even affect AT ALL in a positive way, instances of oppression of women' is EXACTLY like saying 'banning firearms will stop, or even affect AT ALL in a positive way, instances of firearms crime.' It won't. The husbands who beat their wives aren't going to stop because now it's slightly more illegal, any more than the gangers using already illegal handguns are going to stop because the mayor of Hamilton made it super double dog dare illegal. And in both cases, it'll probably actively make things worse.

Doug_M
09-26-2015, 08:29 PM
Well most Canadians disagree with you. And it is nothing like saying ban firearms at all. Firearms have a valid purpose and millions use them legitimately in Canada. Niqabs are oppression and have no valid purpose. Freedom of religion is a Canadian value. Freedom and equality is a greater Canadian value. Besides, as I have pointed out before, even Saudi Arabia bans them during the Hajj. So why shouldn't we ban the during the citizenship ceremony.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

TheCenturion
09-27-2015, 05:34 AM
Well most Canadians disagree with you. And it is nothing like saying ban firearms at all. Firearms have a valid purpose and millions use them legitimately in Canada. Niqabs are oppression and have no valid purpose. Freedom of religion is a Canadian value. Freedom and equality is a greater Canadian value. Besides, as I have pointed out before, even Saudi Arabia bans them during the Hajj. So why shouldn't we ban the during the citizenship ceremony.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
We should ban them during the citizenship ceremony. I said that originally. I also said we should ban them for any sort of ID photograph.

What we shouldn't do, is ban them outright.

And yes, saying 'ban X and nothing but good will happen' is EXACTLY like saying 'ban Y and nothing but good will happen.'

Doug_M
09-27-2015, 06:12 AM
We should ban them during the citizenship ceremony. I said that originally. I also said we should ban them for any sort of ID photograph.

What we shouldn't do, is ban them outright.

And yes, saying 'ban X and nothing but good will happen' is EXACTLY like saying 'ban Y and nothing but good will happen.'

But I never sad ban the niqab so good will happen. I said the niqab was oppression and we as Canadians shouldn't tolerate it. It is not religious and it is not a choice. It is, however, the thin edge of the wedge to get Sharia law accepted in this country. Personally, I will never accept that and when it comes I will fight it as vigorously as I do for firearms rights.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

TheCenturion
09-27-2015, 07:54 AM
But I never sad ban the niqab so good will happen. I said the niqab was oppression and we as Canadians shouldn't tolerate it. It is not religious and it is not a choice. It is, however, the thin edge of the wedge to get Sharia law accepted in this country. Personally, I will never accept that and when it comes I will fight it as vigorously as I do for firearms rights.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Well, for me, I wouldn't fight it because it's 'sharia law,' I'd fight it because it's inequality and inequity. And the thing is, sharia law isn't all that much worse than, say, orthodox Judaism, strict Catholicism, or lots of other religious things that are founded in ideals of either 'control' or 'ancient world misconceptions of how science works.' And to my mind, they're all equally bad. Requiring a woman to wear a veil is no different than requiring a woman to not use birth control, for example.

I've personally fought against the dress codes at local schools, as they were inappropriate and, to my mind, unfairly aimed at girls, and were giving my daughter the wrong idea.

conger
09-27-2015, 08:11 AM
Well, for me, I wouldn't fight it because it's 'sharia law,' I'd fight it because it's inequality and inequity. And the thing is, sharia law isn't all that much worse than, say, orthodox Judaism, strict Catholicism, or lots of other religious things that are founded in ideals of either 'control' or 'ancient world misconceptions of how science works.' And to my mind, they're all equally bad. Requiring a woman to wear a veil is no different than requiring a woman to not use birth control, for example.

I've personally fought against the dress codes at local schools, as they were inappropriate and, to my mind, unfairly aimed at girls, and were giving my daughter the wrong idea.
You should learn more about Shariah law and what it means to those subjugated by it. You might feel more strongly opposed to it.

Sent from my SGH-I747M using Tapatalk

Doug_M
09-27-2015, 08:51 AM
Well, for me, I wouldn't fight it because it's 'sharia law,' I'd fight it because it's inequality and inequity. And the thing is, sharia law isn't all that much worse than, say, orthodox Judaism, strict Catholicism, or lots of other religious things that are founded in ideals of either 'control' or 'ancient world misconceptions of how science works.' And to my mind, they're all equally bad. Requiring a woman to wear a veil is no different than requiring a woman to not use birth control, for example.

I've personally fought against the dress codes at local schools, as they were inappropriate and, to my mind, unfairly aimed at girls, and were giving my daughter the wrong idea.

A niqab is not simply a veil. And Sharia law is the worst of the lot, by a large margin. It is Boko Harem, Al Qaeda, ISIS and the Taliban that want Sharia law. Perhaps you should look into it more. VICE made some good videos on it a while back, one showing a Sharia law "policeman" and their court system etc in ISIS held territory.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

IJ22
09-27-2015, 09:23 AM
Well, for me, I wouldn't fight it because it's 'sharia law,' I'd fight it because it's inequality and inequity. And the thing is, sharia law isn't all that much worse than, say, orthodox Judaism, strict Catholicism, or lots of other religious things that are founded in ideals of either 'control' or 'ancient world misconceptions of how science works.' And to my mind, they're all equally bad. Requiring a woman to wear a veil is no different than requiring a woman to not use birth control, for example.


With respect, your mind is ignoring a whole whack of differences in order to see the similarities. For starters, the main difference we should be concerned about between sharia and other religious codes is that sharia applies to EVERYONE. I'm not aware of any religious code aside from sharia that prescribes capital offenses for people outside of the religion.

Also, Catholics use birth control all the time. I have yet to hear of any Catholic being put to death, or even punished in any way, for using birth control. Furthermore, the Catholic prohibition on birth control applies equally to both sexes, it does not single out women.

TheCenturion
09-27-2015, 09:27 AM
A niqab is not simply a veil. And Sharia law is the worst of the lot, by a large margin. It is Boko Harem, Al Qaeda, ISIS and the Taliban that want Sharia law. Perhaps you should look into it more. VICE made some good videos on it a while back, one showing a Sharia law "policeman" and their court system etc in ISIS held territory.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Oh, I've seen videos of Egyptian policemen 'interrogating' a man by buggering him with nightsticks. I get it. I just point out that you shouldn't be railing against 'sharia law' so much as 'all unjust persecution and oppression.' Communist China does horrible things to it's citizens, with nary a holy book in sight, for example. Hell, America is basically a third-world country, at this point. Isn't it and Saudi Arabia the only two countries that execute the mentally retarded?

Gentlemen, I have the feeling that perhaps we've all said our pieces, and I wish to thank Doug_M, Conger and everybody else for a stimulating, polite and free-flowing exchange of ideas and opinions. It's the ability and freedom to do this that I consider to be at the heart of what it is to be Canadian, and the ability to do this that I believe must result in the eventual abolition of all forms of oppression and subjugation. Well, that, and being armed. After all, if violence begets violence, pacifism begets slavery. Si vis pacem, para bellum and all that.

speedloader
09-27-2015, 09:41 AM
Vice is very good at exposing the wrong that exists everywhere
and good job Doug
Canada should in no way condone these barbaric laws or even acknowledge them on our soil
infact anyone practicing them should be deported back to the dark hole they came from ,
the Niqab is a symbol of its oppression and should be ilegal period and our uninformed idiot politicians
need to stop giving in to pressure from these groups because of there numbers and needing votes (angry Tom, Hair Piece)
we have fought wars to stop lesser evil than this , and it should not be allowed to be practiced

svehn
09-27-2015, 10:47 AM
If they get to wear a mask, then everybody gets to wear a mask. Simple as that. Of I have to show my ugly mug, then they do too.

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk

Billythreefeathers
09-27-2015, 01:57 PM
wear a mask on Halloween, the rest of the year show your face

Forbes/Hutton
09-27-2015, 03:34 PM
If they get to wear a mask, then everybody gets to wear a mask. Simple as that. Of I have to show my ugly mug, then they do too.

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk

That's the way it worked for the police in Ontario. A human right's tribunal said the Sikhs could have a beard because it was required by their religion. It was also decreed that to not allow anyone else to have a beard was discriminating against them because they WEREN'T a Sikh would be discrimination based religious grounds. So if they can wear a mask, but only them, then everyone else is being discriminated against (class action lawsuit anyone... everyone? Let's see what a settlement of $1,000 per person for hurt feelings for 32.99999999999999 million Canadians does to Justin's "small deficit" plans....).

Forbes/Hutton
09-27-2015, 03:46 PM
http://i738.photobucket.com/albums/xx22/marshal8820/real-men-surgical-mask-portrait-man-isolated-white-background-30616801_zpsczng6wge.jpg (http://s738.photobucket.com/user/marshal8820/media/real-men-surgical-mask-portrait-man-isolated-white-background-30616801_zpsczng6wge.jpg.html)

Now whatcha gonna do?

It's not only a religious symbol, but my doctor says my germaphobia is so bad it's actually a disability.