PDA

View Full Version : Canadian Bigotry, eh!



CosmicPathos
12-12-2011, 08:42 PM
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle2267972/
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Pygoscelis
12-13-2011, 01:12 AM
Even though I'm against special rules for the religious, I don't really see a problem with them wearing a veil while taking the oath. Seems little different from mumbling it or pretending to sing along with the national anthem. Perhaps a compromise could be arranging for a place they could take the oath in large all female groups, to account for both the hyper-patriotism of the minister and his supporters as well as the religious sensibilities of these ladies.
Reply

syed1
12-13-2011, 02:50 AM
I don't find this offensive or discriminatory at all.. I think it is well justified that the person be visible to affirm that they are actually taken the oath rather than merely pretending to..
Reply

Maryan0
12-13-2011, 03:38 AM
Originally Posted by syed1
I don't find this offensive or discriminatory at all.. I think it is well justified that the person be visible to affirm that they are actually taken the oath rather than merely pretending to..
I've heard identifying yourself in the court room is also a part of Islamic law also...Allahu Alam
Salam
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
Pygoscelis
12-13-2011, 05:04 AM
Maybe it is because I was born here in Canada, but I never understood why people should have to verbally give an oath when becoming a citizen. It somehow magically makes them more worthy of citizenship or more connected to the country? Seems like a pretty empty ritual to me. They could just as easily say the words and mean none of it as take it to heart.
Reply

CosmicPathos
12-13-2011, 07:38 AM
syed1: Are you a Muslim? The person in veil is also visible by her mere presence when taking the oath. If your irrational concept of "visibility" is so valid then what do you suggest about the person taking an oath whose face has been torn off after an accident, since he/she probably wont be "visible." And what about someone whose tongue has been cut off, they cannot really read the oath aloud you know, how would you force them to verbally take on oath? Concessions? Exceptions? When will the Sikh head gears be banned? Have Canadians forgotten the Air India flight 182? The White canucks, from the comments I've been reading on the globe and mail, seem to be more concerned about terrorists hiding weapons under the burqa. Fine. Ban the ugly Sikh head gears (you can hide tons of explosives under those ugly head gears), ban halloween costumes since terrorists can use that day to create havoc in the Canadian society by dressing up in costumes and hiding weapons!

Maryan: do you even know the difference in acting as a witness in the court, and taking an oath in a citizenship's office? I suggest you stay quiet if you dont know the difference. Veiled women, at least the ones I know, have no problem in identifying their faces when it comes to for example getting driver's license/police/banks etc. It is different ball game when you have to take an oath and allegiance to the queen who is not even present in the room.
Reply

Maryan0
12-13-2011, 08:07 AM
Originally Posted by CosmicPathos

Maryan: do you even know the difference in acting as a witness in the court, and taking an oath in a citizenship's office? I suggest you stay quiet if you dont know the difference. Veiled women, at least the ones I know, have no problem in identifying their faces when it comes to for example getting driver's license/police/banks etc. It is different ball game when you have to take an oath and allegiance to the queen who is not even present in the room.
I wasn't referring to the citizenship issue but to the issue of the women who who refuses to take the niqab off in the court room. It was also mentioned in the article you posted:
The decision comes as the Supreme Court of Canada considers whether a woman should be allowed to testify in court with her face covered.
This is the case they are refering to:
http://edmonton.ctv.ca/servlet/an/lo...b=EdmontonHome
Salam
Reply

CosmicPathos
12-13-2011, 08:16 AM
Originally Posted by Maryan0
I wasn't referring to the citizenship issue but to the issue of the women who who refuses to take the niqab off in the court room. It was also mentioned in the article you posted:
The decision comes as the Supreme Court of Canada considers whether a woman should be allowed to testify in court with her face covered.
This is the case they are refering to:
http://edmonton.ctv.ca/servlet/an/lo...b=EdmontonHome
Salam
Yea the media is mixing the issues so as to confuse ppl so that they support this idiotic decision.

Of course veiled women, at elast the ones from family, have no problem in identifying their faces to a female in courts, police departments, banks. And so with many other veiled Canadian women. That is however not the same as their desire to wear a veil while taking the oath of Canadian citizenship. If the Judge in the oath office wants to confirm the identity, they can always take the veiled woman at the back and let a female ID the citizen taking the oath. I am sure all law abiding veiled women wont have problems with IDing themselves to a female officer.

But to ask them to strip off their veil in a gathering of 50 ppl singing O Canada and giving allegiance to Queen by talking about "equal rights" is nothing but bigotry.

The issue is clear as the Sun. If the reason for bannign the veil is that their face cannot be seen, ban the darn sikh head gears, because the hair, which forms a part of one's face, of these Sikhs are also not seen. Ban the darn hoodies and the bandanas.
Reply

Maryan0
12-13-2011, 08:27 AM
Originally Posted by CosmicPathos
Yea the media is mixing the issues so as to confuse ppl so that they support this idiotic decision.

Of course veiled women, at elast the ones from family, have no problem in identifying their faces to a female in courts, police departments, banks. And so with many other veiled Canadian women. That is however not the same as their desire to wear a veil while taking the oath of Canadian citizenship. If the Judge in the oath office wants to confirm the identity, they can always take the veiled woman at the back and let a female ID the citizen taking the oath. I am sure all law abiding veiled women wont have problems with IDing themselves to a female officer.

But to ask them to strip off their veil in a gathering of 50 ppl singing O Canada and giving allegiance to Queen by talking about "equal rights" is nothing but bigotry.

The issue is clear as the Sun. If the reason for bannign the veil is that their face cannot be seen, ban the darn sikh head gears, because the hair, which forms a part of one's face, of these Sikhs are also not seen. Ban the darn hoodies and the bandanas.
Agreed but then again bigotry and anti-Muslim sentiment does seem to be on the rise in Canada at least from what I've observed.
Salam
Reply

CosmicPathos
12-13-2011, 08:51 AM
one of the comments from the globe and the mail.
"This is a repulsive, absolutely repulsive editorial. Women forced to wear the full hijab/burka, suffer innumeral illnesses and accidents. Early bone loss from lack of vitamin D and soft bones, tripping or falling because of limited visibility, and a host of others. The full hijab/burka was designed by men, not women, so that Muslim women would not tempt the sexuality of Muslim men. Under the burka, it is the responsibility of Muslim women to not only hide their identity but to restrain the temptations of their men.

This is not Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc., etc. It is CANADA where it is entrenched in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms the equality rights of women with men. The full hijab/burka affords no such equality. It also goes against CEDAW, the International Convention for the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women. Is there anything more discriminatory that a woman having to hide her identity?

Multiculturalism means bring your culture but abide by our laws. There is no Sharia Law in Canada anywhere suffocating a Muslim woman under the full hijab/burka. It is time the veil was lifted and burned once and for all. It is not a symbol of "religious freedom;" rather, a symbol of male suppression of women."

"Yes, it is necessary. One of Canada's fundamental principles is the equality of men and women, and the niqab/burka flies in the face of that principle. We must let immigrants know unequivocally that in Canada, males and females have the same rights and freedoms, and we will not tolerate any cultural or religious customs which turn women into second class citizens."

Yes that is why females in Canada to this date earn on average less per hour income than males do.
Reply

Pygoscelis
12-13-2011, 03:46 PM
Originally Posted by CosmicPathos
Yea the media is mixing the issues so as to confuse ppl so that they support this idiotic decision.
Indeed. I oppose prohibiting people from veiling while "taking the oath", but I support prohibiting them from veiling while giving testimony in court, etc. People have a right to face their accusers and juries have a need to read the faces of witnesses. But for a ritual oath and as you put it singing O Canada together? This is indeed just bigotry in that case.

Of course veiled women, at elast the ones from family, have no problem in identifying their faces to a female in courts, police departments, banks. And so with many other veiled Canadian women.
My question to that is what if there is no female readily available? If a veiled woman is driving a car and gets pulled over by a male traffic cop for speeding, should he have to wait for a female officer to drive out to the scene thereby delaying him and impeding his ability to pull over other cars that day? I think religious accomodation should only exist if it doesn't impede or hamper other people. If I'd be forced to remove my ski mask when pulled over by police on my snowmobile, she should be forced to remove her veil when pulled over by a traffic cop. If not, then not. No special rues for or against I say.

Ban the darn hoodies and the bandanas.
In courts? When taking the oath etc? They have.
Reply

Galaxy
12-13-2011, 04:07 PM
They say that the Canadian society is about face-to-face communication and if you want to live in Canada then you must be like us. Canada has bigger issues than not being able to see a lady's face, seriously!
Reply

Ali Mujahidin
12-13-2011, 07:06 PM
Originally Posted by Galaxy
They say that the Canadian society is about face-to-face communication and if you want to live in Canada then you must be like us. Canada has bigger issues than not being able to see a lady's face, seriously!
I think Canada is not alone in that part about "if you want to live in Canada then you must be like us". I believe that France is also in the midst of insisting that to be a French citizen, you have to be like what the government defines as a French person. Perhaps it is time for us Muslims to realize that, for many people, being a Muslim is like not being a member of the human race. Human race as defined by those people, of course.
Reply

GuestFellow
12-13-2011, 08:02 PM
Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Maybe it is because I was born here in Canada, but I never understood why people should have to verbally give an oath when becoming a citizen. It somehow magically makes them more worthy of citizenship or more connected to the country? Seems like a pretty empty ritual to me. They could just as easily say the words and mean none of it as take it to heart.
Hi,

It is pointless. All you have to do is obey the law. Simple as that. Ugh I hate it when people complicate stuff.
Reply

CosmicPathos
12-13-2011, 10:59 PM
Originally Posted by Tragic Typos
Hi,

It is pointless. All you have to do is obey the law. Simple as that. Ugh I hate it when people complicate stuff.
Yea the law which once was not there for the last 30 or more years, eh.
Reply

CosmicPathos
12-13-2011, 11:01 PM
Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Indeed. I oppose prohibiting people from veiling while "taking the oath", but I support prohibiting them from veiling while giving testimony in court, etc. People have a right to face their accusers and juries have a need to read the faces of witnesses. But for a ritual oath and as you put it singing O Canada together? This is indeed just bigotry in that case.



My question to that is what if there is no female readily available? If a veiled woman is driving a car and gets pulled over by a male traffic cop for speeding, should he have to wait for a female officer to drive out to the scene thereby delaying him and impeding his ability to pull over other cars that day? I think religious accomodation should only exist if it doesn't impede or hamper other people. If I'd be forced to remove my ski mask when pulled over by police on my snowmobile, she should be forced to remove her veil when pulled over by a traffic cop. If not, then not. No special rues for or against I say.



In courts? When taking the oath etc? They have.
Dont you think that question actually puts to test the Canadian claim that women have equal freedoms and opportunities in this country? I mean about 50% of population is women. So if women were truly free to choose their career choices, you'd expect 50% women work force in almost every arena of life. So you'd expect a woman in any sort of a job as much as you'd expect a man, provided women were truly free and making independent decisions.
Reply

GuestFellow
12-14-2011, 06:53 PM
Originally Posted by CosmicPathos
Yea the law which once was not there for the last 30 or more years, eh.
Salaam,

Sorry, I have no idea what you are talking about.
Reply

User2024
12-14-2011, 07:01 PM
I don't see why some western countries got big problems with this. Seriously watch something like traffic cops (UK cops program) and you will sometimes (well most) see half naked women exposing all their body, some even show their breasts and such, so if a women is allowed to do that she should have the right to cover her self. I mean come on they are not going to rob a bank then run down a street are they? It's pretty hard to run in a veil...

I do agree women don't show faces in airports and such, in this case they should. I sometimes go on bus and see women show ID with full face covering driver just nods his head lol, I mean how can you tell if it is that person?
Reply

CosmicPathos
12-14-2011, 07:36 PM
Originally Posted by Tragic Typos
Salaam,

Sorry, I have no idea what you are talking about.
wsalam

Perhaps it is time to get some idea by reading what I have written in the first page, shall we?
Reply

GuestFellow
12-14-2011, 09:23 PM
Originally Posted by CosmicPathos
wsalam

Perhaps it is time to get some idea by reading what I have written in the first page, shall we?
Salaam,

Lol, I got confused. Thought I was on the US promoting homosexuality topic. :p: Sorry.
Reply

Pygoscelis
12-15-2011, 04:01 AM
Originally Posted by CosmicPathos
Dont you think that question actually puts to test the Canadian claim that women have equal freedoms and opportunities in this country? I mean about 50% of population is women. So if women were truly free to choose their career choices, you'd expect 50% women work force in almost every arena of life. So you'd expect a woman in any sort of a job as much as you'd expect a man, provided women were truly free and making independent decisions.
Actually, no. Biology and culture play large roles here. A lot of women (and a much smaller percentage of men) put their primary focus on raising children over their careers, which leaves them less advanced in their careers if they do have them. I remember in law school the students were about 40% male and 60% female. Yes, you read that right. Now, 10 or so years out, those of us still practicing law include about 70% men and 30% women.

That's all beside my question though. Even if 80% of police officers were female in my example, you'd still get women drivers pulled over by male cops. Should they have to wait for female cops to come to them before they can process the traffic violation or other offence? I say no. The woman in that scenario should have to show her face to the male cop, so he can do his job and get about his day and process other offences. Perhaps this is a reason the Saudis don't want women driving?
Reply

جوري
12-15-2011, 04:05 AM
Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Perhaps this is a reason the Saudis don't want women driving?
loads of niqabbi drivers in Egypt with no such problems although admittedly I'd hate to be caught in traffic behind one since they're hyper-vigilant. You can always identify by fingerprints. It is cheap technology and available even at toys are us.

best,
Reply

Muslim Woman
12-28-2011, 05:06 PM
:sl:

Sa\\\


ay 'A Muslim woman wearing a niqab attends a protest against islamophobia in Bern on Oct. 29. (Michael Buholzer/Reuters)The ban, announced Monday, is effective immediately.


Say No : Poll-


Yes. 40.83% (14,986 votes)

No. 58.37% (21,425 votes)


I'm not sure. 0.8% (293 votes)


Total Votes: 36,704

http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourcommunity...tizenship.html
Reply

Pygoscelis
12-28-2011, 05:47 PM
Not exactly a scientific poll, but it does show that Canada isn't so bigotted after all. I'm glad to be in the majority within my country this time. I voted against the ban.
Reply

Pygoscelis
12-28-2011, 05:53 PM
Originally Posted by ßlµêßêll
loads of niqabbi drivers in Egypt with no such problems although admittedly I'd hate to be caught in traffic behind one since they're hyper-vigilant. You can always identify by fingerprints. It is cheap technology and available even at toys are us.

best,
The question then becomes how much should we change current systems in place to accomodate particlar subculture. And what do we do if these various subcultures of society clash with one another, such as another subculture who opposes finger printing.

We would equip all police with finger printing kits? Finger print taking and analysis would take considerably longer than just looking at somebody's face and comparing it to a photo. You'd need either extensive training or a good computer program (and computer that scans and compares prints and database of all the prints). You'd also have to get everybody who currently has licenses (as well as newly issued ones) to come in and give their prints, which a lot may object to since traditinoally we finger print only criminals.
Reply

Ramadhan
12-28-2011, 11:23 PM
Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
We would equip all police with finger printing kits? Finger print taking and analysis would take considerably longer than just looking at somebody's face and comparing it to a photo. You'd need either extensive training or a good computer program (and computer that scans and compares prints and database of all the prints). You'd also have to get everybody who currently has licenses (as well as newly issued ones) to come in and give their prints, which a lot may object to since traditinoally we finger print only criminals.
Canadians only finger print criminals? :skeleton:
In Indonesia, we get our finger print copied whenever we apply for licenses, and for national ID, we get our biometric data digitally stored (eyes, finger print).
Reply

GuestFellow
12-28-2011, 11:30 PM
Originally Posted by Ramadhan
In Indonesia, we get our finger print copied whenever we apply for licenses, and for national ID, we get our biometric data digitally stored (eyes, finger print).
Salaam,

That would be considered dictatorship in Britain.
Reply

Muslim Woman
12-29-2011, 02:34 AM
:sl:

Originally Posted by PoweredByGoogle
It's pretty hard to run in a veil...
yap , it will easily attract other's attention if a veiled woman runs lol .

btw how many vieled women robbed bank so far ?
Reply

CosmicPathos
12-29-2011, 02:38 AM
Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
The question then becomes how much should we change current systems in place to accomodate particlar subculture. And what do we do if these various subcultures of society clash with one another, such as another subculture who opposes finger printing.

We would equip all police with finger printing kits? Finger print taking and analysis would take considerably longer than just looking at somebody's face and comparing it to a photo. You'd need either extensive training or a good computer program (and computer that scans and compares prints and database of all the prints). You'd also have to get everybody who currently has licenses (as well as newly issued ones) to come in and give their prints, which a lot may object to since traditinoally we finger print only criminals.
Perhaps its time to start equipping Canadian Police with modern technology? With increasing human numbers, similarities in faces are becoming common (there are only that many combinations you can get from independent assortment and meiotic cross-over). Moreover, anyone can put a fake mask on mimicking someone else. If Police can carry alcohol level meters in their cars, carrying a finger print reader does not seem such a bad idea.
Reply

User2024
12-29-2011, 12:52 PM
Originally Posted by Muslim Woman
:sl:



yap , it will easily attract other's attention if a veiled woman runs lol .

btw how many vieled women robbed bank so far ?
I don't think any women in a veil has robbed a bank...
Reply

Pygoscelis
12-29-2011, 04:55 PM
Originally Posted by CosmicPathos
Perhaps its time to start equipping Canadian Police with modern technology? With increasing human numbers, similarities in faces are becoming common (there are only that many combinations you can get from independent assortment and meiotic cross-over). Moreover, anyone can put a fake mask on mimicking someone else. If Police can carry alcohol level meters in their cars, carrying a finger print reader does not seem such a bad idea.
Update our Canadian Technology? Would we have to give up our police dog sleds? :p

Seriously though, it may eventually come to what you propose as the population increases, moreso in bigger countries first though. I don't really see a need fo this concern just yet in Canada. I also can pretty much guarantee a political backlash if they tried to get all Canadians to give their fingerprints, given the history behind finger printing (that it is how criminals have been processed for so many years). Perhaps they will skip over fingerprinting and go directly to the eye technology the Indonesians are apparently using.
Reply

alpharius
12-30-2011, 02:18 PM
Since Canada is a non Muslim country, women coming should obey the rules of the commonwealth if they wish to be there. Many Canadians are worried about Islamic influences overwhelming Canada, as well as other Western Countries, and are trying to stop the influence of Shiara law one day taking over.
Reply

User2024
12-30-2011, 04:52 PM
Originally Posted by alpharius
Since Canada is a non Muslim country, women coming should obey the rules of the commonwealth if they wish to be there. Many Canadians are worried about Islamic influences overwhelming Canada, as well as other Western Countries, and are trying to stop the influence of Shiara law one day taking over.
America currently do the same thing getting their policy on to other countries and starting illegal invasions and creating wars...They now have so many bases around the world try to be the world police, I actually don't even know if Sharia law exist in Iraq now as well. USA don't like it as they want to be world police but they can't if middle east is run by Sharia
Reply

GuestFellow
12-31-2011, 12:29 AM
Originally Posted by alpharius
Since Canada is a non Muslim country, women coming should obey the rules of the commonwealth if they wish to be there. Many Canadians are worried about Islamic influences overwhelming Canada, as well as other Western Countries, and are trying to stop the influence of Shiara law one day taking over.
I can't wait once Muslims take over. Just a matter of time. ;D
Reply

alpharius
12-31-2011, 01:58 PM
Originally Posted by Tragic Typos
I can't wait once Muslims take over. Just a matter of time. ;D
Not going to happen
Reply

GuestFellow
12-31-2011, 03:01 PM
Originally Posted by alpharius
Since Canada is a non Muslim country, women coming should obey the rules of the commonwealth if they wish to be there. Many Canadians are worried about Islamic influences overwhelming Canada, as well as other Western Countries, and are trying to stop the influence of Shiara law one day taking over.
Originally Posted by alpharius
Not going to happen
Then why are so many Canadians worried about Islam's influence on Canada? Assuming such influence exists.

Canadian Muslims have every right to speak out against the law of their country and propose new ones. They can set up their own political party, demand to implement the Sharia and participate in elections. If they win, they can implement the Sharia. This is what democracy is all about.

Besides, the more western governments prevent Muslims from practicing their faith, hopefully Muslims will realise we need our own Islamic state, where we can practice Islam in peace. Of course, the USA and its allies won't allow that, so we will simply bring the Sharia to western countries, in a slow and stable manner.
Reply

Ali Mujahidin
12-31-2011, 05:39 PM
Personally I think there is actually a way for Muslims to take over the world. But first we have to stop talking about it. And concentrate on being the best there is in any legitimate field. Like being the best doctor, the best teacher, the best businessman.
Reply

CosmicPathos
12-31-2011, 06:20 PM
Originally Posted by alpharius
Since Canada is a non Muslim country, women coming should obey the rules of the commonwealth if they wish to be there. Many Canadians are worried about Islamic influences overwhelming Canada, as well as other Western Countries, and are trying to stop the influence of Shiara law one day taking over.
Hello, if you are truly right then why was not this commonwealth so concerned about niqab before last month for the last 50 years? Muslims have been inhabiting Canada for at least more than 50 years. These Muslim women that you so despise did not have to follow a rule till this year, because the rule did not exist in this "commonwealth" canadian. The worried Canadians should be more worried about non-Muslim plastic surgeons who raped a woman at University of Toronto.

Go and read history. How come commonwealth just woke up from its slumber and realized to implement one of its forgotten laws "thou shalt not allow niqab." Seems this commonwealth is not so smart anyways
Reply

Pygoscelis
01-03-2012, 12:05 AM
Originally Posted by Tragic Typos
Then why are so many Canadians worried about Islam's influence on Canada? Assuming such influence exists.
Not many are. Those who are tend to be so because they watch and listen to too much US media. There is no real threat of Islam "taking over" Canada. There is much more of a threat TO muslims than by muslims in both Canada and the US (who is far more paranoid about muslims).

Canadian Muslims have every right to speak out against the law of their country and propose new ones. They can set up their own political party, demand to implement the Sharia and participate in elections.
That is true.

If they win, they can implement the Sharia. This is what democracy is all about.
That is not. Canada is not a mob rule democracy. It is a constitutional monarchy with a charter of rights and freedoms and constitution than can not simply be ended via popular vote.

Besides, the more western governments prevent Muslims from practicing their faith, hopefully Muslims will realise we need our own Islamic state, where we can practice Islam in peace. Of course, the USA and its allies won't allow that, so we will simply bring the Sharia to western countries, in a slow and stable manner.
In a country as multi-cultural as Canada, secular rule is the only viable option. Because your freedom to practice your religion only extends so far as your right to be free from the other guy's religion. Freedom of religion requires freedom from religion.
Reply

Pygoscelis
01-03-2012, 12:09 AM
Originally Posted by CosmicPathos
These Muslim women that you so despise did not have to follow a rule till this year, because the rule did not exist in this "commonwealth" canadian.
Is this true? You've been allowed to take the citizenship oath in Canada in the past with wearing a burka? People have done this for decades? If so then I see your point and agree. It would make this news item especially alarming.
Reply

CosmicPathos
01-03-2012, 06:04 AM
Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Is this true? You've been allowed to take the citizenship oath in Canada in the past with wearing a burka? People have done this for decades? If so then I see your point and agree. It would make this news item especially alarming.
Yes, my friends and their families in the past took their citizenship oath from behind the veils. And they are as proud to be Canadian as anyone else. Their burka does not stop them being one. They have their pics without niqab on ID cards and they have no problems with it because its a matter of security. How having the face visible while taking oath a matter of security is beyond any rational explanation.
Reply

Pygoscelis
01-03-2012, 07:06 AM
Originally Posted by CosmicPathos
How having the face visible while taking oath a matter of security is beyond any rational explanation.
I completely agree with you on this point. Canada should do better than this.
Reply

GuestFellow
01-03-2012, 06:59 PM
Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
That is not. Canada is not a mob rule democracy. It is a constitutional monarchy with a charter of rights and freedoms and constitution than can not simply be ended via popular vote.
It does not matter. The majority can always replace laws and overthrow the government. Not that I am advocating for Muslims to use force to implement the Sharia. But I do think it is acceptable for Muslims to explain the Sharia to other people.

In a country as multi-cultural as Canada, secular rule is the only viable option. Because your freedom to practice your religion only extends so far as your right to be free from the other guy's religion. Freedom of religion requires freedom from religion.
Secularism can prevent people from practicing their religion. Separation between state and church is one form of secularism. Secularism can extend to preventing people from practicing religion in society...like in France.
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!