Canadian Bigotry, eh!

format_quote 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

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.

format_quote 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.

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.

format_quote 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.

format_quote 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.

format_quote 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.

format_quote 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.

format_quote 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.

format_quote 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?

format_quote 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. Sorry.