# Facial covering/courts-elections-etc. (merged)



## ark (23 Mar 2007)

> All three front-runners in Monday's provincial election protested a decision by Elections Canada to allow Muslim women to cover their faces while they vote.
> 
> Liberal Leader Jean Charest requested on Thursday to have the decision reversed that would allow Muslim women to wear their niqab or burqa while casting their ballots.
> 
> ...



http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070322/muslim_vote070322/20070322?hub=TopStories

Not often will you have three leaders agreeing on the same issue...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Mar 2007)

Why not. Let them leave a thumb print, like in their previous country, hold the ballot, and if a match is found the ballot gets tossed. If you can't be positively identified, you can't vote. We're in Canada, not the ME. It's like having your driver's license picture taken while in a burka. It totally nullifies *OUR* system of checks and balances.



> Elections Canada said Muslim women will be allowed to wear the niqab, which leaves only a woman's eyes visible, if they sign a sworn statement attesting to their identity, show two pieces of identification and are accompanied by someone who can vouch for their identity.



A grade four student knows how to circumvent this one. Our politicians are scared to stand up for Canadian values, and bowing to what they percieve as a backlash from the Muslim community. Perhaps if we quit giving in, rolling over, and burying our heads in the sand, certain groups would stop pushing the issues and forcing their personal agendas, taking more and more, til we live under their rules.



Army.ca Poster


----------



## FastEddy (23 Mar 2007)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Why not. Let them leave a thumb print, like in their previous country, hold the ballot, and if a match is found the ballot gets tossed. If you can't be positively identified, you can't vote. We're in Canada, not the ME. It's like having your driver's license picture taken while in a burka. It totally nullifies *OUR* system of checks and balances.
> 
> A grade four student knows how to circumvent this one. Our politicians are scared to stand up for Canadian values, and bowing to what they percieve as a backlash from the Muslim community. Perhaps if we quit giving in, rolling over, and burying our heads in the sand, certain groups would stop pushing the issues and forcing their personal agendas, taking more and more, til we live under their rules.
> 
> ...




Plus One "recceguy", but believe me its gonna get worse than better.

It wouldn't surprise me if the Military down the line, allow Female Muslem Inductee's/Recruits to wear Burka's also.

Cheers.


----------



## GAP (23 Mar 2007)

> "It's never been an issue as far as I know," Sarah Elgazzar told CTV Montreal.
> 
> 
> "We're talking about maybe 20, 30 women, 40 tops. This is a really loud story for a very, very small minority."
> ...



If it is normal under the Election Law and the above is followed, I see no objection to it.


----------



## George Wallace (23 Mar 2007)

> Elections Canada said Muslim women will be allowed to wear the niqab, which leaves only a woman's eyes visible, if they sign a sworn statement attesting to their identity, show two pieces of identification and are accompanied by someone who can vouch for their identity.



To me, this tells me that Elections Canada has effectively legitimatized "Election Fraud" in Canada.  With the problems we already have with Identification, this would easily be solved with a "National Biometric Identity Card".  It could end any fraud that this ruling may encourage.  It would also solve the Identity Card/Passport controversy at the US/Canada border.  

However, we already know where a National Biometric Identity Card has gone in our Left leaning paranoid "You can't invade my rights to Privacy" electorate.


----------



## onecat (23 Mar 2007)

My feeling on this is that no women in Canada should be wearing this oppressive garments.  they are designed to keep women in their and have nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with keeping women as your property.  yes I know its a extreme view, but the Burka, hajib or anthing like it has no place in Canada.


----------



## GAP (23 Mar 2007)

radiohead said:
			
		

> My feeling on this is that no women in Canada should be wearing this oppressive garments.  they are designed to keep women in their and have nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with keeping women as your property.  yes I know its a extreme view, but the Burka, hajib or anthing like it has no place in Canada.



While I agree with your sentiments as to women being viewed as property, this is a time in the world view where Islam is being highlighted and people, both women and men, are embracing it in its' various forms. Whether I like it or not is irrelevant, but I think we need to allow them the same courtesy of acceptance as we did the flower children of the 60's. 

This is not to be confused with the mandate of the extreme Islamists, any more than we run out and embrace the Hutterites, the Dukabors, and other such. For moderate, modern Islamists to practise their religions within the confines of Canadian Law  and practises, I say welcome!!


----------



## nowhere_man (23 Mar 2007)

But youk now that if someone can do it in Quebec than soon someone will take it to the rest of the provinces and thats not cool. 
If you come to Canada please respect our customs and show some ID when you vote.


----------



## GAP (23 Mar 2007)

Quebec elections has reversed it's position, everybody must show their face.

Muslim women required to show faces while voting
Updated Fri. Mar. 23 2007 4:02 PM ET CTV.ca News Staff
Article Link

Muslim women who wish to vote in Monday's Quebec election must now show their faces when they cast their ballots, the province's chief returning officer announced Friday, in a reversal of an earlier decision.

Marcel Blanchet has reversed an earlier decision and has now concluded Muslim women must remove their face coverings, or niqabs, when they vote.

Blanchet used special powers under electoral law to reverse the decision.

Elections Quebec had earlier decided that Muslim women will be allowed to wear the niqab, which leaves only a woman's eyes visible, if they sign a sworn statement attesting to their identity, show two pieces of identification and are accompanied by someone who can vouch for their identity. 

Blanchet's initial decision prompted non-Muslim citizens to threaten they would show up at polling stations wearing masks.

After his announcement, Elections Quebec also received threatening phone calls and emails.

As a result, Blanchet had to get two bodyguards.

Quebec's three main political leaders had asked Blanchet to reverse the decision.

Liberal Leader Jean Charest requested on Thursday to have the decision reversed that would allow Muslim women to wear their niqab or burqa while casting their ballots. 

Parti Quebecois Leader Andre Boisclair and Action democratique du Quebec Leader Mario Dumont agreed with Charest on the issue. 

Boisclair said Elections Quebec has taken the hot-button topic of reasonable accommodation too far. 

In recent months, Quebec has come under the spotlight for its treatment of reasonable accommodation for newcomers
More on link


----------



## Jaydub (23 Mar 2007)

This is getting ridiculous...  What about Photo ID, passports, etc.  We can only compromise so far.


----------



## frist one (23 Mar 2007)

Jaydub said:
			
		

> This is getting ridiculous...  What about Photo ID, passports, etc.  We can only compromise so far.


  I agree this getting a bit ridiculous.We can only compromise so far.What next?I really don't know.


----------



## Jaydub (23 Mar 2007)

It's good to see them reverse it.  I don't want to sound like a bigot or anything, but come on...


----------



## Sassy (23 Mar 2007)

I wonder if the fools at Elections Canada asked any Muslims women if they'd mind verifying their idenity before they agreed to allow the Burkas and Hyjabs?  Another example of finding offense, when none is meant and then back tracking when they get caught looking like moronic PC fools. 

On a side note, as a female I loathe the concept of the Burka. To me it's a sign of subjugation and oppression and Radical Islam and I will celebrate the day Muslim women in Canada shun it for a head scarf or veil.


----------



## KwaiLo (23 Mar 2007)

351  (2) Every one who, with intent to commit an indictable offence, has his face masked or coloured or is otherwise disguised is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 351; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 48.


----------



## FastEddy (23 Mar 2007)

KwaiLo said:
			
		

> 351  (2) Every one who, with intent to commit an indictable offence, has his face masked or coloured or is otherwise disguised is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.
> 
> R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 351; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 48.




I don't think the Ladies in question have any intent of wrong doing, its a simple matter of , "Allow" or Disallow". And we've taken care of that here in Quebec.

Like your Profile, Just keep remembering that a Straight Road, is easier to drive on and will get you there faster.

I think you'll enjoy a Military Career, Good Luck.

Cheers.


----------



## KwaiLo (23 Mar 2007)

FastEddy, I am not suggesting that they are trying to pull a past one.  I am saying that there are laws already in place to deal with things if they do.


----------



## FastEddy (24 Mar 2007)

KwaiLo said:
			
		

> FastEddy, I am not suggesting that they are trying to pull a past one.  I am saying that there are laws already in place to deal with things if they do.




Assuredly, thats what really worries me.

Cheers.


----------



## KwaiLo (24 Mar 2007)

FastEddy said:
			
		

> Assuredly, thats what really worries me.
> 
> Cheers.



I apologize if I am being obtuse, but I don't understand why that really worries you.  I see an existing law that can handle a situation that wasn't anticipated when it was written.  

Isn't that a good thing?


----------



## FastEddy (24 Mar 2007)

KwaiLo said:
			
		

> I apologize if I am being obtuse, but I don't understand why that really worries you.  I see an existing law that can handle a situation that wasn't anticipated when it was written.
> 
> Isn't that a good thing?




True True, But regardless whether its a Masked Gunman or a Islamic Female Radical wearing a Burka committing a felony, its pretty much the Felony that the Crown pursues. This section could just be a add on in either case.

Its the Judges and Courts that worries me, IMO if such a case involving a Burka wearing Islamic Woman was before the Court, (except a Capital Crime), I feel there would be far too much Political Correctness and Religious and Political Influence governing the Verdict and Sentencing.

If the way we Cow-Tow to them today regarding Reasonable Consideration is any example.

Cheers


----------



## KwaiLo (24 Mar 2007)

FastEddy said:
			
		

> If the way we Cow-Tow to them today regarding Reasonable Consideration is any example.



Thanks, I can see where you are coming from now.  

Every response that I have tried to write just now about the legal system being impartial has included the word hope, should or might.  Where I work, using these words in a meeting has you paying a loonie to the United Way.


----------



## a_majoor (24 Mar 2007)

Just because a law is on the books does not mean it will be applied or applied in an impartial manner. I recall there was a lot of discussion advocating charging "The Blogging Tories" and the site webmasters under Canada's election laws, but I had never heard any similar discussion regarding Liberal, NDP or Green websites.

Fortunately for all our freedom and democracy, this blew over, but think of it as a warning......


----------



## time expired (24 Mar 2007)

This is just another example of certain groups constantly chipping away at the values of our society
and the aim of this particular group is to practice Sharia law here in Canada.I think they are winning
the battle,they certainly are in parts of Europe,.To me personally this comes as no surprise, I see 
nowhere in the world that this group lives in peace with its neighbours.Tolerance is a wonderful idea
but I see very little of it from the abovementioned group particularly when they are in a position of 
power. Tolerance can also very quickly become appeasement particularly in those parts of the population
that feel that their principles are more important than your wellbeing or safety.
I think I have made this as PC as possible and only those that identify with any of these groups could
take the slightest offence.
                               Regards

  PS A point I forgot to mention is that the head scarf ,in many cases,is not just a piece of cloth but
a political statement.


----------



## geo (24 Mar 2007)

The subject is now "moot point"... the director general of elections has reversed himself - women will have to "uncloak" for the duration of the identification process... they can replace their veil AFTER they have voted.


----------



## retiredgrunt45 (24 Mar 2007)

I can understand the need for these people to keep their customs or religious beliefs, but this is not the middle east, this is Canada. And *everyone* must follow the same law of the land. 

I have nothing against multiculturalism, but when these groups start making their own rules, I do have a problem with that. I think Canadians as a whole, are very tolerant people, to a point. But when these people try and pull stunts like this, it's going to far.

As to the politicians who gave in to these groups, Next time think before you put your foot into your big mouth!!


----------



## geo (24 Mar 2007)

grunt.... there is nothing wrong with them asking to be allowed to do as they feel is proper.... hey, my 14 yr old does that all the time... he pushes the envelope until the envelope pushes back - and he toes the line for another little while.


----------



## observor 69 (24 Mar 2007)

Living in the GTA I see all kinds of examples of this topic. My conclusion is that immigrants should have the constitutional laws of Canada, equality for all including women, made clear to them when they are considering coming to this country. If you don't like our culture and laws then look elsewhere.


----------



## FastEddy (24 Mar 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> grunt.... there is nothing wrong with them asking to be allowed to do as they feel is proper.... hey, my 14 yr old does that all the time... he pushes the envelope until the envelope pushes back - and he toes the line for another little while.




 Yeah just try it from wherever they come from !, WHEN IN ROME DO AS THE ROMANS DO.


----------



## George Wallace (24 Mar 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> The subject is now "moot point"... the director general of elections has reversed himself - women will have to "uncloak" for the duration of the identification process... they can replace their veil AFTER they have voted.



Perhaps he reads Army.ca.   ;D

The Charter protects "privacy".  It doesn't protect "anonymity".


----------



## geo (24 Mar 2007)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> Living in the GTA I see all kinds of examples of this topic. My conclusion is that immigrants should have the constitutional laws of Canada, equality for all including women, made clear to them when they are considering coming to this country. If you don't like our culture and laws then look elsewhere.



Uhhh... equality of women.... what does that specificaly have to do with wearing or not wearing a veil.  As a cultural garment, the veil is just something that they wear - you're the one making a political thing out of it.


----------



## observor 69 (25 Mar 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> Uhhh... equality of women.... what does that specificaly have to do with wearing or not wearing a veil.  As a cultural garment, the veil is just something that they wear - you're the one making a political thing out of it.



  Ya I know but......Excuse my slip of venting but in the GTA it very common for one to go to a local mall and see a fully black burka clad woman? trailing at the prescribed distance behind her husband. It is not uncommon to observe the subservient position that women are in to their husbands in many immigrant families. In extreme cases this has led to violence against family members by the husband.

  The GTA is home to one of the largest, and growing, population of immigrants in Canada. It is a strain on communities to absorb such large concentrated numbers as they adapt to Canadian values and culture.

  The GTA is also home to the counter-terrorism investigation that led to the arrests of 17 people accused of plotting bombings of Toronto targets.

  So while the wearing of a veil is a cultural garment it is also a political statement in the eyes of many.


----------



## geo (25 Mar 2007)

Ayup... then again, some would say that some catholic habbits are an issue.... forcing priests to be celibate... recruiting individuals who are, pontentialy, the most likely to have problems homosexuality & assaults upon choir boys & children looking to them for help of all sorts....


----------



## geo (25 Mar 2007)

Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act.
http://digital.montrealgazette.com/epaper/viewer.aspx


> RULING DENOUNCED BY MUSLIM GROUP Controversy is unfounded, activist says – women remove their veils when necessary
> 
> ‘IF I WAS WEARING A FACE VEIL … I’D BE SCARED TO VOTE’
> 
> ...


Emphasis added)


----------



## observor 69 (25 Mar 2007)

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose  


http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=ffe271b7-ee0b-4732-b3d0-bea995de51d7


----------



## geo (25 Mar 2007)

You're right...

But "we" are the ones who have created the tempest in the teapot..and
they, the veiled ladies are the ones who are left with the unpleasant possibility of being harrassed from here to kingdom come


----------



## armyvern (25 Mar 2007)

Good point Geo.

It's funny that many here are presuming that the vast majority of Muslim women are forced to wear their headscarves, veils etc while here in Canada. Usually though, that is not the case, it is a choice they make based upon the depth of their religious faith.

I had many great conversations in Damascus with a Muslim woman with whom I became friends and whose home I had been invited into to dine. Although she was veiled (a sign of religious faith for them) outside the home, her conversations with me outside the home were..._normal_. Inside her home, the veil was removed (it was replaced for prayer calls) and the conversations remained..._normal_.

Her husband cooked, cleaned, made tea and awesome Turkish coffee, and geez they even had some PDAs while I was there!! Imagine that. 

What I am trying to say, for those of you (not you Geo) so disposed, do not presume that because a woman chooses to wear a veil as an expression of faith in her God, that she is opressed and is treated as a second class citizen. There certainly are examples of oppresive governments, dictatorships and regimes which have made it this way in some nations, but do not presume that is the norm and the belief for the average Muslim; you would be wrong.


----------



## time expired (25 Mar 2007)

GEO
     I suppose you would have been on of those who would have argued that Hitler had every right 
reoccupy the Rhineland in 1936,after all it was really part of Germany  wasn`t it.That is what has 
come to be known as appeasement.This is not argument about an insignificant piece of cloth but a 
much larger issue,whether immigrants can come come to Canada and establish parallel societies that
represent a threat to Canada .and its institutions.I respectfully suggest you drop your liberal blinkers
and take a look at the big picture. Please do not take this personally however.
                                      Regards


----------



## ArmyRick (25 Mar 2007)

Time expired, I agree with you. I am a beleiver of drawing a line in the sand and saying there is a point.

I also don't have very PC views of every culture out there. I am not a racist or a bigot, but I have seen examples of racism by "other groups" but because they were not white christian males, it would not have been PC to call it out.

One example is a last summer when Israel was putting the boots to the Hezbollah, there was a rally in Toronto where people were screaming "death to the jews...". The individual screaming this out was slightly darker tone than a white person and appeared to be muslim (guessing by the clothing).

Imagine a white, catholic kid saying that?

'nuff said.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (25 Mar 2007)

It's all spin, smoke and mirrors. Is this the first time that a vieled Muslim has tried to vote? No, it's not, and it wasn't a problem before the three political parties tried to sell their snake oil concern for votes. Elgazzar is using this for political gains just like all the other players at the table. This has nothing to do with anyone's rights, and all to do with personal and party agendas, gaining status and garnering votes. The Elections officials, with the original knee jerk reaction to the parties demands, and later reversal when confronted with law abiding citizens insisting on maintaining the status quo of no special treatment, are simply a catalyst.

*"She said the current Quebec environment is “very hostile” toward veiled Muslim women."*

"(Farhat Mirza, 25, vice-president of the Council for the Advancement of Muslim Professionals in Montreal, posed with her niqab yesterday. *Farhat, who normally only wears the niqab for religious activities, says she plans to wear it more in the future*.)"

Pretty well sums it up, if you ask me. Controversy, not conviction is the reasoning.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (25 Mar 2007)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> One example is a last summer when Israel was putting the boots to the Hezbollah, there was a rally in Toronto where people were screaming "death to the jews...". The individual screaming this out was slightly darker tone than a white person and appeared to be muslim (guessing by the clothing).
> 
> Imagine a white, catholic kid saying that?



Umm,..............yes, as a matter of fact, I do.
http://nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm


----------



## geo (25 Mar 2007)

Hey my blinkers are working just fine.

Parallel societies in Canada?  Uhhh.... where did you get that? 
Aren't we the country that offers them the Freedom of speach & expression?
The right to practice their faith in peace?

-  this whole story blew up when christian (probably catholics) (definitively french) contacted the director of elections and told them that muslim women were going to vote with their scarves over their face AND was that all right with him?  because, if the ladies could do it, they were planning to wear balaclavas & masks themselves AND was that all right with him?

.... With respect to Hitler and his occupation of the Rhineland???
Hitler never occupied the Rhineland - it was always part of Germany.... methinks you are refering to the Sudetenland

http://sudetengermans.freeyellow.com/HISTORY.html

my history is doing pretty good... how'se yours?

(PS - nothing personal either CHIMO!)


----------



## time expired (25 Mar 2007)

GEO
    In March 1936 Hitler ordered his troops into the Rhineland and REOCCUPIED this part of this the
most industrialised area of Germany This part of Germany had been demilitarized by the allies under
terms laid out in the Versailles Treaty,this was placed under the control of the French who being 
the French proceeded to take every economic advantage as possible from the situation.The French
withdrew their forces in 1930 and the area remained a demilitarized area until Hitler moved in,in
defiance of the Versailles Treaty.This was his first test of the resolve of the western allies and it was 
found wanting and led his futher aggressive moves, the results we all know.
   As for parallel societies,I can only say there are non so blind as those who will not see.
                                   Regards


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (25 Mar 2007)

I remember being a scrutineer during a federal election DT Toronto.  Veiled Muslims aren't allowed to show themselves to men. Simple solution, have the female clerk check the identification.  I thought this was just how it was done; take them to the side and have a female employee check.   Easily done,  shows respect for the her choices and allowes for certainty. Besides,  if memory serves I was basically the only guy there for 90% of the day.

The issue I had a problem with was how husbands were allowed behind the screens with their wives.  Why not just stop the pretense and give the husband two ballots?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (25 Mar 2007)

Zell_Dietrich said:
			
		

> The issue I had a problem with was how husbands were allowed behind the screens with their wives.  Why not just stop the pretense and give the husband two ballots?


Wow,
and if I went with my wife to vote at the same time would you say the same thing?


----------



## Sassy (25 Mar 2007)

The Librarian said:
			
		

> Good point Geo.
> 
> It's funny that many here are presuming that the vast majority of Muslim women are forced to wear their headscarves, veils etc while here in Canada. Usually though, that is not the case, it is a choice they make based upon the depth of their religious faith.
> 
> ...



Your opinion only.  you do  not decide for me when I'm right or wrong.  

I'v known and worked with Muslim woman and not all choose to wear the veil but are bullied into wearing one by their family and husbands.  It's not fair to Muslim women and children to deny the ugly aspects of Islam, those whom immigrate here hoping for a better life only to find out they are forced to endure the less desirable aspects of Muslim/Hindu cultural laws because the socialist's agenda of "Absolute Tolerance or else" shuts down any negative dialog lest we offend.  The socialist's ethos does offend me because hiding behind PCness kills women every year because of the socialists' attitude of "lest we offend".   I've worked in women's shelters where women from all walks of life including Muslim women scared to death they flee after years of being beaten and it's gotten worse since September 11 for Muslim women.  Radicals Islam is blossoming in Canada and that includes forcing woman to wear burkas and become a Muslim wife version 1805 . Socialists run around pontificating blah blah, Islam is peaceful, well I beg to differ. The socialist agenda of WE speak for the oppressed and abused is utter gut rot, the Hindu community went public about rampart spousal abuse in their community and if we are to protect female immigrants we need to stop denying that certain religions visa vie culture deny equaility and abuse woman.  I have no issue with those who choose to wear the veil, I loathe the burka and all that it stands for but I repect a woman's right to make that choice herself but for those women that are forced to live under Shariah Law in Canada I want a voice to speak for them because they live in fear.  All aspects of Canadian society hide spousal abuse, but how bad is it in communities that are enclaves of Islam?  I can  only imagine the horror some immigrants are forced to live with, "Lest we offend" the socialist cry babies.  Rant over.


----------



## observor 69 (25 Mar 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> You're right...
> 
> But "we" are the ones who have created the tempest in the teapot..and
> they, the veiled ladies are the ones who are left with the unpleasant possibility of being harrassed from here to kingdom come



Actually  Geo....I was trying in my poor french way to simply point out that you are using the new Digital service of the Montreal Gazette while I still use the old .com link.   Sorry I didn't make that clear.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (25 Mar 2007)

Sassy said:
			
		

> All aspects of Canadian society hide spousal abuse,



and you can take a long hard bite of my @#%.  A pathetic remark.....


----------



## geo (25 Mar 2007)

+1 Bruce.

Christianity should not be the ones to cast the 1st stone about anything.
- Christians have been intolerant
- Christians have forced women to do this or that
- Christians have forced women into arranged marriages
yada, yada, yada.....

a pot calling the kettle black.


----------



## ArmyRick (25 Mar 2007)

Sorry men, I agree with Sassy. Where do you guys live? How many muslims do you know? I know lots. I also know they do differ depending on where they are from (the guys i know from Turkey for example are very liberal muslims that practice very few of the cultures where as i have met Iranians who fully supported the stoning death of unmarried women giving birth).

Geo and Bruce, i disagree with you on this issue.

Bruce, how about an apology to sassy, she formulated a good, strong argument and you tell her to bite your arse? Not very DS of you. I have seen you clamp down on members for lesser remarks. NOT VERY IMPRESSED!


----------



## Jarnhamar (25 Mar 2007)

> > Quote
> > Elections Canada said Muslim women will be allowed to wear the niqab, which leaves only a woman's eyes visible, if they sign a sworn statement attesting to their identity, show two pieces of identification and are accompanied by someone who can vouch for their identity.
> 
> 
> ...



Couldn't agree more recceguy.

What stupidity.

You know what, making them sign a piece of paper is probably against some kinda "right" of theirs here in Canada.  Lets just make them promise .  Maybe I'll show up in a sk mask with my drivers licence and promise it's me.  
Way to go Canada


Great remarks from Sassy too.


----------



## ArmyRick (25 Mar 2007)

One more for you, Bruce. When I asked earlier about imagine a catholic kid making anti-semitic remarks, I was refering to modern times here and now. We all know that Hitler is one of, if not, the most evil person to exist.

Now again, here in 2007, in Toronto, imagine a white catholic kid waving an irish or german flag and screaming "death to the jews". YOU KNOW exactly how it would turn out.

How come the kids driving around last summer waving Hezbollah flags were not charged with a hate crime when they screamed theri racist remarks? We have to draw line, we are a TOLERANT people but I don't know when that means we allow oppressive behaviour of any kind. Culture or not.

Maybe you would remember the Kenyan woman being stoned to death for having a child unmarried?

How about stoning men to death for adultrey? 

Nope, certain aspects of any culture that are cruel I do not support.

Don't get me wrong, Christian crusades of a 1,000 years ago where they slaughtered entire villages of muslims was just as evil and unaccetable. Take note that the Christians are not doing that in this day and age.

Everybody can chage for the better. And they should.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (25 Mar 2007)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> Sorry men, I agree with Sassy. Where do you guys live? How many muslims do you know? I know lots. I also know they do differ depending on where they are from (the guys i know from Turkey for example are very liberal muslims that practice very few of the cultures where as i have met Iranians who fully supported the stoning death of unmarried women giving birth).
> 
> Geo and Bruce, i disagree with you on this issue.
> 
> Bruce, how about an apology to sassy, she formulated a good, strong argument and you tell her to bite your arse? Not very DS of you. I have seen you clamp down on members for lesser remarks. NOT VERY IMPRESSED!


Telling me I [All aspects] might be complacent in any way shape or form of hiding spousal abuse?? I certainly will not and IMO she owes a VERY LARGE segment of Canadian people an apology.

....and I live and work in Southern Ontario, you know, where some people seem to think they are" taking over our institutions".


Sorry children, I'm as "right-wing" as they come but I refuse to hate an individual for some of the shortcomings of the larger groups. I most wholeheartedly agree that they must  be able to identify themselves positivity, BUT, the problem is not with them asking, its that the answer wasn't "NO" right off the bat and then this whole them/us whinefest never would have happened.

None of this is the fault of those who would ask.......


And for the Christians not killing right now?? Phfft........


----------



## proudnurse (25 Mar 2007)

Sassy said:
			
		

> All aspects of Canadian society hide spousal abuse,



Hmmm... I know that I am already quoting the same thing, but this has caught my eye also. Sassy, in reading your post I read that you stated you have worked in a Womens Shelter. So, since there are such things as shelters, how does the statement "all aspects of canadian society" hide abuse make much sence? In working in a shelter, I am sure that you are well aware, of the many programs and support available to women and their children through any shelter. And as well, the several donations of food and clothing that come in quite regularily from outside sources. I don't think that we are "hiding" this at all, I tend to think that we are becoming more aware. 

~Rebecca 

Edited to add: There was something else I am pondering a bit. I truly do not feel it is a fair generalization to say that the women are "bullied" into wearing a Burka. From my own experience in meeting a Muslim woman that I went to school with, the Burka was her personal choice and she wore it with a pride of her own. Honestly, there are many women in our society, from different Religions, backgrounds and walks of life that are "controlled" or "bullied" by thier own partners in many different ways. There are too many examples to be written. And I am not thinking of a Burka when I sit here and think of the many examples.


----------



## eerickso (25 Mar 2007)

It is irrelevant whether moslem women choose to wear the burqa or not. To me, this issue is very simple, in my culture (Canadian culture), people expose their faces when communicating to other people. If you are unwilling to participate in Canadian society, go back to your country of origin. 

I hope that Canadians eventually realize they have the right to determine their future. Finally, Europe is starting to realize this.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (25 Mar 2007)

So if my wife decides to wear one she must go back to........Canada??.........and if I approve I must go back to...Canada??...................easy there blackshirt.


----------



## eerickso (25 Mar 2007)

blackshirt :rofl:  I am sure my grandfather and uncle would love to hear that!


----------



## vonGarvin (25 Mar 2007)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> The GTA is home to one of the largest, and growing, population of immigrants in Canada. It is a strain on communities to absorb such large concentrated numbers as they adapt to Canadian values and culture.
> 
> The GTA is also home to the counter-terrorism investigation that led to the arrests of 17 people accused of plotting bombings of Toronto targets.


Two events that occur close in proximity are not necessarily related.


----------



## stukirkpatrick (25 Mar 2007)

> It is irrelevant whether moslem women choose to wear the burqa or not. To me, this issue is very simple, in my culture (Canadian culture), people expose their faces when communicating to other people. If you are unwilling to participate in Canadian society, go back to your country of origin.



Thats a pretty extreme generalization.  Just because somebody dresses in a different manner than you does not mean that they are an immigrant.  If you go back far enough, we all come from a different region of origin!  

You should take a closer look at Canadian culture.  
A significant means of communication is in fact not face-to-face.  Welcome to the internet.


----------



## vonGarvin (25 Mar 2007)

I think that given this thread has gone "reductio ad Hitlerum", it's time to lock it up as the original intent of the topic is long past and now being discussed are such things as to whether or not moslems should wear certain articles of clothing, especially since non-moslems are trying to put forth their opinions as to what moslems should or should not wear.


----------



## Jarnhamar (25 Mar 2007)

> especially since non-moslems are trying to put forth their opinions as to what moslems should or should not wear.



In general they can wear whatever they want.
When they vote in Canada they should be required to provide photo id AND prove visually that it is infact them.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (25 Mar 2007)

...and that is in fact what happened. They met the same criteria as everyone else as they should have, I guess they will have to find another way to rule "My Canada". :

Locked,...............if you have something new and worthwhile to add, contact a Moderator.


----------



## HavokFour (13 Oct 2010)

*Wearing of Muslim veil to be decided on case-by-case basis: Ontario court*​


> TORONTO — The Ontario Court of Appeal has declined to decide whether or not a woman can wear a niqab while testifying in court.
> 
> Instead, the three-judge panel set out guidelines for lower courts to follow on a case-by-case basis in balancing religious freedoms against the defendant's right to a fair trial when a witness wants to wear a Muslim veil.
> 
> "The wearing of a niqab in public places is controversial in many countries including Canada," wrote Justice David Doherty. "The controversy raises important public policy concerns that have generated heated debate. Those difficult and important questions are not the focus of this proceeding and cannot and should not be resolved in this forum," wrote Doherty in a decision released Wednesday morning.



Read more...


----------



## Ignatius J. Reilly (13 Oct 2010)

An interesting development.

From the same article linked to above:


> The Court of Appeal stressed that any inquiry into religious beliefs must be limited to whether it is "sincerely held" by the witness. "The court will not enter into theological debates," wrote Doherty.
> 
> If the beliefs are found to be sincere, a judge must then determine if wearing the niqab will violate the fair trial rights of the defendant, including the right to see the face of an accuser in court.
> 
> ...



I assume that one cannot wear a niqab for a driver's license photo?


----------



## ModlrMike (13 Oct 2010)

I have to disagree with the court. The right to confront one's accuser is not malleable. 

There is also a countervailing principle in that we need to make sure that any defendant is the correctly accused. One would hope that "religious" garb would not impede the police or Crown in the exercise of their office, nor contribute to the perversion of justice.

After all, "they who walk among us" have no ethical dilemmae in concealing their identities with a burqua or naquib.


----------



## krustyrl (13 Oct 2010)

Maybe it's "my belief" in MY country that both accused AND victim have their identity in full view in a case like this.           :2c:


----------



## canada94 (23 Oct 2010)

Here's my view on this specific ruling;

The specific trial that sparked the debate on the Veil lead to these ruling's, and the final ruling states "If wearing the veil effects the course of the case it must be taken off". 

So lets pretend this was already LAW, she would have had to take it off regardless because it effects the case!?

This ruling/ court was a total waste of money and time. Church and State are two different things. Wearing the veil is also not MANDATORY in Islamic law, it is a choice to wear or not to wear. 

Mike


----------



## The Bread Guy (20 Dec 2012)

Bump with the latest from The Supremes (links to Canadian Press story):


> The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that a witness can — in certain circumstances — wear a religious veil known as a niqab while testifying in court.
> 
> In a split decision, the court affirmed both an accused person’s right to a fair trial and the right to religious freedom.
> 
> ...



SCOC decision in _R. v. N.S., 2012 SCC 72 _ attached


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Dec 2012)

Prof Emmett Macfarlane of of the University of Waterloo, a scholar who specializes in the Supreme Court of Canada, has written an _instant analysis_ of this decision - focusing on why it's probably not the last word - in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from _Maclean's_:

http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/12/20/supreme-court-splits-in-messy-decision-on-face-veils/


> Supreme Court splits in messy decision on face veils
> *Balancing rules are akin to parking a tank on one side of a seesaw, writes Emmett Macfarlane*
> 
> by Emmett Macfarlane on Thursday, December 20, 2012
> ...




I think that Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin did about as well as anyone could expect in finding some sort of compromise between Arbella and LeBel; my *guess* is that most witnesses of any substance in most criminal trials will be required to remover their veils and testify, albeit usually in greater than normal _privacy_ (which will mean little to a truly devout person). While I accept Macfarlane's argument about veils vs. say facial paralysis, deformity, etc, I agree with LeBel _et al_ that the assumption that seeing a facial expression is necessary to fairness trumps, in all cases, religious restrictions.


----------



## George Wallace (20 Dec 2012)

To me, it seems to allow the wearing of the niqab and veils will create the problem where the person is not 'truly' identified, whether they are a witness or defendant.  Anyone could be under those coverings, not necessarily the person as identified to the court.  It is/becomes a masquerade.  Who really is under that cloth?


----------



## Strike (20 Dec 2012)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> To me, it seems to allow the wearing of the niqab and veils will create the problem where the person is not 'truly' identified, whether they are a witness or defendant.  Anyone could be under those coverings, not necessarily the person as identified to the court.  It is/becomes a masquerade.  Who really is under that cloth?



George, it would be a matter of a female staff member checking the person against their ID prior to testifying.  It's the person being veiled while testifying that is the problem.


----------



## jollyjacktar (20 Dec 2012)

The veil is a cultural thing not a religious requirement.


----------



## brihard (20 Dec 2012)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> The veil is a cultural thing not a religious requirement.



You will get zero mileage with that argument. the court has decided that it is not in a position to adjudicate on what is and what is not a legitimate religious requirement. That is ultra vires the jurisdiction of a court of _law_. It is sufficient that a person of religious faith proclaims the earnest belief that something is a religious requirement in order for it to be considered to be so. Besides, that is all that is necessary to determine the _effect_ on the person in question of being forced to balance their earnestly believed religious requirement against the desire to pursue justice formally.

Historically there has seldom been much success when secular authorities try to tell people that they are wrong about what their religion does and does not require. In a case like this one must look at comaprative harms; the harm of a witness' face not beign visible against the harm of people of a certain faith feeling that they cannot come forward with allegations that will require their testimony. At the end of the day this will simply play into whether there is or is not any 'reasonable doubt' upon which a judge or jury must acquit. I'd rather the case come to court in the first place, and then the issue of the credibility of the witness be dealt with. The odds are stacked against sexual assault victims enough as is.


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Dec 2012)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> The veil is a cultural thing not a religious requirement.




That's true enough, as far as I have been told by people who should know, but if a person truly believes that something is "ordained by god himself (or herself) then who is a judge to argue?


----------



## jollyjacktar (20 Dec 2012)

Brihard said:
			
		

> You will get zero mileage with that argument. the court has decided that it is not in a position to adjudicate on what is and what is not a legitimate religious requirement.



It's not an argument.  It's a fact, plain and simple.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (20 Dec 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> That's true enough, as far as I have been told by people who should know, but if a person truly believes that something is "ordained by god himself (or herself) then who is a judge to argue?



Google Wally Tucker and the Church Of The Universe. ;D


----------



## brihard (20 Dec 2012)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> It's not an argument.  It's a fact, plain and simple.



Religions are by their very nature self defining. You can _argue_ it til you're blue in the face, but it is in accordance neither with the decisions of our courts on the matter - drawing from better experts than you or I - nor the practitioners of the religions themselves. Let's not pretend that scripture is the sole authority for religious norms; they have their 'case law' too coming from their own respective clerics within their chosen sects.

More to the point was the latter part of my post- that what you or I _believe_ regarding religious requirements is immaterial compared with that the practitioners of that religion _believe_ to be the case. It is _their_ belief and the impact of judicial policy thereon that will determine the efficacy of our criminal justice system in addressing the needs of any given religious community who may find their religious tenets coming into conflict with what have in the past been unquestioned norms in our justice system.

If a woman is raped, and beleived that she must wear the Niqab, and because of this does not feel that she can testify in court, and consequently the rapist is not brought to justice, that is a fundamental problem that goes well deeper than how you or I may choose from the outside looking in to determine what a particular religion does or does not mandate.


----------



## George Wallace (20 Dec 2012)

Strike said:
			
		

> George, it would be a matter of a female staff member checking the person against their ID prior to testifying.  It's the person being veiled while testifying that is the problem.



How about the right of the defendant, or any other member of the court or involved in the court proceedings, being able to positively identify the person under the 'disguise' ( disguise; as they are masked from identification)?

This is once again a problem that has arisen in the past in a wide range of areas such as Drivers Licences, airline security, etc.


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 Nov 2015)

This just out:  the feds are dropping this case ....


> The Honourable John McCallum, Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, and the Honourable Jody Wilson-Raybould, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada today issued the following statement:
> 
> “On November 16, 2015, the Attorney General of Canada notified the Supreme Court of Canada that it has discontinued its application for leave to appeal in the case of Minister of Citizenship and Immigration v. Ishaq. The Federal Court of Canada found that the policy requiring women who wear the niqab to unveil themselves to take the Oath of Citizenship is unlawful on administrative law grounds, and the Federal Court of Appeal upheld this ruling. The government respects the decision of both courts and will not seek further appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.
> 
> “Canada’s diversity is among its greatest strengths, and today we have ensured that successful citizenship candidates continue to be included in the Canadian family. We are a strong and united country because of, not in spite of, our differences.”


More here via Google News.

Maybe we'll soon here about dropping _this _court challenge soon, too, no?   op:


----------



## George Wallace (16 Nov 2015)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> This just out:  the feds are dropping this case ....More here via Google News.
> 
> Maybe we'll soon here about dropping _this _court challenge soon, too, no?   op:



So?  What are your impressions of this?



> Fatima Elomar: Wife of IS terrorist Mohamed Elomar pleads guilty
> November 16, 2015 2:15am
> Sarah Crawford and Matt BamfordThe Daily Telegraph
> 
> ...



In the news video, Fatima Elomar is seen exiting the court in a full burka.  I am sure that that visual effect will have quite an affect on the opinions of many who watch it.

LINK.

The video has the reporter stating that she recieved a five year prison sentence.


----------

