otherwise Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 I do worry that harper is creating fear of all muslims with a lot of the bs he and the rest of his party spout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thejazz97 Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 I don't want to get into this whole debate about Trudeau vs Harper. However I have to say the article seems to twist Harper's comments about face covering at citizenship ceremonies. I also think it's unnecessary. At that point your Canadian now and you don't need to be subjected to a bunch of barbaric muslim rules that take away the rights of women. Women shouldn't be covering their faces here, I don't really care that it's a religious thing because it's a religious thing that was only designed to take away women's rights. That's unfortunate that even in a free country women are still putting up with that crap. Wouldn't it be taking away their rights to take away their freedom to cover up or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugor Hill Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Radical Conservatives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuktravella Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 And your solution is what exactly again? more Harper? Hell I'd give May or Mulcair a shot before either Trudeau or Harper but sadly too many canadians these days believe the crap they see on TV and American style attack ads are here to stay and these ads will label the Greens and the NDP as poor choices carbon taxers greenies leftists union lovers or any number of things just to keep or sway a vote from the mindless uneducated masses that populate this country. The biggest threat to our country right now isn't Harpers belief in some roaming band of terrorists in a desert a world away...it's voter apathy i like mulcair he seems reasonable. harper and trudeau should be set out to sea and sunk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuktravella Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 You're shooting from the hip.??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heretic Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 In a matter of hours the Cons will no doubt label Trudeau as a terrorist sympathizer the same way they did Mulcair and the NDP for openly supporting the Palestinian people and a 2 state solution. Remember, if you're not with us (Conservatives) You're with the Pedophiles, terrorists, enviornmentalists and basically anyone else they deem a threat to their party. And THAT is the core of todays current right wing values. everything truly Conservative about the party went away the second that bumbling idiot sold the party to MacKay and harper C-51 in your face Trudeau!!!!!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
etsen3 Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 I don't want to get into this whole debate about Trudeau vs Harper. However I have to say the article seems to twist Harper's comments about face covering at citizenship ceremonies. I also think it's unnecessary. At that point your Canadian now and you don't need to be subjected to a bunch of barbaric muslim rules that take away the rights of women. Women shouldn't be covering their faces here, I don't really care that it's a religious thing because it's a religious thing that was only designed to take away women's rights. That's unfortunate that even in a free country women are still putting up with that crap. On the other hand, Canada is a free country, women (and men/children/etc.) are allowed to wear whatever they want. If they're being pressured into wearing face coverings against their will, that's obviously wrong. But what if they genuinely believe it's the right thing to do? You can't take that away from them either. I do think it's backwards, but people are allowed to behave in backwards ways if they choose to. Now there are situation where identifying a person by face is needed, but for everyday wear, it should be fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GLASSJAW Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 true but hell no to trudeau unless you like hipsters running their country into the ground AVATAR MAKES POST Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonLever Posted March 10, 2015 Author Share Posted March 10, 2015 Removing the Niqabs seem reasonable because the face is hidden and how do you know that is the person being swore in without removing it? Also, what happens when you get your driver licence or passport? Don't you have to show your face? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FramingDragon Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 I don't want to get into this whole debate about Trudeau vs Harper. However I have to say the article seems to twist Harper's comments about face covering at citizenship ceremonies. I also think it's unnecessary. At that point your Canadian now and you don't need to be subjected to a bunch of barbaric muslim rules that take away the rights of women. Women shouldn't be covering their faces here, I don't really care that it's a religious thing because it's a religious thing that was only designed to take away women's rights. That's unfortunate that even in a free country women are still putting up with that crap. Harper is definitely a pos... but niqabs have no place in Canada, or any society for that matter.. even a lot of muslim clerics condemn it... and it only exist in a few extremely conservative countries like Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan etc... If you want to go out in public and function as a human, then the public should have a right to see your face (and identity) You cant go to a bank wearing a balaclava can youÉ... theres a point where common sense should prevail over backwards traditions... I Personally have no problems with any other religious symbols.... but Niqabs take it too far. Most niqab wearers and clerics who condone niqab wearing accept that for security verification, it is a valid reason to momentarily take off the niqab to confirm identity. re: the rest of the content in these posts, the cognitive dissonance is stunning. "Look at these poor women from the backwards culture where what they wear is heavily policed. Let's police it even further by taking away the freedom they have here" go back to your caves/rectum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronalds.Kenins41 Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 It doesn't really matter who gets in power, the effect will be the same. Don't waste your time worrying about this stuff, unless you can change it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeefcakeBo Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 This is exactly why this crap gets so skewed. Nowhere in my original post did I say that anyone should not have the right to wear what they want. I'm just pointing out that it's unfortunate that women are still wearing something so backwards here. If they want to wear it that's fine, but I'm saying the Canadian culture is to exercise that freedom, not use it to go back to the stone age. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salmonberries Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Harper will be re-elected with around twenty percent of the popular vote. The current system is a curse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drummer4now Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 This is exactly why this crap gets so skewed. Nowhere in my original post did I say that anyone should not have the right to wear what they want. I'm just pointing out that it's unfortunate that women are still wearing something so backwards here. If they want to wear it that's fine, but I'm saying the Canadian culture is to exercise that freedom, not use it to go back to the stone age. That's your opinion... I guess not everyone wants to be whitewashed.. I wouldn't expect someone from Canada downing a turban or beard if they moved or lived somewhere abroad where those customs are the norm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salmonberries Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 It doesn't really matter who gets in power, the effect will be the same. Don't waste your time worrying about this stuff, unless you can change it. Jean Chretien did keep us out of Iraq. That took courage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeefcakeBo Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 That's your opinion... I guess not everyone wants to be whitewashed.. I wouldn't expect someone from Canada downing a turban or beard if they moved or lived somewhere abroad where those customs are the norm. Most Muslim countries expect women to cover up though, even if they aren't Muslim. I'm not arguing against religious rights or traditions here. Certainly not white washing anything, it's just that the root of why Muslim women cover their faces because of some sexist garbage that's been around for centuries. We should be promoting equal rights, and Muslim women covering up in a free country is a step back in my opinion. I'm not going to stop them from wearing it but I'm not afraid to call it what it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackberries Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Most Muslim countries expect women to cover up though, even if they aren't Muslim. I'm not arguing against religious rights or traditions here. Certainly not white washing anything, it's just that the root of why Muslim women cover their faces because of some sexist garbage that's been around for centuries. We should be promoting equal rights, and Muslim women covering up in a free country is a step back in my opinion. I'm not going to stop them from wearing it but I'm not afraid to call it what it is. The problem is if you ban the Hijab where does it end? Gotta ban Turbans and Yamakas too then. So much for First Nations headdresses. If its part of religious practice its guranteed under the charter and rightfully so. And im saying this as a woman. I think its brutal that they have to wear it, but its not my religion and I dont think I have a right to decide that for others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonLever Posted March 10, 2015 Author Share Posted March 10, 2015 The big difference is Turbans and Yamakas don't cover your face. How can you identify someone when their face is covered? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FramingDragon Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 The big difference is Turbans and Yamakas don't cover your face. How can you identify someone when their face is covered? Every niqabi I know (and I know more than a dozen living here), has their face fully visible in their government IDs. They have no qualms lifting the veil to be identified for security reasons. It's the assumption by everyone else that this step isn't taken that drives all this needless fear and paranoia. It's clear in this thread alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddhas Hand Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Same lot of BS over here in Aus 6 months ago. Our wannabe jesuit priest PM tony abbott finds the Burqa confronting and wanted it banned in "secure" building's. Prime Minister Tony Abbott reveals he wishes the burka 'was not worn' in Australia By political correspondent Emma Griffiths Updated 2 Oct 2014, 1:23am Prime Minister Tony Abbott says he wishes the burka "was not worn" in Australia, and has indicated he may support calls to ban the Islamic head-covering from being worn by visitors to Parliament House. Coalition backbenchers Cory Bernardi and George Christensen have said they believe the burka should be removed at security checkpoints coming into the building. Speaker of the House Bronwyn Bishop and Senate President Stephen Parry are seeking advice from security agencies but are yet to make a decision. Mr Abbott said Parliament House had to be treated as a secure building. "It is perfectly appropriate that in certain circumstances people be required to show their face. There can't be one rule for one form of attire and a different rule for another form of attire," he said. "It has to be the same rules for everyone and if the rules require you to show your face, well, you show your face. Burkas, niqabs and hijabs Islamic studies lecturer Raihan Ismail answers some common questions about Muslim veils. "This is a secure building and it is important that people be able to be identified, it is important that people be able to be recognised as the people for whom a pass has been issued." But he cautioned against inflating the issue. "Has anyone ever sought entry to this building so attired? As far as I am aware, no," he said. "And making a big song and dance about a hypothetical I am not sure is particularly helpful. "But I just want to stress that this is a secure building and it should be governed by the rules that are appropriate for a secure building and obviously people need to be identifiable in a secure building such as this." Attorney-General George Brandis said it was "none of his business" if people wore the burka but added there may be times when it should be removed. "There may be particular circumstances in which people should be required to reveal their identity and those rules should apply equally to everyone regardless of what garment they may be wearing that might conceal their identity," he told the National Press Club. Opposition Leader Bill Shorten said Mr Abbott should have kept his personal views about the burka to himself. Mr Shorten told the ABC's Lateline program the comments were disappointing. "I wish he had just stuck to saying people are free to make those choices. I don't think he should have taken that next step and editorialised his own opinion," Mr Shorten said. "When you're the leader of the nation, everyone listens to what you say and I wish he had just defended the right of people to practise their religion." A broader call for the burka to be banned in public, led by Palmer United Party Senator Jacqui Lambie and also supported by Senator Bernardi and Mr Christensen, appears not to have won the Prime Minister's support. "I have said before that I find it a fairly confronting form of attire," he said. "Frankly, I wish it was not worn. But we are a free country, we are a free society and it is not the business of Government to tell people what they should and shouldn't wear." Maha Abdo, from the Sydney-based Muslim Women's Association, said Mr Abbott's comments were offensive and ignorant. She said most Muslim women in Australia who wore a headcovering wore the niqab - which covers the face but not the eyes. The burka is a full body covering, with a mesh slot to cover the eyes. "He says that he is clearly offended by the niqab, or by the burqa that he calls it, and yet he comes up and says you know, we live in a free society and everyone can choose what to wear and what not to wear, his comment was clearly adding more fuel to the fire that is existing," she said. Newly-appointed Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police Andrew Colvin, whose appointment was announced by Mr Abbott on Wednesday morning, said it was not appropriate for him to comment on the speculation. "Policing in this country is done without fear or favour in all circumstances," he said. In Parliament, MPs passed the Government's first round of counter-terror laws, including a measure that would jail anyone who disclosed intelligence information for up to 10 years. The Idiots have really taken over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.