Hot Button topic AGAIN .

[tniuqs]

Are these the images of equality, acceptance OR oppression of Women ?

This is a the image of the man I support .

Edited December 13, 2011 by tniuqs

[craig]

***YAWN*** ho hum......must be time for your long winter sleep.........

[chbare]

A certain amount of cultural relativism is needed when examining these issues IMHO. Anthropology 101 and all that.

[Just Plain Ruff]

***YAWN*** ho hum......must be time for your long winter sleep.........

Do you ever have anything constructive to say?

[tniuqs]

A certain amount of cultural relativism is needed when examining these issues IMHO. Anthropology 101 and all that.

chbare: I do not understand your comment as I have never taken an anthropology course. What I am trying to say before the troll baited me is that this multiculturalism experiment is not only going to fail but will cause bloodshed, many second and third generation folks that I deal with daily are just fed up.

My children are so indoctrinated by the school system here now to "tolerate" every other group and bow down to everyone else's "religion" or "cultural beliefs" they have lost their own identity.

The racial gangs that hang together are not respected they are feared with over 28 identifiable gangs in Edmonton Alberta where they live. They literally get away with murder and mental terrorism, the Somalis, the Lebanese especially predominant, oddly enough from primarily Muslim cultures.

The "inequalities" as we observed in many countries that cause civil war's and attempts at genocide. I believe all can be directly attributed to these stupid books that some follow so blindly and are throwbacks to thousands of years ago. Do you actually believe that Man has climbed up the evolutionary rungs of the ladder high enough for this social experiment to work ?

Then when my political leaders actually stand up to this "group" they throw our beliefs of tolerance and open armed welcome in our faces .. no pun intended.

The best situational ironic event is that Craig (my OZ mate) well his government and military drove off a ship of known affiliation with the Tamil Tigers just guess where that ship showed up yes Vancouver British Columbia the welcoming committee cost 5 million dollars and check these link's.

Canada is very rapidly becoming a haven for terrorist groups to operate with impunity, and we cant tell if its a man or a women under those garments .

http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2011/03/09/17556886.html

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2009/11/03/bc-tamil-migrants-gunaratna.html

[flamingemt2011]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms

It appears to me that you are infringing on this woman's religious rights. She is a believer in one of the largest religions in the world, and it is known that they are required to wear a mask in public. You may disagree with it, but all religions have something that you don't agree with. Do you think people should handle snakes or talk in tongues ?

I can not speak for Canada, but just because your founders set-up your country in a particular way hundreds of years ago does not make it RIGHT ! The founders of the US thought slavery and not allowing women to vote was a good thing. And many white rednecks were enraged when blacks demanded that things be changed almost 200 years after our founding.

Muslims are just asserting their rights, and you should honor those rights. This woman covering her face does not harm you in any way.

[Richard B the EMT]

"We are the Borg. Existence, as you know it, is over. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Resistance is futile."

[systemet]

Canada is a great country. One of the things that has made it such an amazing place, is how it's been able to integrate people from hundreds of other cultures without forcing them to give up their identity. As tniuqs correctly points out, it's possible to be both Canadian and Scottish, identify with both cultures, and yet not be considered less of a Canadian for doing so. I see no reason why this shouldn't be the same for a Somali Canadian.

I find it helpful in these situations to look at the cost of changing or prohibiting a given practice, and the benefit. With the first situation being discussed, the argument is put forward that allowing a woman to cover her face for religious reasons during a citzenship oath implies support for female subjugation and exploitation. The proposed benefit of this legislation is that Canada will reaffirm it's support for women's rights. The cost, is that an observant Muslim women who wears a niqab or burka will be forced to choose between becoming a citzen, or following her religious traditions. A choice that may not be her's to make, if indeed, she is being oppressed by her community (*not that all women following this practice are doing so unwillingly, but sure, some are).

To me, this contravenes Canada's long held values of multiculturalism and pluralism. It implies that one must choose between their religious faith and being a citizen. It says that Canada is a place for everyone, except burka/niqab wearing observant Muslims. To me the cost of this decision to our society is too high for the perceived benefit, which is intangible at best. Our laws protect women's rights, they're reaffirmed every day in a hundred different ways, and allowing someone to take a citizenship oath with their face covered, seems a minor issue.

There are other situations where the niqab / burka decision becomes more difficult. These include passport identification, preservation of banking information, welfare fraud, and airport security. I can understand arguments on both sides in these situations. But for an oath of citizenship? I disagree very strongly with this. If indeed some Muslim women are being forced to wear full face coverings against their will, perhaps the best thing we can do is ensure that they are protected as Canadian citizens, that their children are protected, and they are given the benefit of time to adjust to a new culture and a welcome to a vibrant multiethnic society.

Any discussion of this topic would not be complete without a brief note that the Islamic faith includes some 1.5 billion people, or about a quarter of our planet. A very small proportion of these people are actively engaged in religious war. A very small proportion of these people perpetuated terrorist attacks. Most Muslims are not that different from most Christians or most Hindus, or most Jews, in terms of religious tolerance, and part of mainstream Muslim orthodoxy is the idea that Jews, Christians and Muslims are all "people of the book", and that they are honor bound to respect the traditions of others. The practice of full-facial covering, or of female circumcision is peculiar to a number of small, isolated, and largely backward countries in Northern Africa, and is practiced by a tiny minority. Most of the larger Muslim community does not engage in these behaviours.

I apologise if I offend anyone with these comments, but I feel very strongly about these issues.

With the RCMP, I'm a little less personally volatile. My understanding is that the precedent for the decision to create a "uniform" turban for Sikhs was set in England some time ago. The police force was having difficulty operating in neighbourhoods with a large Sikh population. They were perceived as outsiders by the community, who were reluctant to report crimes or cooperate with ongoing investigations. The police force noted a lack of Sikh officers, and identifying their religious requirements and the uniform design as a stumbling block to recruitment. The introduction of a turban was not done simply to appease the left wing (although this is my opinion), but because there was a perceived value to the police force. I expect the same was the case for the RCMP, which for some years has had affirmative action, which should be far more controversial a policy than a minor redesign of the uniform. It might be worth remembering that the original RCMP uniform has been redesigned to it's current form to reflect the realities of modern policing. No one is suggesting that members should be wearing the Red Serge while doing their daily duties. Is enabling observant Sikhs to wear a uniform turban that different from moving away from a red cavalry jacket? Or is it just that some people have come to like the stereotype of a Mountie being a 6'2 250lb white farmboy?

http://news.rediff.com/report/2010/may/12/baltej-dhillon-rcmp-on-20-years-in-the-force.htm

Below an image of RCMP in daily working gear, for any non-Canadians:

http://www.landairsea.com/gps-tracking-blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/RCMP.jpg

[tniuqs]

http://en.wikipedia....ts_and_Freedoms

It appears to me that you are infringing on this woman's religious rights. She is a believer in one of the largest religions in the world, and it is known that they are required to wear a mask in public. You may disagree with it, but all religions have something that you don't agree with. Do you think people should handle snakes or talk in tongues ?

I can not speak for Canada, but just because your founders set-up your country in a particular way hundreds of years ago does not make it RIGHT ! The founders of the US thought slavery and not allowing women to vote was a good thing. And many white rednecks were enraged when blacks demanded that things be changed almost 200 years after our founding.

And of course there are no black rednecks, so what is right segregation through religion is acceptable, is it proper or respectful to say prayers in school of one minority but that group demanded the Lords Prayer to be removed from a 125 years of tradition.

Muslims are just asserting their rights, and you should honor those rights. This woman covering her face does not harm you in any way.

I guess you missed the oppression part of women are required to wear a mask in public and the fact that walking on board an aircraft or a bank or swearing an oath of allegiance to a country that is allowing them to become naturalized citizens is a bit in the face of equality for the rest of "We the Borg" or a matter of national security ...

Never been to a Muslim country have you now flaming, I just wonder what right's you would have as a self professed practicing homosexual I bet you have never stepped foot off the North American soil I wager.

By the way why don't you come to Canada if your so persecuted I would actually enjoy going to your wedding .. we do that here no problems.

cheers

Edited December 13, 2011 by tniuqs

[flamingemt2011]

Pentacostal women are forced to wear a skirt, Baptist are not supposed to dance or drink alcohol, Jews have to eat kosher, Catholics eat fish on friday, and many religions order you to abstain from food during Lent.  All religions have their rules.  The point is, this is her CHOICE !!!! It is her religion and it does not infringe your rights in any way.  

You may not understand or like her religion, but I imagine she feels the same way about yours.

And for the record, American women are the most abused group of women on the planet.  Think about it.P.S. Homosexualtiy is part of teenage passage for boys in India, but I imagine the Muslim religion does not approve, just like the Protestant religion, that seems to have so many closet homosexual preachers that get outed.

Edited December 13, 2011 by flamingemt2011