全ての 176 コメント

[–]AquaMoonlightAlberta 48 ポイント49 ポイント  (18子コメント)

Okay, I admit that I am impressed she turned the money down, and she is right, that money could be used for something more worthwhile.

[–]hc9 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Okay, I admit that I am impressed she turned the money down, and she is right, that money could be used for something more worthwhile.

LET'S GIVE THE MONEY TO THE POTATO SALAD GUY!

[–]AquaMoonlightAlberta 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

John Cena already has enough money.

[–]HardWorking4Pennys 17 ポイント18 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Since this is framed as a religious issue. Has a nun ever been ask to remove her head garment in court?

[–]WDMC-416 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (0子コメント)

great point. christian myself. have no issue with keeping a hijab, turban, yarmulke and the like in court. do have an issue with a niqāb though as too much of the face is hidden obstructing identification and non verbal communication.

[–]sdbestCanada 95 ポイント96 ポイント  (102子コメント)

It seems Canada's Muslim women, this person, in particular, and the one who challenged the niqab ban in court and won, are schooling Stephen Harper on what are real Canadian values and who are the real Canadians.

[–]ConservativeCanadian 40 ポイント41 ポイント  (21子コメント)

One thing you'll have to realize is that Harper is quite politically astute. There is no way in hell he'd put his support behind banning the Niqab in Citizenship Ceremonies if he wasn't certain that both his base and the swing voters supported that decision.

The fact remains, a very large number of people know the Niqab to be a tool of oppression, a symbol of ownership and has no place in a Citizenship ceremony.

[–]manwithfaceofbirdOntario 29 ポイント30 ポイント  (15子コメント)

I feel really torn on this issue. While I think they have the right to do what they want, I also feel disgust for everything the niqab and burqa represent.

[–]PLAAND 33 ポイント34 ポイント  (1子コメント)

The real challenge of democracy and free society is being able to live with the actions of others by which we're disgusted or offended. Does the Niqab represent a world view which at times I find appalling? Yes. Should we ban it? No, and no more than any country should make its use mandatory.

What is best remembered is that those heinous things that some people see represented in the Niqab and Burka are already illegal, that banning what is to some a symbol of those acts can only serve to impinge upon the rights of those women who choose to wear them as a symbol of individual faith and to further isolate and restrict those women who are coerced into wearing them.

If we believe that this worldview is truly a threat to the fabric of Canadian society then the goal of curtailing that worldview is better served through education and the creation and propagation of safe spaces where those women who wear the burka or niqab for reasons other than choice can be informed and made confident in their rights as Canadians.

[–]isarl -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Very well put. Hear, hear!

[–]smackie 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (4子コメント)

I don't presume to know your social circles. In my life I have found that spending time with Muslim women has completely changed my view on this. I can now also see the side of it that represents personal pride and strength of character (and beauty).

[–]manwithfaceofbirdOntario 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (2子コメント)

If you don't mind me asking, what were your initial views and what about spending time with muslim women changed them?

[–]smackie 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (1子コメント)

my initial views were that all muslim women must feel oppressed by covering up. What I've learned is that, like any cultural clothing tradition, there are forms of self-expression and empowerment that emerge through the practice for many people. I guess I used to feel a bit white-knight-ish about it, and now I feel like I need to just listen more in order to appreciate the kinds of power that many of muslim women do experience in their lives.

[–]manwithfaceofbirdOntario 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's also important to remember that no view on anything is universal.

[–]HAYREDDIN_BARBAROSSA 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (5子コメント)

I feel disgust for baggy jeans, I'm not calling for their ban

[–]prsnep 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I don't believe the culture of baggy jeans is passed down on to children in the same way. I don't think failure to adhere to baggy jeans rules has led to significant conflicts. I am very much indifferent about baggy jeans.

[–]manwithfaceofbirdOntario 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (0子コメント)

That's a pretty ridiculous comparison.

[–]0pm 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Men don't force home boys to wear baggy jeans.

[–]Dildo-_baggins 16 ポイント17 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Might be a huge shocker to lots of people, but lots of women in Niqab do it voluntarily and without being forced by anyone. I'm completely against the niqab, but I'm not the one to judge. I'll keep my thoughts to myself and let others practice their own lifestyles however they want.

Banning the niqab or the hijab or whatever will not force people into changing their lifestyles. If anything, it will make them feel oppressed, and oppression often leads to more extremism.

[–]hitchensreborn 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

They are brainwashed into wearing it. Muslim indoctrinate their kids young.

[–]justcauseofit -4 ポイント-3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

How do you feel about high heels?

[–]manwithfaceofbirdOntario 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

That's a ridiculous comparison as well. High heels aren't worn as a symbol of ownership and haven't been forced on women for hundreds of years.

[–]LittlestHobot 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

'a symbol of ownership'

Would you apply the same to the Haredi women who wear a full body covering, including the face? If it were worn by choice, of course.

Just to be clear, even most ultra-Orthodox shun this, but it is still 'a thing' and mostly tolerated.

[–]mikemcgOntario 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I hate how you slipped an anti-niqab statement into a statement about how Harper obviously knows what he's doing. Skeevy.

[–]AdiposeFinBritish Columbia -4 ポイント-3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

The fact remains, a very large number of people know the Niqab to be a tool of oppression, a symbol of ownership and has no place in a Citizenship ceremony.

Damn skippy.

[–]randomfact8472 11 ポイント12 ポイント  (36子コメント)

Real Canadians believe in equal rights.

Take your theocratic exceptions and shove it.

[–]let_them_eat_slogans 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (7子コメント)

You're in favour of rewriting the Charter to get rid of protections for religion?

[–]randomfact8472 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (5子コメント)

Religious freedom should never give you rights beyond what every Canadian enjoys. Full stop.

If the charter doesn't treat everyone equally than yes, absolutely, change it.

[–]leejs 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (4子コメント)

They don't. Every Canadian enjoys the same freedom of religion. The Charter does ensure equality.

[–]ThePowerOfQuebec 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

This isn't about freedom of religion, it's about 'reasonable accommodations' and no, we don't all have the same rights here. We get treated differently in some laws and rules based on whether or not we have religious reasons for not having to comply with them.

[–]Narian [非表示スコア]  (1子コメント)

It's like saying - everyone has the same right to marriage - to marry someone on the opposite gender.

Yes we all share a freedom of Religion but some religions have been given passes from secular laws because of religion traditions.

If we outlaw people walking around with weapons, it's for a reason - public safety. If we say, this group gets to break these secular laws that are in place for safety reasons - that's not fair. There is nothing a non-believer can say to convince you to let them possess a weapon against the law.

Now, if a Scientologist tried to get religious exceptions what do you feel would happen? Would be an outpouring of support or shit sent against them because they're 'not a real religion' according to the Abrahamic religions? I'm pretty confident it's the former. And a cult asking for an exception? Ha!

[–]leejs [非表示スコア]  (0子コメント)

shit sent against them because they're 'not a real religion' according to the Abrahamic religions?

TIL Sikhism is an Abrahamic religion. Courts don't, and never have, tried to determine what a 'real' religion is. They determine sincere belief.

Hence why that BC pastafarian can't wear kitchenware in his drivers licence photo. He doesn't have a sincere belief in a colander's necessity.

Now, if a Scientologist tried to get religious exceptions what do you feel would happen?

What kind of 'exceptions'?

To return to the issue of Sikhs. Their right to wear turbans in photos and in uniform has been upheld by the courts as it is a reasonable accommodation. However, they continue to fail at getting exemptions from helmet laws because safety concerns override their rights to freely practice their religion.

This is what so many ignorant people ignore. There is a spectrum of accommodation. Reasonable accommodation are generally things that have no affect on others (wearing a turban instead of an RCMP hat, wearing a niqab at a citizenship ceremony) and anything unreasonable (forcing others to wear hijabs) is not accommodated.

Yes we all share a freedom of Religion

Exactly, everyone has the same rights.

[–]prsnep 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Religion should have never enjoyed the same protections as other rights, especially human rights. The right to never show face in public is frankly retarded and it should be treated as such.

Socially liberal people give rights to intolerant religions which often have a tendency to grow faster than average population. When the members of intolerant religions are in the majority, they may impose restrictions on very socially liberal people who enabled them in the first place.

[–]sdbestCanada 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (27子コメント)

Real Canadians believe in equal rights.

As do these Muslim women, and as does not Stephen Harper.

[–]randomfact8472 15 ポイント16 ポイント  (26子コメント)

So you're ok with anyone wearing whatever headgear they want wherever?

So long as we're being consistent.

Of course that's not what you mean. You want religious people to get special exceptions to the law.

[–]JHDarkLeg 15 ポイント16 ポイント  (3子コメント)

[–]randomfact8472 12 ポイント13 ポイント  (2子コメント)

My religion says I have to wear that.

[–]Haris132 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Then you wear it bud

[–]Narian [非表示スコア]  (0子コメント)

Also I want to wear this as opposed to safety headgear. Don't deny mah rights.

[–]sexaysaxdoge 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (3子コメント)

So you're ok with anyone wearing whatever headgear they want wherever?

That seems reasonable. As long as it doesn't like have a gun on it or something.

[–]randomfact8472 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Ok...cock helmets for everyone.

Better yet, my religion says it's OK to be nude everywhere, and good lord it's a downstairs mixup.

Enjoy my religious freedom, by crikey.

[–]sexaysaxdoge [非表示スコア]  (0子コメント)

I really, really don't think the law should prevent someone from wearing a cock helmet if they want to.

You want to wear a cock helmet, you get to deal with the normal societal repercussions of that. No need for the law to get involved.

Public nudity is somewhat different but honestly I'm not sure we get that right under current laws either.

[–]A_Genius 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

[–]sdbestCanada 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (17子コメント)

You want religious people to get special exceptions to the law.

What special exceptions? The Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees Freedom of Religion for everyone, nothing special.

[–]randomfact8472 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (13子コメント)

And my religion says I don't have to wear pants.

Religious freedom should never give you extra rights that other people don't enjoy.

[–]geotuul 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (7子コメント)

If you can effectively argue that not wearing pants is a fundamental expression of your identity and not some rhetorical exaggeration of the example at hand, the sole intention of which being to mock the perceived sanctity of the institution, then I believe you should have that right. This is not about being able to 'do whatever the hell you want', which is not a right. This is about having the right to express one's sense of self.

[–]randomfact8472 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (6子コメント)

No, you will not be able to argue that. They will never let it happen. I can easily make an argument that the freedom of nudity is more relevant to self expression than a wrapped face mask. No sane country of court is going to let it fly.

No religious laws should be made, no exceptions. Everyone should get the same regulations no matter their belief system. This isn't complicated. I see zero reason why a religiously held belief is more important than a political one. Why shouldn't Conservatives have a right to wear guns around like Sikhs wear knives? Lord knows most of them are just as committed to their reli..politics.

[–]geotuul 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (5子コメント)

No, you will not be able to argue that. They will never let it happen. I can easily make an argument that the freedom of nudity is more relevant to self expression than a wrapped face mask. No sane country is going to let it fly.

If your problem is with puritanical laws governing nudity and other forms of self-expression, why are you arguing that we force that same mentality on others?

[–]randomfact8472 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (4子コメント)

That was just an example.

I can come up with a litany of other bullshit religious excuses to get around basic laws and regulations that make society work harmoniously.

No exceptions should be made for religious ideology. I don't see why that is either controversial or hard to understand.

[–]EchospreeOntario 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (2子コメント)

That doesn't sound like a sincerely-held religion to anybody.

[–]Narian [非表示スコア]  (0子コメント)

What an obvious No-True Scotsman

Either all religious belief is accepted or it's all suspect. Which is it?

[–]randomfact8472 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Who the fuck are you to say that? Makes a shit load more sense than walking around with a face mask all day.

[–]BenocratesCanada 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (1子コメント)

How many times does it need to be said? You have just as much freedom of religion as anyone else. Whether you choose to invoke that right is up to you. Just like you have the freedom of assembly whether or not you choose to assemble. You have the freedom of speech whether or not you choose to speak.

[–]randomfact8472 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Horse. Shit.

If I say my religion says I have a right to wear a balaclava in a bank I'll get arrested.

Because someone is Muslim they can walk in with the same, just wrapped funny.

[–]ThePowerOfQuebec 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (2子コメント)

What special exceptions?

You can be exempted from some rules or some laws if you have a religious excuse. Other people without that excuse have to follow those rules and laws. That's what our Charter says. It's easily the biggest flaw in our Charter by far, that along with the special privileges for catholics and protestants.

That's exactly what this issue is all about. Nobody else can wear face coverings while swearing in. The special exception is what exempts these women from having to comply with the same requirements as everyone else.

[–]sexaysaxdoge -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Why don't we just do away with the whole 'swearing in' ceremony altogether then? It's just useless theatre anyway.

[–]ThePowerOfQuebec 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

We could but it still leaves us with plenty of other ways that religious people can get exemptions others can't. This is a huge problem in our Charter and it never should have been included. Religious beliefs should not excuse us from equality under the law in every way.

[–]karma911 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

She didn't challenge the decision yet (so she didn't win). She is undertaking the process though.

[–]sdbestCanada 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (2子コメント)

If you read the sentence closely you'll notice I'm not referring to the woman who turned down the $50,000.

[–]karma911 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yes, sorry I misread.

[–]Kelly_Gruber [非表示スコア]  (1子コメント)

Yes because real Canadians believe in an oppressive backwards religion.

[–]sdbestCanada [非表示スコア]  (0子コメント)

Real Canadians believe in rights, unlike Conservatives and Stephen Harper.

[–]InfiniteBreetai 12 ポイント13 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Classy. More classy than her critics.

[–]MianBao 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

All we need is for non-muslims (men or women) to decide they want to wear a niqab or burka. Then what to do? This is going to get messier before it gets cleaner.

[–]thisbitchneedsreddit 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (8子コメント)

Quebec court Judge Eliana Marengo recently told El-Alloul her case would not be heard unless she removed her headscarf, saying it wasn’t appropriate to wear in her courtroom.

You've got to be fucking with me.

[–]toriar -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (7子コメント)

To be fair, it is also considered rude to wear a baseball cap to a legal proceeding.

[–]thisbitchneedsreddit 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (6子コメント)

There's rude and then there's religious freedom.

[–]te5454442200 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I've the impression that Harper really wants to run this election against another wet towel, and the media is once again none too glad to accommodate.

But this lady doesn't seem to be as accommodating to the insanity. She sounds like a strong Canadian to me, and Harper is now using her hand to punch himself into a closet, while too stupid to see it. But it won't stop him from acting the victim when he finds himself in there once again.

Discuss

PS: I love the way reddit #4everrememberz edits that you accidentally hit cancel on. What a great service...

[–]Moos_MumsyOutside Canada 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (19子コメント)

Can anyone explain to me why a hijab is unacceptable but a (sikh) turban or (jewish) yamaka is OK?

[–]0pm 21 ポイント22 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Hijabs are completely acceptable, as the face is completely visible.

Niqabs covers the face completely, only allowing slits for the eyes.

They are different things.

[–]wutsgudhomzAlberta 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Except this woman wasn't wearing a niqab. She was wearing a headscarf which the judge wanted her to remove.

[–]Sil369 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

slits for the eyes

reading this hurts my eyes

[–]alice-in-canada-land 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (6子コメント)

*yarmulke :)

[–]Cheese_Bits 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (2子コメント)

So "floppy discus headgear" isn't appropriate terminology from the goyim?

[–]Torger083 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Nor is, "jew beanie."

[–]alice-in-canada-land 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

:D

[–]FockSmulder 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

*hammolka for yomammolka

[–]alice-in-canada-land 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Ha ha ha - your username, very clever.

[–]FockSmulder 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Thank you, Alice.

[–]Shazaam613 -4 ポイント-3 ポイント  (4子コメント)

Hijab is not part of the debate.

Niqab covers the entirety of the face save for the eyes. Not complementary to the kippa at all.

[–]RalphWiggum4 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Then why is Hijab in the thread title

[–]the_geoff_word 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I think there is confusion here between two different issues. The first is a general debate about the question of whether a woman should be permitted to wear a niqab in certain situations like when swearing an oath, given that it hides her face.

The second issue, referred to in the title of the thread is about Rania El-Alloul who was thrown out of court because the judge believed that her hijab was not fitting attire for a courtroom.

[–]thisbitchneedsreddit 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

So then this debate is about whether a hijab is acceptable in a courtroom.

[–]Moos_MumsyOutside Canada 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

But the lady in the article is wearing a hijab and the judge refused to talk to her because of it. IMO a hijab, turban and yarmulke are all religious symbols and if you don't accept one, shouldn't that apply to all other religious garb?

[–]legarsdesvues 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (14子コメント)

Her decision is sound. If she accepts the money, she will automatically lose :

  • Government Welfare

  • Young children revenue supplement.

  • Single parent revenue supplement.

  • Food aid revenue supplement.

  • Free school lunch program enrollment.

  • Subsidized housing.

  • Government covered dental plan for the poor.

  • Government covered glasses and eye exam.

  • Her current Public assistance lawyer.

And other services that poor people have access to...

I am not saying that the government programs foster dependence but in the case of a single mother with little work experience, she is far better off staying on welfare than seeking a minimum wage job or accepting a one time lump sum... Even if I wish it was otherwise.

[–]dacian420Alberta 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (6子コメント)

Replacing all that stuff with a guaranteed annual income would fix that, but communism.

[–]GAndroid 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (4子コメント)

So she foregoes $50k for $500 a month?

[–]she-hulk 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (0子コメント)

  • Government Welfare

Are you kidding? On assistance it would take 8 years to earn $50,000.

And, once that $50,000 is gone she could reapply for benefits and receive welfare again so it in no way benefits her to turn it down.

-Young children revenue supplement.

What is this? Baby bonus? She wouldn't lose baby bonus.

  • Single parent revenue supplement.

I work in social services and I've never even heard of this and a quick google search finds nothing. What is this?

  • Food aid revenue supplement.

Same with this, never heard of it can't find anything on Google. What is it?

  • Free school lunch program enrollment.

Again, can't find any information on a free lunch program. There is a breakfast program but it's not contingent on income.

  • Subsidized housing.

She wouldn't lose it, she would just have to pay an increased rent for 1 year.

  • Government covered dental plan for the poor.

  • Government covered glasses and eye exam.

I'm sure she would spend more than the $40,000 more than what welfare gives her for a year on dental care and glasses...

  • Her current Public assistance lawyer.

Nope, everyone has access to duty council regardless of income.

And other services that poor people have access to...

Like?

I am not saying that the government programs foster dependence but in the case of a single mother with little work experience, she is far better off staying on welfare than seeking a minimum wage job or accepting a one time lump sum... Even if I wish it was otherwise.

She is better off on welfare than a minimum wage job, but not better off than accepting this one time payment.

[–]LittlestHobot 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Jacques Fucking Plante basically invented face-covering in Canada. And he was Quebecois.