Jason Kenney bans face coverings from citizenship oaths

[HankQuinlan]

Lots of news and opinions all over about this today.

Much as I dislike both him and his government, sometimes they get it right.

"Religious rights" are simply trumped by accepting their role in a society that we would like to consider as free and equal for all, and citizenship oaths are definitely the first place to reject such nonsense.

I have some sympathy for the point of view of the rape victim testifying against her accusers in open court who wishes to keep her face covered -- we are still waiting for the judge to decide on that. But it should not be decided on a "freedom of religion" basis as put forward.

I do think that some other method of testimony could be considered as an encouragement for victims to come forward and press their case, and if so, all women and children should have a similar right not to have to face the stares of their rapists while testifying. I am pretty sure there have been cases that allow accusers to testify by video, for example.

 

[mercyshooter]

I wonder if the judge will say "banning face coverings is unconstitutional".

 

[Aleister Crowley]

finally they got something right...
if you or they dont like our rules , very simple .... leave !!!!

 

[Bartdude]

"I’m sure they’ll trump up some stupid Charter of Rights challenge...." were Kenney's comments today.

That tells you all you need to know about this government.

 

[mercyshooter]

finally they got something right...
if you or they dont like our rules , very simple .... leave !!!!

This makes perfect sense why Canada is still not prosperous and why some Canadian born caucassians choose to leave.
The rights/rules are not fully civilized and are not fully updated. Are we still living in the Stone Age?

 

[Tugela]

I don't see what the big deal is. If the rule is that you should have your face exposed when doing something official, then expose your face. Comply with the expectations of society if it does not harm you.

On the other hand, it can be argued that certain extreme religous conventions are inherently harmfull when judged so by general society. The recent findings in BC regarding polygamy is a case in point. I don't really see a difference between the polygamy situation in Bountifull and the insistance by certain faiths that women should keep their faces covered. You could argue that these women want to be treated like this, and that doing otherwise violates their rights, but, would it also be true to say that if a slave is happy being a slave that it is then OK?

 

[mercyshooter]

I don't see what the big deal is. If the rule is that you should have your face exposed when doing something official, then expose your face. Comply with the expectations of society if it does not harm you.

On the other hand, it can be argued that certain extreme religous conventions are inherently harmfull when judged so by general society. The recent findings in BC regarding polygamy is a case in point. I don't really see a difference between the polygamy situation in Bountifull and the insistance by certain faiths that women should keep their faces covered. You could argue that these women want to be treated like this, and that doing otherwise violates their rights, but, would it also be true to say that if a slave is happy being a slave that it is then OK?

Everything is big deal in Canada because people like to abuse the Charter Rights/Constitutional Rights. Otherwise, how can they still be lazy and get the benefits that they didn't even earn?

On the other hand, I think the prospective citizens don't mind about the banning-face-covering thing if it really is not that big deal.

 

[myselftheother]

Everything is big deal in Canada because people like to abuse the Charter Rights/Constitutional Rights. Otherwise, how can they still be lazy and get the benefits that they didn't even earn?

On the other hand, I think the prospective citizens don't mind about the banning-face-covering thing if it really is not that big deal.

Interesting perspective, if you're a child. Go educate yourself on how challenging the Charter of Rights and Freedoms strengthens it.

 

[DavidMR]

Given that probably all of a few dozen women in Canada wear full face coverings this "issue" sounds to me like something the spin doctors dreamed up. But it makes for easy political identification and motivation of one's vote base.

 

[Karl Blues]

Given that probably all of a few dozen women in Canada wear full face coverings this "issue" sounds to me like something the spin doctors dreamed up. But it makes for easy political identification and motivation of one's vote base.

You're right. This is pure politics.

 

[vancity_cowboy]

Given that probably all of a few dozen women in Canada wear full face coverings this "issue" sounds to me like something the spin doctors dreamed up. But it makes for easy political identification and motivation of one's vote base.

You're right. This is pure politics.

i disagree that the numbers are a few dozen - i've seen a few dozen myself in less than the last 3 months; however, i do agree that it is pure politics. call it the politics of faith if you wish, but it is one group using their faith to try to force change to the canadian system

 

[HankQuinlan]

Given that probably all of a few dozen women in Canada wear full face coverings this "issue" sounds to me like something the spin doctors dreamed up. But it makes for easy political identification and motivation of one's vote base.

Of course it's pure politics. That doesn't always mean that it is wrong.

 

[mercyshooter]

Interesting perspective, if you're a child. Go educate yourself on how challenging the Charter of Rights and Freedoms strengthens it.

It's challenging because people make it too political. If people look at it the other way, then what's so challenging?

 

[Asianwomanlover]

The simple fact is that the niqab, hijab, and chador are not religious customs. Nowhere in the Koran does it say a woman has to cover herself that way. It is simply a way for men to exercise control over a woman's sexuality. It is insulting to insinuate, like so many imams do, that men can't control themselves when they see a woman's face, become raging sexual animals, and therefore need that type of "protection".

I, for one, am quite happy to see Kenney lay down the law in this matter, so to speak. And if our ultra-liberal, forever-accommodating judges decide it is anti-constitutional, then I hope they use the "notwithstanding" clause to put the judges in their place.

 

[DavidMR]

Of course it's pure politics. That doesn't always mean that it is wrong.

That's a fair point in general, but I think the amount of attention this item gets is proportional to it's vote getting rather than its administrative importance.

 

[vancity_cowboy]

"I’m sure they’ll trump up some stupid Charter of Rights challenge...." were Kenney's comments today.

That tells you all you need to know about this government.

i'm pretty sure that reading the sentence correctly leads one to the conclusion that the adjective 'stupid' applies to the object 'challenge'. a challenge, or in this case a charter of rights challenge, may have merit or if it is indeed a stupid one, may have no merit. in either case i fail to see what that has to do with 'this government'

 

[HankQuinlan]

It's challenging because people make it too political. If people look at it the other way, then what's so challenging?

You misunderstood the statement -- again. What he said was that the act of challenging the Charter is what refines it and makes it better after judges have had their say. So, once again, your reply makes no sense.

 

[HankQuinlan]

i'm pretty sure that reading the sentence correctly leads one to the conclusion that the adjective 'stupid' applies to the object 'challenge'. a challenge, or in this case a charter of rights challenge, may have merit or if it is indeed a stupid one, may have no merit. in either case i fail to see what that has to do with 'this government'

Perhaps because the government minister refers to any possible challenge to his ruling as "stupid"? Doesn't that say something about the attitude of the government? Now I am confused.

 

[mercyshooter]

i'm pretty sure that reading the sentence correctly leads one to the conclusion that the adjective 'stupid' applies to the object 'challenge'. a challenge, or in this case a charter of rights challenge, may have merit or if it is indeed a stupid one, may have no merit. in either case i fail to see what that has to do with 'this government'

Because all laws and rules must not against the charter of rights! There are people in "this government" like to follow charter of rights 100% even though they know it's outdated and not suitable in this century. However, some don't. And most people are really up-to-date on everything. Therefore, there has something to do with "this government".

 

[mercyshooter]

You misunderstood the statement -- again. What he said was that the act of challenging the Charter is what refines it and makes it better after judges have had their say. So, once again, your reply makes no sense.

Interesting perspective, if you're a child. Go educate yourself on how challenging the Charter of Rights and Freedoms strengthens it.

Not quite Hank, not quite. It's not the judges, it's the people! Keyword is strengthen! Judges can see thru it, but not the people! People in here just don't want the change. Otherwise, they can't still get the benefits that they are having right now.