Simpleton Canadians

[peter12]

Originally Posted by troutman

I don't know. Whatever it means to be "Canadian"; surely this is not a static thing.

Our nation was founded on a set of principles. If we don't take care to remember and live those principles, what's the point?

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by peter12

Our nation was founded on a set of principles. If we don't take care to remember and live those principles, what's the point?

But don't those principles evolve? Some of the principles were/are totally archaic.

[burn_this_city]

Time to play hardball with people like this. Make them jump through additional hoops for acting like trash. If you don't want to comply you wont get on the plane. They can try and sue all they want, they wont win and hopefully it will cost them a boatload of money.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by peter12

Our nation was founded on a set of principles.

Do you mean the constitution? Some national philosophy?

[SeeBass]

Originally Posted by HOZ

So are Muslims more equal than the rest of us?


YouTube revelations led to more disclosures. Respected Middle East scholar, Daniel Pipes, witnessed beveiled folk -- whether male or female, he couldn't tell -- swanning unchallenged through Canadian boarding controls. A former U.S. Special Forces soldier reportedly saw arrogant face-veiled women "harangue" and threaten a screener with lawsuits for daring to ask to see their faces in a private room. The screener caved, let them pass, and was humiliated with laughter from the victorious women who -- in Arabic -- disparaged "simpleton Canadians."


Sometimes people are so open-minded that their brains fall out.

I find that story hard to believe

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Time to play hardball with people like this. Make them jump through additional hoops for acting like trash. If you don't want to comply you wont get on the plane. They can try and sue all they want, they wont win and hopefully it will cost them a boatload of money.

Problem is that our courts are so ass backwards it is quite likely they would win. THey could take it to the human rights commission, win a ton of $$ and then have the courts set a precedent that it violates their human rights to remove the veil then pretty soon anybody with a facial covering gets on a flight without security. Plus the security person would likely get fired and ruin their career. Then our government officials would have to deal with hardball questions from human rights groups who would pressure the government, even if it means the overall safety and well being of Canadians is diminished.

Originally Posted by SeeBass

I find that story hard to believe

Umm, I can't watch it because I'm at work but if I'm following that article they have Youtube video of the incident. So if you are finding it hard to believe, just watch the video and find out.

[HeartsOfFire]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

But don't those principles evolve? Some of the principles were/are totally archaic.

And for THIS reason alone, people should stop referring to texts revered to be 2000+ years old for morals and ethics.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by troutman

Do you mean the constitution? Some national philosophy?

The constitution set in Lockean philosophical principles.

So basically, Lockean philosophy requires a free civil government where citizens equal in their reason are free to participate free to the largest extent possible of enslavement, coercion, and fear.

This is why, for example, the American Constitution could still be written while many of the Founding Fathers had slaves. Even if the problem wasn't addressed directly, the Constitution's principles would inevitably bring this problem to light and attempt to fix it. Nothing's perfect, however.

I want to know what is so archaic about those principles.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by I_H8_Crawford

IMO let them keep it on, they just don't pass security and miss their flight instead.

I agree with you... if someone doesn't want to meet the requirements to clear security that's their prerogative, but they should have to live with the logical consequences of that.

Also, if you don't believe in evolution, you shouldn't be able to pass high school biology.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by peter12

The constitution set in Lockean philosophical principles.

So basically, Lockean philosophy requires a free civil government where citizens equal in their reason are free to participate free to the largest extent possible of enslavement, coercion, and fear.

This is why, for example, the American Constitution could still be written while many of the Founding Fathers had slaves. Even if the problem wasn't addressed directly, the Constitution's principles would inevitably bring this problem to light and attempt to fix it. Nothing's perfect, however.

I want to know what is so archaic about those principles.

The Constitution and Charter of Rights and Freedoms did not come until 1982, replacing the British North America Act of 1867.

Principles change.

[HeartsOfFire]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Problem is that our courts are so ass backwards it is quite likely they would win. THey could take it to the human rights commission, win a ton of $$ and then have the courts set a precedent that it violates their human rights to remove the veil then pretty soon anybody with a facial covering gets on a flight without security. Plus the security person would likely get fired and ruin their career. Then our government officials would have to deal with hardball questions from human rights groups who would pressure the government, even if it means the overall safety and well being of Canadians is diminished.

I know we just agreed on another standpoint, but on this one we may not.

See, I'm of the mindset that liberty should never be sacrificed for security. I'm against anything that infringes on my personal freedoms and rights in the name of keeping me safe. That being said however, I also understand the wisdom of "When in Rome, do as the Romans do."

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by HeartsOfFire

I know we just agreed on another standpoint, but on this one we may not.

See, I'm of the mindset that liberty should never be sacrificed for security. I'm against anything that infringes on my personal freedoms and rights in the name of keeping me safe. That being said however, I also understand the wisdom of "When in Rome, do as the Romans do."

But you must believe that your liberty should never be infringed upon with the caveat that your liberty must not infringe upon others liberty. Travelling safely is, no doubt, a right that everyone should have. Your right to liberty ends when you are endangering other members of society.

Trust me I hate paternalistic laws but we must force all citizens who want to travel by air to obey the laws that will keep us all safe. Therefore, no matter how personally or religiously offended someone will be they must follow the security protocols. That is of course assuming that our security protocols aren't archaic and offensive and in this case I don't think they are.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by troutman

The Constitution and Charter of Rights and Freedoms did not come until 1982, replacing the British North America Act of 1867.

Principles change.

Well, they didn't change, the paradigm was forcefully shifted for partisan political reasons.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by I_H8_Crawford

How is refusing to show your face any different from refusing to show your passport/photo ID?

IMO let them keep it on, they just don't pass security and miss their flight instead.

Exactly. It is about security reasons, and if they can't show their face, too bad.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by Azure

Exactly. It is about security reasons, and if they can't show their face, too bad.

While it seems we are all on the "screw these people" side of things, I must remind everyone of what these people and their supporters would respond with.

Their religious convictions are so strong that they supersede our security needs. In fact their fundamental human rights are being violated because the state is attempting to enforce security measures that clearly violate these peoples ability to live a full and free life without persecution based on their religious values and practices.

Obviously we all know that is complete BS but that is what they'd say. This same argument is used all the time to allow our Canadian value system to crumble under the weight of pressure from "canadians" whose rights are being infringed upon. When really all we're doing is allowing religious fundamentalists to corrupt our democratic system of government by taking advantage of our idiotic judicial, bureaucratic and legislative branches of government.

[Azure]

Remember a while back when those two hutterite colonies went to court over the requirement to have photo ID? Court ruled that they need to have pictures on there.

The Hutterites, a Christian sect that believes being photographed violates their faith and way of life, have been allowed to carry special driving permits since 1974 - the year the government introduced photo licences.

But the Supreme Court of Canada ruled 4-3 on Friday to uphold provincial rules that went into effect in 2003 that make a digital photo universally mandatory for all new licences.

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories...photos_090724/

If they can force it there, despite the outcry of their religious reasons, which I know are bogus, they can force it here.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Yeah but when was the last time you heard of terrorist Hutterites?

Seriously though, I think the only reason the Hutterites lost that battle is because they're Hutterites. What else are they going to do? Plus it didn't get any press. Yet the veil security thing and similar incidents - sharia law anyone? - all get major press and have large populations of religious fundamentalists to back up their cause and pervert our laws to their bidding.

[Azure]

Well that is exactly my point. The fact that this thing is getting more press shouldn't change the fact that the idea of security concerns, should be applied to every cultural group, regardless of their religious reasons.

And if they don't like it, they should either not travel, or move to a 3rd world country where security of all the people isn't much of a concern.

[Matata]

This sort of reminds me of issues countries have had with Sikh's and helmets. Over the years, I've gained a lot of respect for the turban and what it represents, but I can't justify disregarding safety laws for any reason, safety is safety and must be universal.

example articel: http://www.thestar.com/News/Ontario/article/310015

Some immigrants need to realize it is their responsibility on how they deal with the challenges of joining a new culture, it's shouldn't be our societies responsibility to accomodate every incoming cultural quirk. People come to Canada for the high standard of living, not because they are forced too. This standard of living is a direct result of the rules and practices we've enforced on ourselves and they cannot be easily discarded or trivialized.

[puckluck]

How do you guys know she was a immigrant?