Location: Wondering when # became hashtag and not a number sign.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flash Walken
It doesn't work at any level because it conflates religious observation with the association of hate-crimes membership punishable under the Canadian Charter.
Absolutely ludicrous comparison that I think says a lot about those who view it at as reasonable comparison.
KKK/White Supremacists/Aryan nations are listed as CRIMINAL ORGANIZATIONS.
HOnestly, Delgar/Transplant, this is a reasonable comparison?
Spoiler!
And
What? I never said anything was reasonable about any of it.
All of the niqab, the KKK hood, and the confederate flag are symbols of oppression to certain groups...im wondering in a LEGAL sense what the difference would be and all I ever said.
Sorry since this thread pertains to Nenshi I must bring bike lane into it. Should we allow cyclists wearing niqab on city operated bike lanes? Please debate.
Sorry since this thread pertains to Nenshi I must bring bike lane into it. Should we allow cyclists wearing niqab on city operated bike lanes? Please debate.
Depends on how it affects their peripheral vision.
I'll fess up and admit I sometimes wear an airhole if I'm riding a bike and it's cold out. Sounds like the same thing.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
It doesn't work at any level because it conflates religious observation with the association of hate-crimes membership punishable under the Canadian Charter.
Absolutely ludicrous comparison that I think says a lot about those who view it at as reasonable comparison.
KKK/White Supremacists/Aryan nations are listed as CRIMINAL ORGANIZATIONS.
If I cram a blue handkerchief into the back pocket of my jeans that are around my ankles, and put on a blue hat am I a crip?
I'm going to demand that all my gov't photo ID is taken with myself wearing garb such as this...
...and if anyone gives me any grief I'm gonna tell those bigots to **** off, this is my heritage and culture.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yamer
Even though he says he only wanted steak and potatoes, he was aware of all the rapes.
WTF are you talking about? Nothing is "punishable under the Charter", the Charter doesn't punish anything. Membership in any group isn't punishable under any Canadian law. You actually have to perform a criminal act to be charged criminally - if you want to belong to the KKK, and generally be a bigot, you're perfectly entitled to do so, so long as you don't promote violence against an identifiable group while you do so.
Right, I was unclear.
I'm referring specifically the Keegstra case and the supreme court's ruling that hate speech isn't protected as free speech. So, being a member of a racist organization and displaying racist iconography or propaganda is not the same thing as covering your face with a piece of cloth or wearing a soup bowl on your head.
I'm referring specifically the Keegstra case and the supreme court's ruling that hate speech isn't protected as free speech. So, being a member of a racist organization and displaying racist iconography or propaganda is not the same thing as covering your face with a piece of cloth or wearing a soup bowl on your head.
The SCC (specifically, the majority judgment as it was a split decision) held that hate speech of this sort IS protected by section 2(b), regarding freedom of expression. Again: this is protected speech.
However, notwithstanding that protection, s.319 of the criminal code is constitutional, because it prescribes a reasonable limit on freedom of expression that is acceptable in Canadian society. Here is s.319:
Quote:
319. (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Wilful promotion of hatred
(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)
(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;
(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;
(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or
(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.
You have to do very specific things in order to be prosecuted under that law. Just being a member of the KKK, or holding bigoted views, is not only not enough, it's totally irrelevant. You have to publicly promote hatred against a group. Whether you're a member of any particular organization when you do so makes zero difference.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following User Says Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
The SCC (specifically, the majority judgment as it was a split decision) held that hate speech of this sort IS protected by section 2(b), regarding freedom of expression. Again: this is protected speech.
However, notwithstanding that protection, s.319 of the criminal code is constitutional, because it prescribes a reasonable limit on freedom of expression that is acceptable in Canadian society. Here is s.319:
[/INDENT]You have to do very specific things in order to be prosecuted under that law. Just being a member of the KKK, or holding bigoted views, is not only not enough, it's totally irrelevant. You have to publicly promote hatred against a group. Whether you're a member of any particular organization when you do so makes zero difference.
Thanks for that, I am very clearly not a lawyer, and you very clearly are.
I would be fine with that as well for a ceremony. It's just clothing.
Photo ID is different though as you need to be able to use it to ID someone.
Yeah, I don't get the point that people are making with this argument. Wear a pair of depends over top of your jeans and a Richard Nixon mask if it makes you feel better about someone else expressing their cultural practices in ways that have no effect on you whatsoever.
Last edited by rubecube; 10-12-2015 at 09:45 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to rubecube For This Useful Post:
"MONTREAL -- The nation’s unemployed are pleased to hear that the main topic of political conversation will be about whether a very small minority of women have a religious right to cover their faces with a religious garb during a citizenship ceremony for yet another time.
“This will definitely determine who I vote for,” said Serge Dumont, an out-of-work aerospace engineer who has been looking for work for the past 3 months. “It’s important that this issue be brought up again and again until my EI runs out.”
Katie Duprée, a recent master’s graduate and single mother who has not been able to find a stable job, was enthused politicians and online commentators, have been arguing about a topic that hasn’t affected her in the slightest.
“I used to be really angry and sad about the struggles to pay for groceries to feed my children,” explained Duprée. “But the niqab has given me something else to be sad and angry about.”
The unemployed were not the only ones glad to hear the leaders talk about a wedge issue they haven’t even heard of until last week.
“I sure hope this debate will go on forever,” said Julie St-Henri, a senior who can’t afford her prescription drugs.
According to sources, many First Nations communities are no longer concerned about access to clean drinking water and instead have focused all of their attention on a woman’s right to wear a piece of fabric while pledging allegiance to the Queen who lives in England."
__________________
We may curse our bad luck that it's sounds like its; who's sounds like whose; they're sounds like their (and there); and you're sounds like your. But if we are grown-ups who have been through full-time education, we have no excuse for muddling them up.
The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to The Goon For This Useful Post:
Yeah from what I know about Islam, I suspect the niqab is a cultural thing and not a religious thing, kind of like female circumcision. That being said the niqab shouldn't be a bone of contention in this election.
The Following User Says Thank You to Vulcan For This Useful Post:
You can't even separate female genital mutilation from Islam, or more accurately, religion generally. I understand that it is a practice that is undertaken by multiple religions, and certainly not practiced by any significant number of muslims in the developed world. But that doesn't suggest there isn't a religious basis for it, only that there are religious motivations behind scorning women's sexuality in multiple religions (unsurprisingly given the role of women in the times and places these religions were founded).
There's a specific hadith in which Muhammad recommends female genital mutilation... there's certainly a basis for saying it's obligatory in islam and there are certainly a non-miniscule number of conservative muslims who think it's obligatory.
As for the niqab, how many passages in holy scripture do you need to conclude that this is a religious practice? There's a hadith stating that when the passage relating to "wearing veils over faces" was revealed by the Prophet, the women present tore up their sheets and covered their faces with them. How obvious does the connection need to be here?
I swear, the sensitivities to admitting there are any bad doctrines in just this one religion, or any connection between those doctrines and the way adherents behave... it's absolutely insane. Are you also going to suggest that Catholics refusing to wear condoms is a cultural practice?
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
You can't even separate female genital mutilation from Islam, or more accurately, religion generally. I understand that it is a practice that is undertaken by multiple religions, and certainly not practiced by any significant number of muslims in the developed world. But that doesn't suggest there isn't a religious basis for it, only that there are religious motivations behind scorning women's sexuality in multiple religions (unsurprisingly given the role of women in the times and places these religions were founded).
There's a specific hadith in which Muhammad recommends female genital mutilation... there's certainly a basis for saying it's obligatory in islam and there are certainly a non-miniscule number of conservative muslims who think it's obligatory.
As for the niqab, how many passages in holy scripture do you need to conclude that this is a religious practice? There's a hadith stating that when the passage relating to "wearing veils over faces" was revealed by the Prophet, the women present tore up their sheets and covered their faces with them. How obvious does the connection need to be here?
I swear, the sensitivities to admitting there are any bad doctrines in just this one religion, or any connection between those doctrines and the way adherents behave... it's absolutely insane. Are you also going to suggest that Catholics refusing to wear condoms is a cultural practice?
I was misinformed about female circumcision, thanks but this CTV clip of the founder of the Canadian Congress denies that the Niqab is a part of Islam.
I was misinformed about female circumcision, thanks but this CTV clip of the founder of the Canadian Congress denies that the Niqab is a part of Islam.
I think it's a bit like the Old Testament vs the New Testament. If you just look at the Quran as some sects do, the only women who need to cover their faces are Mohamed's wives because they're way hotter than average women. If you read and follow either ahadith texts, books any old kook could have written, then you're going to believe any number of human interpretations including "tagging and bagging" your woman. I think the final arbiter are the women who wear them. Seems like most believe it makes them super muslims.
