HawthorneVillager.com

Hawthorne Village (Milton) Discussion Board
It is currently Fri Mar 29, 2024 2:07 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 119 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Mar 18, 2015 5:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 08, 2014 2:40 am
Posts: 377
martin prince wrote:
dakaardian wrote:
What really pazzles me the most is that some that call themselves progressive are the most vocal supporters of allowing this. Also, what is mind-boggling is that some strong gay right supoporters also do. Real strange bedfellows (no pun intended).


Its not an easy situation for a "liberal" (sorry kf0). On one hand you'd want to support her choice to do whatever the heck she wants and if that involves covering her face then so be it.

But on the other hand we know what the garment represents and as part of a bigger picture it goes against a liberal mindset as is represents misogyny

Its a war within the mind of what to support.


Maybe we should find a way to ban Muslim families/patriarchs from forcing Muslim women to cover up. We know that some women wear hijabs and burkas because it is their choice so they should be allowed to continue but if we have the knowledge that someone is forcing a woman to wear a face/head covering, then they should be charged (maybe a fine or some jail time). Apparently it is not in the Koran that women have to wear these garments so what's the problem? If the woman wants to wear it, she is free to do so. If she is being forced the person forcing her is criminally charged.

I also agree that the option to have all-female swearing-ins, ID checks and other situations where you must remove your burka/niqab so that your identity is verified is a very good idea. Maybe even have a female staff member verify the person's identity in private. I'm actually curious as to how that is handled right now. In the crazy situation that a Muslim woman needs to get alcohol or lottery tickets or perhaps (less crazy) that she wants to vote, what is the protocol? Do they just cross their fingers and hope that the person is who they say they are?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Mar 18, 2015 5:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 08, 2014 2:40 am
Posts: 377
kf095 wrote:
martin prince wrote:
(sorry kf0)...

It is 095, actually. It stands for area code.

I grew up in the country where muslims lived for centuries. Visited and worked in regions and countries where Islam is the mainstream.
One of my close school friends last name is Al-Safar. We were at same class group for ten years and friends after.
And some years ago I was on this citizenship ceremony. At the end we have to shake hands of each other as new Canadians.
To me as the person with some experience in other cultures it is still kind of weird to shake hands with no-face person.

BTW, if we are real liberals should we accommodate nudist in their traditional outfit to make them comfy at this ceremony as well?


In what way would nudism be a mainstream religion?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Mar 18, 2015 5:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:55 am
Posts: 5629
MiltonShiv wrote:
justagirl wrote:
As I stated previously I really don't have a problem with it in court, the person would have to be already identified in a private room before hand, then brought into the court room. But if they are going to allow covering for one group of people, then covering must be made available for all people.

Example if there is a badly abused Westernized Canadian women (with no belief in god) who is to stand trail against her abuser and she wants to wear a covering to protect her identity while testifying then she should be allowed.

Fair is fair, if they are not going to allow the option for all people then it should not be allowed for a certain group of people.



You are equating the citizenship ceremony with abuse allegations? Honey you've been hiding behind an online persona for too long. If you are pressing charges against an abuser, they have a right to know who is making the charge against them. If you think it's fair to make anonymous accusations that could put someone away for life, then you are seriously messed up. You sound like you just hate that 'certain group of people'.


Do you honestly believe this will only be for only be for citizenship ceremony it will also be any court case. I never said they do not have the right to know who is pressing charges but a person women/child/man may feel more comfortable on the stand if there face is hidden, even the eyes. Of course the court will know the name of the witness or whatever. Not talking about anonymous accusations. Just talking about covering your face and eyes, if one person is allowed this then everyone should have this privileged.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Mar 18, 2015 5:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 08, 2014 2:40 am
Posts: 377
mt_42 wrote:
Just curious...How do you think this would play out in reverse?

If my family were to move to <insert country here> and my wife didn't feel like wearing the traditional head/face covering, would that be allowed?


Yes we should follow their lead. Democracy is dumb. We would be better off with a totalitarian government. :D


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Mar 18, 2015 6:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:55 am
Posts: 5629
Btw: How's is
justagirl wrote:
I really don't have a problem with it in court, the person would have to be already identified in a private room before hand, then brought into the court room. But if they are going to allow covering for one group of people, then covering must be made available for all people.
turn into I have a hate on for a "certain group of people"???

MiltonShiv wrote:
You sound like you just hate that 'certain group of people'.


Last edited by justagirl on Thu Mar 19, 2015 8:28 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Mar 19, 2015 6:22 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 07, 2006 12:23 pm
Posts: 526
Location: Hawthorne Village
munchito wrote:
You sort of need to insert the country there in order to get a proper response. E.g.

If Turkey, probably allowed

If Afghanistan, probably not

If Northern Iraq, you might not have a head for long


MiltonShiv wrote:
Well is that country purporting to be the land of freedom and non-oppression where all views cultures and peoples are respected and welcomed?

Or is that country saying we're a dictatorship guided by words of religion with a thousand interpretations but since we hold power, our interpretation is the only one that counts and we will either imprison you or behead you if you cross us.

Which country are you thinking of? Because they're very different things man.

I wasn't thinking of any specific country but your answers covered the various scenarios perfectly. You've confirmed that there are places in the world will they are willing to kill a woman simply for not wearing a scarf on her head. This is apparently acceptable behaviour and tolerated (encouraged?) because these countries don't profess to being nice places to live and don't have big shiny "Welcome" signs at the border that could entice foreigners to come live there.

While I can obviously understand the desire to leave that type of country, I'm still fuzzy on why a woman would want to bring that type of tradition with her to Canada. I get it, there is obviously some psychological conditioning at play here - growing up in a world where your leadership/religion/culture/dominant gender/whatever is constantly programming you to "Wear this scarf or we'll chop your head off" is definitely going to effect you after awhile. BUT...Those rules don't apply here.

As you indicated, Canadians are generally open to accepting new cultures and ideas. Unlike some of these other countries, we don't have a mandatory dress code and we're not going to kill you for taking off the scarf. I'm usually not a Harper fan, but in this case, I think he's got the right idea. We need to encourage these woman to leave their scarfs at the border and embrace their new lives as Canadians in a country where they don't need to hide anymore.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Mar 19, 2015 6:28 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 07, 2006 12:23 pm
Posts: 526
Location: Hawthorne Village
Margarita Maude wrote:
Yes we should follow their lead. Democracy is dumb. We would be better off with a totalitarian government. :D

If we're going to follow their lead and implement a mandatory dress code for women, I'm thinking fishnets and high heels would be a better direction to take... :lol:


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Mar 19, 2015 12:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 12:42 pm
Posts: 3336
Location: Milton
justagirl wrote:
Btw: How's is
justagirl wrote:
I really don't have a problem with it in court, the person would have to be already identified in a private room before hand, then brought into the court room. But if they are going to allow covering for one group of people, then covering must be made available for all people.
turn into I have a hate on for a "certain group of people"???

MiltonShiv wrote:
You sound like you just hate that 'certain group of people'.


I wouldn't worry about it. He's just trying to emulate his forum idol Pete.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Mar 19, 2015 3:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 7:45 am
Posts: 888
Location: Phase 1
justagirl wrote:
Btw: How's is
justagirl wrote:
I really don't have a problem with it in court, the person would have to be already identified in a private room before hand, then brought into the court room. But if they are going to allow covering for one group of people, then covering must be made available for all people.
turn into I have a hate on for a "certain group of people"???

MiltonShiv wrote:
You sound like you just hate that 'certain group of people'.


You conveniently forgot the rest of your post.
justagirl wrote:
Fair is fair, if they are not going to allow the option for all people then it should not be allowed for a certain group of people.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Mar 19, 2015 3:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 7:45 am
Posts: 888
Location: Phase 1
Sandeep wrote:
I wouldn't worry about it. He's just trying to emulate his forum idol Pete.


Dude! Don't sell yourself short. I was doing it to get your attention. And it worked. Knew you couldn't stay away. :wink:


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Mar 19, 2015 5:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:42 pm
Posts: 1474
I'd just be happy to have him stop duding people. Dude says dude too much.

_________________
This one thing probably never goes away
I think this one thing is always supposed to stay
This one thing doesn't have to go away


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Mar 19, 2015 8:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:55 am
Posts: 5629
MiltonShiv wrote:
justagirl wrote:
Btw: How's is
justagirl wrote:
I really don't have a problem with it in court, the person would have to be already identified in a private room before hand, then brought into the court room. But if they are going to allow covering for one group of people, then covering must be made available for all people.
turn into I have a hate on for a "certain group of people"???

MiltonShiv wrote:
You sound like you just hate that 'certain group of people'.


You conveniently forgot the rest of your post.
justagirl wrote:
Fair is fair, if they are not going to allow the option for all people then it should not be allowed for a certain group of people.


And how does this make me sound like I hate a certain group of people??? If nudest people wanted to come into the court room nude, and if they got approval to be able to stand in court nude, then the law should be that all people would be allowed to come to court nude if they want to. The law should not be allowed just for "this certain group of people" to do so. What is the different here???

Please don't look too hard, or try to twist my words into something they are not. Your only making yourself look like you have a hate on for others


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Mar 24, 2015 6:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 12:42 pm
Posts: 3336
Location: Milton
Exactly. It's been documented all over the net that it's a cultural thing. Not a religious thing. Culture can mean anything. My desire to walk around nude could be deemed a culture for example.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Mar 24, 2015 10:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2011 12:48 pm
Posts: 157
Just thought I'd jump in. Think it's funny that our PM says this and another guy really dug in forget his name. There is no real uproar because if you talk to most new Canadians they want to say the same thing but won't announce it. The news was there for a day or two but that's about it.

Show your face your a Canadian now. You may feel the effects from back home but your kids are safe and will be saying "eh" in no time.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Mar 24, 2015 11:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 8:56 am
Posts: 64
Location: Milton
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-de ... e23117749/


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 119 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.014s | 13 Queries | GZIP : Off ]