Human Wrongs, Not Rights Abused Here By the Veil

[SirJosephPorter]

SirJosephPorter, seems like wonders never cease!!!

You expressed all my views regarding Islam far more eloquently than I ever could have hoped for.

I agree with you and thank you.

Yukon Jack, I don’t know if you remember, but a while ago I said some nasty things about Christianity, and you came back saying that I wouldn’t dare say anything against Islam.

To which I replied that I had said worse things about Islam in this forum, that I call them as I see them.

So yes, this is a rare area of agreement between us, revel in it. Pretty soon I may say something equally nasty about Christianity and we will be on the opposite side of the fence again.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I think it's also telling that, as far as I can recall, all the responses in this thread to are against the wearing of niqab during testimony in court all come from men.

Not from me, Amatullaah. Although I regard Islam as a particularly nasty religion, one which treats women as subhuman, I don’t have any problem with women wearing niqab in the courtroom. I think judges should have discretion in the matter.

 

[L Gilbert]

Jeeeez, you sure talk a lot without saying much, Joe.

Here is an example of what will happen if the Canadian justice system rules against allowing women who wear niqab to testify in court:

So women who wear niqab won't be able to to pursue court cases if they are required to testify. Once this barrier to munaqabaat becomes public knowledge (which is most likely, as this case has already made national headlines here in Canada), they will most likely be targeted for crimes since the would-be perpetrators know that most will not remove their niqab to get justice or protection. This would mean that a segment of Canadian society no longer has the recourse to feel safe and feel protected from its criminal elements, and that instead of helping women feel more safe, a antagonist ruling in this case would actually cause more women to feel unsafe in Canada. In fact, it would probably persuade more munaqabaat to generally stay at home than go out in public (which would be one positive outcome of this case), since they would fear being taken advantage of in public for whatever reason without recourse. It would also further alienate Muslims in general, but Muslim women and, specifically, munaqabaat, in particular.

I think it's also telling that, as far as I can recall, all the responses in this thread to are against the wearing of niqab during testimony in court all come from men.

Edit: I would also recommend to anyone who is interested to read the analysis and commentary done by MuslimahMediaWatch (a blog run by Muslim women [feminists]) on this topic.

I agree, Amatullaah. And not only that, it might lead to other things such as refusal to register land under the names of munaqabaat, driver's licenses, etc. So much for equality.
"Tired of being a second class citizen in your own country? Come to Canada. Everyone is equal here and can express their culture freely...... (on the surface. But wait for a while, you'll find out differently)."

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Jeeeez, you sure talk a lot without saying much, Joe.

It’s an art form, Gilbert.

 

[L Gilbert]

Maybe, but it's no wonder you sidetrack from thread topics a lot.

 

[GreenFish66]

Banks need more $$$.. Let them do their own stress test..What do you expect..Money for the greedy abusers, none for the stuggling abused..Just Waste of money to give it to the slave drones right?

Even Canadian government leader uses slave labour...

..Time to slow down on immigrant workers, until we can uncover and straighten out this hidden job market human resource keeps takin' about.

Constantly conceeding unions are Useless to greedy businesses , black mailing governments AND hard working people in the short /more so in the long run...It Takes real action before any of these thankless/self interested institutions listen...Time to strike?

..At an Employment /works seminar..Social workers tell ,mostly mid age men, that 80%, of the work is in a"Hidden job market"..Why are these jobs hidden?..Hidden from who?.Good jobs hidden from people who need them most..Process is too long ,not effeicent or effective..money pit!.Government strong hold on $$$$.

Few, in the end, qualify for these programs/ jobs/careers/education.Time to go back to business taking responsibility for training/hiring..Time Ditch these temp worker/government slave programs and give the pepole the $$ and jobs they deserve..

Big business and government have to do more to ensure "Average(growing poor) people " get a FAIR deal, A good job ,a chance to simply live, and have all the things promised to them growing up, by their own "Free"country.. Stop Feeding them false hopes and dreams.It's false advertising.. Or We all will fail..Fall to our own Demons and vices

Need more green/clean tech jobs now!..the future demands it now !

B.GreenFish66

By the way..Liked your employment reform speech Obama..Hope Canda follows..we have "E.I","Works" programs and many others..Seem to cost more than their all worth..Good money trap.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

"Tired of being a second class citizen in your own country? Come to Canada. Everyone is equal here and can express their culture freely...... (on the surface. But wait for a while, you'll find out differently)."

Now this one I disagree with, Gilbert, I hope Canadian government is not saying that aboard. Sure everyone can express their culture freely, but only so far as it doesn’t conflict with our constitution or the Charter.

If there is any conflict between the imported culture and the constitution, the imported culture must go. Thus many Islamic countries permit honour killings. If anybody resorts to honour killing in Canada, with the excuse that ‘it is their culture’, they must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Islam says that it is OK for a man to beat his wife, and most Islamic counters permit a man to beat his wife. But if any Muslim man beats his wife and uses the defense that it is a part of his culture, he must be punished as severely as any other wife beater.

So yes, we welcome all the cultures, but only to the extent that they don’t violate our constitution.

 

[lone wolf]

Jeeeez, you sure talk a lot without saying much, Joe.

It’s an art form, Gilbert.

It's called a need for attention - another of the many hallmarks of a narcissist.

 

[L Gilbert]

"Tired of being a second class citizen in your own country? Come to Canada. Everyone is equal here and can express their culture freely...... (on the surface. But wait for a while, you'll find out differently)."

Now this one I disagree with, Gilbert, I hope Canadian government is not saying that aboard. Sure everyone can express their culture freely, but only so far as it doesn’t conflict with our constitution or the Charter.

If there is any conflict between the imported culture and the constitution, the imported culture must go. Thus many Islamic countries permit honour killings. If anybody resorts to honour killing in Canada, with the excuse that ‘it is their culture’, they must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

I have no idea what Canada says "aboard". I was being sarcastic.
I can't see where a lady wearing a nijab in court does anything bad but miff a few whiners.

Islam says that it is OK for a man to beat his wife, and most Islamic counters permit a man to beat his wife. But if any Muslim man beats his wife and uses the defense that it is a part of his culture, he must be punished as severely as any other wife beater.

Irrelevant to the topic.

So yes, we welcome all the cultures, but only to the extent that they don’t violate our constitution.

Redundant.

 

[Amatullaah]

SirJosephPorter, I wasn't trying to say that all the men here were against the testimony of those wearing the niqab, but rather, those who do oppose, seemed to be all men. I did note your stance on the issue, so I wasn't trying to single you out, or anything. I hope I didn't give that impression. (And I really wish you would stop using the term 'Islamic country(ies)', because there are none that exist in the present. However, I do intend to answer your responses to my explanations from earlier [if you want], in a new thread, but I need some time to collect sources.)

Also, people shouldn't assume that because someone wears the niqab, that they're an immigrant. Half of the munaqabaat in Canada that I know are actually white Canadians, who were born here, who have grown up here, and whose family lineages in Canada go back at least 3 generations. The other half are mostly Canadians who are the children of immigrants to this country, with a few actually being immigrants themselves.

On top of that, I don't know if any of you have been victims of rape or sexual assault, but I was one of the latter several years ago. Anyways, when I imagine being forced to take off the niqab by a judge if I needed to testify about something that would be very important to me, the feeling I get is the same one I received when the guy attempted to rape me. So I think forcing this munaqabah, who is testifying against two men that she is accussing of sexually assaulting her many years ago, to take off her niqab, which she is obviously not comfortable with (nor would I be), is essentially like assaulting her all over again. I believe the term that is commonly is used is 'revictimisation'; which is what Mr. Weisman is doing in this case, whether intentionally or unintentionally.

 

[L Gilbert]

And as far as the Charter of rights and freedoms is concerned, I think it's not harmful for someone to follow their religious tradition, but it is harmful to take away the right to religious expression, especially after someone's been a victim robbed of privacy and security in the first place. To me it's a no-brainer.

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

then you must be against the use of hijab in court this as it causes serious harm to society as it allows Sharia law to pollute our system of justice.

Really dumpthemonarcy? And what does wearing hijab have to do with Sharia? Anyway, Sharia does not mandate that women must wear hijab (and in this case we are talking about niqab, not hijab).

Sharia is absolutely vicious to women, it considers women to be subhuman, but it does not mandate wearing of hijab. All it says is that a woman must cover her body at all times, none of her body must be visible. Different Islamic countries do this different ways. Some use hijab, some niqab, some use chador (mainly Iran), some use full body veil etc.

But then if niqab or hijab is somehow linked to Sharia, I suppose at an emotional level that strengthens your argument.

Right niqab is the issue here. But it's all linked. I suppose I could find some Muslim cleric to say niqab is required for Muslim women and it's part of sharia law. It's the thin edge of the wedge.