Beginning of Sharia Law in Canada?
- Thread starter Dixie Cup
- Start date
That's all well and fine but is totally irrelevant. Once a witness is on the stand, why would you agree to her being able to hide her face? That would be stupid....say, incompetent.
How is it irrelevant? Either you think the view of the face is important or not. Testimony is already entered into court cases in canada without seeing the face of the witness.
Entirely relevant...nobody called that the beginning of sharia law in Canada.
Try reading the actual court decision.
Because it's not her face that matters...where it does matter she won't be able to keep the veil on. Seems pretty straightforward, not sure what your malfunction is...
Obviously...I thought you might have some thoughts as to what sort of precedent this sets for later. Do you?
Says you. If you ever find yourself on trial then go ahead and allow people testifying against you to cover their faces, that's up to you. I'm gonna go with seeing the face, thank you very much.
I can see how it was absolutely neccessary to make a personal insult [/sarcasm]. Good to know that disagreeing with you, even though you're clearly wrong, is a "malfunction". lol
No, says the law. Go read the decision.
Almost as though I were calling you stupid...say incompetent for disagreeing with you?
So, maybe you shouldn't throw stones from your glass house.
I'm asking about your malfunction because the court, and others can clearly make a case for instances where it is not important. It's in the criminal code and common law for crying out loud. Where it is important, the judge will deny her the right to have a full face covering.
OK, if you really think I was referring to you with the stupid incompetent comment, then there's no point continuing talking to you. You're not just disagreeing with me, you're either totally not paying attention or being purposefully obtuse.
translation....... "Ok, I really don't know what the hell I'm talking about or anything about the OP so I will throw one more insult out there and stalk away as if "I" am the one that is misunderstood."
You have to be purposely blind not to see that it is pushing sharia law one small step at a time and using our own weakness called political correctness to do it....
Other democratic countries are also starting to see it
Shocker: “Broad Muslim support” for Sharia Law in Australia
And I'll counter that you're being duped by people ignoring the constitutional frameworks our laws are based on. This isn't Sharia law anymore than allowing testimony by witnesses to be entered into the record while in absentia is Sharia law....this is our law.
It's telling that when pressed, those who assert we are on a slippery slope can't point to what sort of application of Sharia law they think comes next, or even what is probable. And for the record, some Sharia law is actually compatible with our laws, in which case there is no conflict, except for those wishing to demagogue.
In fact, the court clearly ruled that the judge must evaluate the religious freedom claims against what is fair for the accused. Fair trial trumps the right to religious expression, considering a trial is not a venue for expression of views... That is hardly favouring Sharia law...
Paranoid fear mongering.
Well, yes, it is our law.
I would agree it is not sharia law........
It is, however, our legal system destroying ancient tradition to placate the enemies of western civilization.
And that is not paranoia....if you wear a burka, you are no friend of the liberalism that is has taken centuries to develop in the west....
If you wear a burka, you do not belong here.
Yup, only two words coming from Quebec and I agree with them....Reasonable accommodation
People probably thought Ezra Levant was paranoid too until it cost him a fortune to defend himself against the muslim agenda and the politically correct H R C...
People probably thought Ezra Levant was paranoid too until it cost him a fortune to defend himself against the muslim agenda and the politically correct H R C...
Of course it isn't.
What tradition is that? You call this placating?
...the right [of the accused] must prevail over the witness’s religious freedoms and the witness must be ordered to remove the niqab...
This is from paragraph 88, where the court had already given consideration to which pertinent facts the judge will have to consider. Where the two rights are irreconcilable, the rights of the accused prevail. That is not a concession, that is carefully weighing the fundamental rights in question.
...almost as intolerant to personal liberty as Sharia law there Colpy.
Fair enough. Sorry for over-reacting.
Of course, what else could it be.
It is alright to have rights in an open society as long as not everyone wants to
exercise their rights. I don't think wearing a burka makes you an enemy of the
state. We often confuse, religion with custom. If it is the woman's choice to
wear it, that is one thing, if she is forced to wear it that is something else. I
think we have to enter the word custom, vs religion into the court record. If
one is claiming in court it is their religious right to wear it that is not the case.
as I understand it, the burka is not a religious garment and is not mentioned
specifically in their scripture as far as I understand. I for one do not want to
punish the people wearing funny hats as the saying goes, but I think we do
have to ensure the laws of our courts are obeyed, therefore a burka or a veil
would not be appropriate in the court, as the accused must be able to see who
his or her accuser is. In the west it is not only part of tradition it is the law.
The Burka itself is not part of the religion however, women are to not be
freely open with men in public. The burka is a symbol of that separation but
outside of the Taliban, it was not a forced garment, it is a social condition
and women tend to wear it as tradition. I think that norm will break down in
the west with successive generations. We don't see too many people going
about wearing lederhosen either.
I also spoke to my sister today, she lives in Calgary and I mentioned all the fuss
about electing a Muslim in Calgary, she doesn't give a damn about the politically
correct. she voted for the guy because he was the best of
all the candidates. He is a Muslim true but he is also a Canadian, and not about
to institute anything. She thought it was pretty funny actually.
exercise their rights. I don't think wearing a burka makes you an enemy of the
state. We often confuse, religion with custom. If it is the woman's choice to
wear it, that is one thing, if she is forced to wear it that is something else. I
think we have to enter the word custom, vs religion into the court record. If
one is claiming in court it is their religious right to wear it that is not the case.
as I understand it, the burka is not a religious garment and is not mentioned
specifically in their scripture as far as I understand. I for one do not want to
punish the people wearing funny hats as the saying goes, but I think we do
have to ensure the laws of our courts are obeyed, therefore a burka or a veil
would not be appropriate in the court, as the accused must be able to see who
his or her accuser is. In the west it is not only part of tradition it is the law.
The Burka itself is not part of the religion however, women are to not be
freely open with men in public. The burka is a symbol of that separation but
outside of the Taliban, it was not a forced garment, it is a social condition
and women tend to wear it as tradition. I think that norm will break down in
the west with successive generations. We don't see too many people going
about wearing lederhosen either.
I also spoke to my sister today, she lives in Calgary and I mentioned all the fuss
about electing a Muslim in Calgary, she doesn't give a damn about the politically
correct. she voted for the guy because he was the best of
all the candidates. He is a Muslim true but he is also a Canadian, and not about
to institute anything. She thought it was pretty funny actually.
DG, she didn't actually claim it was her religious right as described by Islam to wear the niqab, her claim was that the the niqab is part of her identity as a Muslim, and a woman. So, that would be the charter to right to religious expression.
And again, that is why if the rights of the accused are non-trivially impaired by a witness wearing a face covering, the right to fundamental justice is the prevailing right which the courts will protect. Court's are places where facts matter, not so much the expression of individuals.
And again, that is why if the rights of the accused are non-trivially impaired by a witness wearing a face covering, the right to fundamental justice is the prevailing right which the courts will protect. Court's are places where facts matter, not so much the expression of individuals.
Tonington, sorry I missed the initial claim, you are right, and the courts need to
have the options within the context of the law or we are all in trouble down the road
thanks for pointing that out to me
have the options within the context of the law or we are all in trouble down the road
thanks for pointing that out to me