Ontario Court rejects the right to wear niqab

[petros]

There are a number of ancient traditions that are directly associated with Islam that we don't embrace into Western culture. Child-brides and death sentences for infidelity are 2 that come to mind. It's pretty disingenuous for any one person or group to pick and choose only select items from the old world and dismiss the unpleasant ones that are also a foundation of their former culture

At the end of the day, the legal system in Canada is what it is and the established tradition here is that the defendant has the opportunity to directly face their accuser.

Have you checked our marriage laws? There is no age limit.


"Queer bashing", Mormosexuals and their "Blood Atonement" and Oath of Revenge" almost found it's way into the White House.

Give you head a shake man.

 

[gerryh]

I suggest it is the other way around.
We are not trying to convince you of anything as far as I can tell. We are merely stating our opinions on the subject for that is what this forum is about.

However, you are definitely trying to convince us that your "feelings" on the subject are the only ones that are correct and acceptable.

Has it occurred to you that we folks in our 60s, and older, grew up in and were adults in a vastly different Canada?
None of these cultural dilemmas existed then. We were all Canadians outside of our homes. Cultural traditions were celebrated within one's home, church or community centre. We Canadians have our own traditions; we have our own culture that developed over the centuries. I did not agree with
"multi-culturalism" when it was foisted upon us. The ensuing difficulties arising today find their genesis in that governmental decision. We didn't have groups of immigrant peoples demanding to have the right to replace our ways with theirs. Folk were grateful to be granted permission to live and thrive in Canada as Canadians. Now it seems popular for newcomers to be excessively demanding.

Lies, or at the very least, willful ignorance. Canada has ALWAYS, aside from the attempt to eliminate First Nations culture, "allowed" different cultures to live side by side OR separate as they pleased.

Some folk have the ridiculous idea that we should just step back and allow Canada to morph into an unrecognizable nation so that immigrants can feel more comfortable here. Well what about us who have worked our butts off and paid our taxes to support immigrants for the past 40+ years? We certainly don't get any extra perks.

fear mongering

Perhaps you can hardly wait for us older people to die off so that you can re -create Canada in exactly the way you "feel" it should be? You will get that wish sooner or later but until then you cannot do whatever you please with Canada's culture. We, and many of our peers, are starting to feel like foreigners in our own city. Good grief!!!!

ignorant comment at the extreme. You state you're over 60? Then grow the fu ck up.

By the way, I am not a bigot. We have many close friends, for over 30 years, that are Indian Sikhs, Pakistani, Filipinos, Chinese, Fijian, Swedish Icelalndic and so on; hese are treasured friends. When our Sikh friends daughter married here in greater Vancouver we wore traditional Indian clothing and followed all the traditions out of respect for the family.

ROFLMFAO.... now how many times have I heard that from bigots and racists. What a joke.

When we visit another country we obey their laws and cultural mores...we do not force ours on them. That would be quite disrespectful wouldn't it?

we're not talking about visitors, we are talking about Canadian citizens. So, put a match to your strawman argument.

__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
I apologize to the descendants of the aboriginal settlers of this great continent who were established here long before my ancestors knew these lands existed. I neglected to recognize your culture as the foundation of Canada and vital contributer to our way of life as we modern Canadians know it now.

too little too late and I don't buy your "apology".

 

[petros]

Lies, or at the very least, willful ignorance. Canada has ALWAYS, aside from the attempt to eliminate First Nations culture, "allowed" different cultures to live side by side OR separate as they pleased.

You can put Eastern Orthodox Ukes and Russians alongside. Canada did a damn good job of not letting the Orthos get a foothold.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Some folk have the ridiculous idea that we should just step back and allow Canada to morph into an unrecognizable nation so that immigrants can feel more comfortable here. Well what about us who have worked our butts off and paid our taxes to support immigrants for the past 40+ years? We certainly don't get any extra perks.

* * * * *


I apologize to the descendants of the aboriginal settlers of this great continent who were established here long before my ancestors knew these lands existed. I neglected to recognize your culture as the foundation of Canada and vital contributer to our way of life as we modern Canadians know it now.

You mean, your "Canadians" didn't adjust to the local laws and mores of Turtle Island? You morphed Turtle Island into an unrecogniseable nation so that immigrants could feel more comfortable?

By the way, I am not a bigot. We have many close friends, for over 30 years, that are Indian Sikhs, Pakistani, Filipinos, Chinese, Fijian, Swedish Icelalndic and so on; hese are treasured friends. When our Sikh friends daughter married here in greater Vancouver we wore traditional Indian clothing and followed all the traditions out of respect for the family.

"You might think I'm crazy, but I ain't. I'm colourful."
--Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid

Here is some intolerance for you: If you are American you do not belong in here....this is for Canadians. You guys infest the web forums and I need a rest from you. Go away.

And here's some for you, sweetie. We invented the internet. We just let the client states use it coz we're real nice like that.

 

[Colpy]

Lies, or at the very least, willful ignorance. Canada has ALWAYS, aside from the attempt to eliminate First Nations culture, "allowed" different cultures to live side by side OR separate as they pleased.



fear mongering



ignorant comment at the extreme. You state you're over 60? Then grow the fu ck up.



ROFLMFAO.... now how many times have I heard that from bigots and racists. What a joke.



we're not talking about visitors, we are talking about Canadian citizens. So, put a match to your strawman argument.



too little too late and I don't buy your "apology".

The simple fact is that a principle of English Common Law is that you get to face your accuser.

That trumps anything else.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

The simple fact is that a principle of English Common Law is that you get to face your accuser.

That trumps anything else.

If that "trumps anything else," why are dying declarations admissible in evidence?

 

[gerryh]

The simple fact is that a principle of English Common Law is that you get to face your accuser.

That trumps anything else.

They will be able to "face" her, they just won't be able to see her whole face. Facing your accuser does not necessarily mean you need to see their face.

Only sick bastards, like those that abused her and guys like you, would require her to "strip" in front of them and the entire court room.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

They will be able to "face" her, they just won't be able to see her whole face. Facing your accuser does not necessarily mean you need to see their face.

Actually, the principle really means the right to cross-examine. It's based on the idea that a person can't give evidence with no opportunity for the accused to challenge that evidence.

But apparently some folk think the 750-plus year old system of the common law is based on a bad John Wayne film.

"Waaaaal, I figger I got me a raht to look that lyin' polecat in the eye and dare him to say thet to mah face!"

Pathetic.

 

[Colpy]

They will be able to "face" her, they just won't be able to see her whole face. Facing your accuser does not necessarily mean you need to see their face.

Only sick bastards, like those that abused her and guys like you, would require her to "strip" in front of them and the entire court room.

Yes it does.

It means you and the jury get to see her face and judge the truthfulness of her comments.......

She came here to live, therefore she must play by the rules of the west, and the rules of our law, and our custom.

That, or return to whatever Islamic hellhole bred the barbarians that abused her.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Yes it does.

It means you and the jury get to see her face and judge the truthfulness of her comments.......

She came here to live, therefore she must play by the rules of the west, and the rules of our law, and our custom.

That, or return to whatever Islamic hellhole bred the barbarians that abused her.

Will she have to become an anti-Islamic bigot?

And I ask again, if the right to face your accuser "trumps anything else," why are dying declarations (as well as other classes of testimony where the witness is unavailable) accepted in evidence in Canadian courts?

 

[Goober]

Actually, the principle really means the right to cross-examine. It's based on the idea that a person can't give evidence with no opportunity for the accused to challenge that evidence.

But apparently some folk think the 750-plus year old system of the common law is based on a bad John Wayne film.

"Waaaaal, I figger I got me a raht to look that lyin' polecat in the eye and dare him to say thet to mah face!"

Pathetic.

As I am off to bed and working in the morning I will post this again.
New program at work is just so much fun.
Yes I know Wiki is not the best to use.

So to all a God Night and God Bless.

Confrontation Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right…to be confronted with the witnesses against him." Generally, the right is to have a face-to-face confrontation with witnesses who are offering testimonial evidence against the accused in the form of cross-examination during a trial. The Fourteenth Amendment makes the right to confrontation applicable to the states and not just the federal government.[1] The right only applies to criminal prosecutions, not civil cases or other proceedings.

The Confrontation Clause has its roots in both English common law, protecting the right of cross-examination, and Roman law, which guaranteed persons accused of a crime the right to look their accusers in the eye. In noting the right's long history, the United States Supreme Court has cited Acts of the Apostles 25:16, which reports the Roman governor Porcius Festus, discussing the proper treatment of his prisoner Paul: "It is not the manner of the Romans to deliver any man up to die before the accused has met his accusers face-to-face, and has been given a chance to defend himself against the charges." It has also cited Shakespeare's Richard II, Blackstone's treatise, and statutes.[2]

 

[gerryh]

Yes it does.

no, it doesn't. If it did, there wouldn't be the need for all the BS that is going on concerning it.

It means you and the jury get to see her face and judge the truthfulness of her comments.......

They can see her eyes and hear the inflection in her voice, that is more than enough.

She came here to live,

Oh? She did? She wasn't born here? link please.

As I am off to bed and working in the morning I will post this again.
New program at work is just so much fun.
Yes I know Wiki is not the best to use.

So to all a God Night and God Bless.

Confrontation Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right…to be confronted with the witnesses against him." Generally, the right is to have a face-to-face confrontation with witnesses who are offering testimonial evidence against the accused in the form of cross-examination during a trial. The Fourteenth Amendment makes the right to confrontation applicable to the states and not just the federal government.[1] The right only applies to criminal prosecutions, not civil cases or other proceedings.

The Confrontation Clause has its roots in both English common law, protecting the right of cross-examination, and Roman law, which guaranteed persons accused of a crime the right to look their accusers in the eye. In noting the right's long history, the United States Supreme Court has cited Acts of the Apostles 25:16, which reports the Roman governor Porcius Festus, discussing the proper treatment of his prisoner Paul: "It is not the manner of the Romans to deliver any man up to die before the accused has met his accusers face-to-face, and has been given a chance to defend himself against the charges." It has also cited Shakespeare's Richard II, Blackstone's treatise, and statutes.[2]

well, isn't that special. Quoting an article concerning the states as proof of a Canadian case.

 

[Johnnny]

Im with the crowd that she has to show her face in court. She had no problem showing her face for her drivers license... She didnt have a problem stripping down for her drivers license photo.... Im not a bad guy for saying or supporting the judges decision.

 

[gerryh]

Interesting point.

I wonder though if showing your face for a driver license photo and showing your face to suspected rapists is the same thing.

Not sure as I have never been raped but I do know rape victims and judging from that I can see where this may be difficult.

big difference. One person, and I will lay odds that person was female, behind the camera snapping the pic. In court, quite possibly a court room full of strangers, both male and female.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

As I am off to bed and working in the morning I will post this again.
New program at work is just so much fun.
Yes I know Wiki is not the best to use.

So to all a God Night and God Bless.

Confrontation Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right…to be confronted with the witnesses against him." Generally, the right is to have a face-to-face confrontation with witnesses who are offering testimonial evidence against the accused in the form of cross-examination during a trial. The Fourteenth Amendment makes the right to confrontation applicable to the states and not just the federal government.[1] The right only applies to criminal prosecutions, not civil cases or other proceedings.

The Confrontation Clause has its roots in both English common law, protecting the right of cross-examination, and Roman law, which guaranteed persons accused of a crime the right to look their accusers in the eye. In noting the right's long history, the United States Supreme Court has cited Acts of the Apostles 25:16, which reports the Roman governor Porcius Festus, discussing the proper treatment of his prisoner Paul: "It is not the manner of the Romans to deliver any man up to die before the accused has met his accusers face-to-face, and has been given a chance to defend himself against the charges." It has also cited Shakespeare's Richard II, Blackstone's treatise, and statutes.[2]

And yet that very same article says the following:

If a statement is testimonial, the person making the statement must generally be available for cross examination. An exception to this rule is if the witness is unavailable. But even where the witness is unavailable, the defendant must have had a prior opportunity to confront the witness through cross examination. The latter requirement, cross examination, is discussed below.

There is also, as I have mentioned before, the case of dying declarations. And as you have mentioned, the case of witnesses who are children. And even when the witness is a child and face-to-face confrontation is not allowed, the defence counsel is still permitted to cross-examine.

The Confrontation Clause is about the right to challenge the witness's statements and impeach the witness's credibility. In short, to cross-examine the witness. The exceptions demonstrate this.

But you go right ahead on cherry-picking your Wikipedia article. Everybody needs a hobby.

 

[Johnnny]

big difference. One person, and I will lay odds that person was female, behind the camera snapping the pic. In court, quite possibly a court room full of strangers, both male and female.

if she was pulled over and asked to show her license... wouldnt the cop male or female be considered a stranger? She would be showing an exposed photo of herself to a complete stranger... in my opinion

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Do we need an amendment to say Muslims don't count?

Not in Ontario, apparently.

 

[gopher]

When accused of crime we should have the right to face our accusers.

That is one of the highest decrees of the Anglo Saxon common law. Therefore, the accused has to a right to face her and cross examine her as well. Failure to do so will constitute a mistrial.

 

[captain morgan]

Have you checked our marriage laws? There is no age limit.

Great... I'll keep my eye-out next time I'm down at city hall to see how many 13 y/o girls are taking advantage of this gaping loophole.

I don't expect that I'll see any examples, but hey, ya never know, right?

You mean, your "Canadians" didn't adjust to the local laws and mores of Turtle Island? You morphed Turtle Island into an unrecogniseable nation so that immigrants could feel more comfortable?

And here's some for you, sweetie. We invented the internet. We just let the client states use it coz we're real nice like that.

The nation of Turtle Island?.. Interesting.

You know, there is a theory that 'Turtle Island' as you call it was founded by the Nordic tribes, Mongols, Vikings and, depending on what research you buy into, the Egyptians.

So - exactly who's nation was corrupted here?

 

[Colpy]

The Dutch have learned their lesson:

http://conservativepapers.com/news/...nds-to-abandon-multiculturalism/#.UXroT1FOLzS