Ontario Court rejects the right to wear niqab
- Thread starter Mowich
- Start date
D Cup, you are absolutely keerrect. She should take the freakin mask off in court.
Yep; that's exactly what happens... A small army of healthcare staff wheel the patient in on a gurney along with the life support equipment, set up a sterile O2 tent and remove the bandages for proper identification.
Happens all the time
Go to the bank with a ski mask on and ask to withdraw all your money... Pass 'em a drivers license to verify who you are.
This is about conflicting traditional practices. The tradition in Canada is to face your accuser.
I'll contest that... I am strong willed enough to know that you're a dork.
Doesn't that count?
Because even fewer voted for the alternatives
Of course you will, you have no clue on the topic (obviously).
Oh, geez please stop, that hurt.
When the Supreme Court of Canada grants rights to a specific group of individuals (that no other Canadians can enjoy) based on religion, then your legal system has been skewed to facilitate a certain group and no, Canadians have done absolutely nothing to prevent it.
The truth often does
What exactly do you think is happening here?
Lemme give you the skinny on this. Either the traditions and norms get a wholesale change based on one's individual interpretation of 'modesty' or the existing traditions upon which the Canadian legal system was founded are upheld.
Hope that's simple enough for ya.
This is why I hate religious freedom. It is unnecessary. She has freedom of expression, correct? How is the wearing of a face cover anything other than a personal expression? It shouldn't make any difference how long she has been a "devout" Muslim and it shouldn't matter that a large organization (a religion) chooses to dress in that particular way.
Consider any situation where religious freedom had an impact on policy, for example police officers and the sheikh turbans. If the Police department's policy reasoning for force officers to wear a particular hat as part of the uniform is so unnecessary that it can be waived for some individuals because of their devoutly held wardrobe choices, why have that policy in the first place? You won't shave your beard in a restaurant, you wear a beard net. It doesn't make sense to force non-muslims to shave and allow muslims to wear a beard net. It doesn't make sense to allow a few people an exception to a rule because their lifestyle choice was a religious one.
In the case at hand, the only policy consideration is the ability to identify a person. This can easily be done without a person showing their face. Or are they actually passing the driver's license of witnesses around to the jury members while the witness is on the stand so that each jury member can decide whether they believe that the witness is who they say they are?
Irrational adherence to rules is not a thing to be praised.
You said;
Your Supreme Court has granted the right to Sikhs to carry a kirpan anywhere they want in violation of your legal traditions and Canadians didn't even blink. In simple terms (so you can grasp it), Canadians allowed a group of people to have more rights than anyone else simply based on their religion.
So why think wearing the niqab in court is going to be a stretch? It'll happen, the slope started years ago.
Hope that's simple enough for ya.
Your Supreme Court has granted the right to Sikhs to carry a kirpan anywhere they want in violation of your legal traditions and Canadians didn't even blink. In simple terms (so you can grasp it), Canadians allowed a group of people to have more rights than anyone else simply based on their religion.
So why think wearing the niqab in court is going to be a stretch? It'll happen, the slope started years ago.
Hope that's simple enough for ya.
Aha, you stepped in it.
I can easily go to my bank with a ski mask on and withdraw all the money I am legally allowed to withdraw. I believe it is 10K euro.
That is because Dutch banks know how to identify people without needing to see their face. You just need one of these: https://www.google.com/search?q=ran...Mel0QWo44D4Cw&ved=0CAoQ_AUoAQ&biw=942&bih=941
It happens all the time. As for the person in the O2 tent, despite your delusions, it does not happen.
There is is again, "face" your accuser. Are you really so illiterate? Check the definition of the verb face. Face - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary I'll assure you that no definition explicitly mentions that a person must be uncovered. Or do individuals not face each other in fencing matches? You need to drop the equivocation.
You have the right to cross examine a witness. That is it. You have a right to know who you are cross examining. If it was a twin and the only way to identify them was a tattoo on ****** of the woman, would you have her strip naked? No, because a person with a little bit of knowledge of the world can identify a person without going to such an extreme.
Have no fear, if contested and makes it before the Supreme Court of Canada, odds are they will rule in favor of her "modesty".
That is the most likely outcome. But I lament the fact that it will be because of religious freedom instead of expression. If it makes no difference for a Muslim, why would it make a difference for a person who just decided to wear a mask out of personal choice?
Membership in a group with silly dress requirements dating back centuries doesn't seem any more valid of a reason to me than just personal preference. In the end it is a personal choice regardless.
Well, looks like you have your work cut-out for you.. You know, having the SCoC relocate to the Netherlands and morphing Canadian laws to accommodate you personally
That might be debatable... I understand the the Netherlands had a strong open door immigration policy on wholesale acceptance and that they are now re-gigging the policy (specific to issues related to Muslim immigrants)... Geert Wilders has some really strong opinions on this.
That said, you still want to table the question?
Don't believe that article Colpy posted earlier. I can assure you that I am not being forced to learn Dutch, despite what that article might lead you to believe. The Netherlands depends on immigration. They even give highly skilled immigrants (such as myself) a 30% tax exemption to attract them.
I don't think you understand the implications of what I was pointing out if you think I need the SCoC to move here. In fact, I don't think you understand what this thread is about, given your mention of the Supreme Court of Canada: they are not the ones who made the decision being discussed here.
Let me give you another example, to show you how clearly you misunderstand ID requirements. My mother recently walked into my bank, withdrew all my money, and closed my account. The bank knew this wasn't fraudulent. How did they know that? Because I called them up before hand and told them to expect it. Do you think I needed to show them my ID over the phone? No, my bank is not staffed with idiots that would ask for an ID over the phone. I am able to identify myself to my bank over the phone and prepare them for my mother coming in with a letter attesting that she has power of attorney. Do they need the Notary who created the power of attorney form to show up and ID themself? No, because, again, my bank is not so stupid that the only way they can make positive identification is with photo ID.
So there are plenty of ways to empty a bank account without photo ID. Heck, I could have just done it over the web.
The answer is, no. I cannot even believe you think it is debatable. Both the Dutch and Canadians are the same: human. How could anyone think there is a difference? Yet we are supposed to believe that the learned judges are so incompetent that they cannot duplicate what happens between me and my bank? Well, at least one judge was.
Forcing someone to show their face serves no purpose. It is certainly not proportionate to its claimed purpose. It cannot pass the Oakes test. The supreme court will overturn the ruling.
The purpose of a court is to determine the truth.
And since we routinely use facial expressions as clues to determining whether a person is telling the truth, or what they're feeling as they speak, the face of a witness has to be uncovered when testifying.
It's as simple as that.
And since we routinely use facial expressions as clues to determining whether a person is telling the truth, or what they're feeling as they speak, the face of a witness has to be uncovered when testifying.
It's as simple as that.