Women Use #DressCodePM To Ridicule Prime Minister's Anti-Niqab Comments
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
Baloney Meter: Is niqab ban needed to prove citizenship applicant's ID?
Forcing people to show their face while reciting the oath 'superfluous', federal judge concludes
Debate has been raging on Parliament Hill over the niqab worn by some Muslim women ever since Prime Minister Stephen Harper declared last month that it's "offensive" to cover one's face while taking the oath of Canadian citizenship.
Since Jason Kenney, then immigration minister, first issued a policy directive on the subject in December 2011, the government has variously argued that banning face covering garments during citizenship ceremonies is necessary to ensure would-be citizens actually recite the oath and to reflect the Canadian values of openness, transparency and gender equality at the moment they join the Canadian family.
A new justification arose this week amid opposition charges that the government is deliberately stoking prejudice against Muslims to advance its anti-terrorist agenda: the niqab ban is simply about verifying the identity of those who would be Canadian citizens.
That argument was advanced by Conservative MP Costas Menegakis, parliamentary secretary to the citizenship and immigration minister, and echoed by at least one cabinet minister, International Development Minister Christian Paradis.
But they seemed oblivious to the fact that prospective citizens are required to provide multiple proofs of their identity — including removal of face coverings, in private, in front of a citizenship official — before they get to the final, ceremonial step in the process: taking the oath.
And they're required to provide one more proof after the ceremony — their signature on a certificate affirming that they've taken the oath.
http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/politics/b...to-prove-citizenship-applicant-s-id-1.2994562
Forcing people to show their face while reciting the oath 'superfluous', federal judge concludes
Debate has been raging on Parliament Hill over the niqab worn by some Muslim women ever since Prime Minister Stephen Harper declared last month that it's "offensive" to cover one's face while taking the oath of Canadian citizenship.
Since Jason Kenney, then immigration minister, first issued a policy directive on the subject in December 2011, the government has variously argued that banning face covering garments during citizenship ceremonies is necessary to ensure would-be citizens actually recite the oath and to reflect the Canadian values of openness, transparency and gender equality at the moment they join the Canadian family.
A new justification arose this week amid opposition charges that the government is deliberately stoking prejudice against Muslims to advance its anti-terrorist agenda: the niqab ban is simply about verifying the identity of those who would be Canadian citizens.
That argument was advanced by Conservative MP Costas Menegakis, parliamentary secretary to the citizenship and immigration minister, and echoed by at least one cabinet minister, International Development Minister Christian Paradis.
But they seemed oblivious to the fact that prospective citizens are required to provide multiple proofs of their identity — including removal of face coverings, in private, in front of a citizenship official — before they get to the final, ceremonial step in the process: taking the oath.
And they're required to provide one more proof after the ceremony — their signature on a certificate affirming that they've taken the oath.
http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/politics/b...to-prove-citizenship-applicant-s-id-1.2994562
Yup. I participate instead of mindless bitching like a hormonal 13 year old girl that was grounded from using the phone.
Yeah you definitely bitch like a hormonal 13 year old girl who was grounded from using the phone.
Now you've done it.
Get ready for the curmudgeon from retirement hell lol
Edit: Too late lmao
He does tend to get pissy when I remind him of the times he's been pwned. A little later, I might bring bring up the Saskatistan Highway Traffic Act and first responders. He ran away from that pretty quick the last time it was brought up.
Last edited:
Do you not have one convincing point to ever make?
It's always fight with rhetoric and then 'u mad' when u lose lol
It's always fight with rhetoric and then 'u mad' when u lose lol