|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 7, 2010 19:29:16 GMT -5
I'll ask the ludicrous question then; How many of the "tolerant" amongst us would allow an African Tribesman to walk naked down our streets, sit next to us on the bus, or <gasp> teach our 10 year old girls elementary school? How about wearing a Nazi or Ku Klux Klan uniform, providing of course that they don't try to push their ideals on anyone? "Just wearing the clothes, not hurting anybody." Would we still say you and I might not dress the same or look the same, but we are all Canadians and believe in the freedom to do as one pleases?We reject clothing (or lack thereof) all the time because of it's connotations, history, inference what have you. The outrage against banning the burqa sounds more like political correctness to me, then any sense of real moral outrage. Other then the hygene issue, I have no problem with tribes woman walking down the street naked. Heck, when it gets really hot outside, I thought of freeba****g too. *shrug* As for the Nazi and KKK? Why not? How can we laugh at countries or societies that demand a certain type of dress code and then turn around and ban what we don't like? Because they represent what we consider hate groups? So now it's "guilt by dress code"? Should that list of "hate" include the Mao gray pyjamas? How about black shirts? Stalin commie caps? Should we assume the clothes are guilty until proven innocent? I applaud the security issue of the burqa and what it represents but then, one foot is already slipping on that slippery slope...... |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Apr 7, 2010 23:40:01 GMT -5
The outrage against banning the burqa sounds more like political correctness to me, then any sense of real moral outrage. The support for this law sounds more like intolerance and racism to me. You know, I think the idea of forcing women to cover their faces is disgusting, and not conducive to their flourishing or to the flourishing of society. But who is this law helping? As far as I can see, only people who are so sheltered that they can't handle a brief conversation with someone wearing a veil. It certainly won't help the women who wear them. I doubt very much that any ambulance technician would refuse to treat a burqa-clad woman because she was wearing a veil Tell me you're not that naive. Are ambulance technicians somehow above stupidity and prejudice? And, there's no evidence to support this claim, but if the intent is not to prevent Muslim women from receiving medical care, then why not say so in the law? I'm not comfortable with a law on the books that makes it either allowed or required to refuse medical care on the basis of what someone's wearing. At the very best, this law is extremely poorly written. As I understand it, you would not be able to prosecute someone for refusing medical care to someone whose face is covered. |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Apr 7, 2010 23:43:57 GMT -5
I've yet to hear anyone even attempt to explain how this law will benefit any woman who wears a veil (and they will not give up wearing a veil because of this law, after all, it only effects them when getting government services). Given the obvious potential for harm to these women (if it results in them not taking advantage of government services, or in needing a man to speak for them, or suffering because they are refused medical care), how can anyone claim to support this law on the basis of a belief in gender equality without having such an explanation? The law is suppose to protect both parties. When I conduct business as a government official, I have the right to know who I am dealing with. The law is protecting her by attempting to eliminate false accusations against her (and what-not), by being able to easily identify her. I'm sorry, but that's a ridiculous argument. This law doesn't just apply when ID is required, it applies in all situations, even just going to pick up a form. |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Apr 8, 2010 0:20:16 GMT -5
So how do you know where it’s self-inflicted, and really a free choice? When one lives with the threat of an honor killing – or at the very least a good old fashioned beating – one tends to say anything that will prevent those things from happening. May even come to believe them to be necessary, or “deserved”. Not just a Muslim thing, happens to every abused woman. How many of them “fall down the stairs” all the time? How many of them stay with their abusive husbands, until death literally does them part? So you're saying we should deny government services to any woman who has obviously been abused? That would be the logical conclusion of your argument. It seems to me you illustrate neatly why this law is profoundly stupid. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 8, 2010 6:46:56 GMT -5
The law is suppose to protect both parties. When I conduct business as a government official, I have the right to know who I am dealing with. The law is protecting her by attempting to eliminate false accusations against her (and what-not), by being able to easily identify her. I'm sorry, but that's a ridiculous argument. This law doesn't just apply when ID is required, it applies in all situations, even just going to pick up a form. That's the way government policies tend to operate ... throughout ALL government. Ridiculous or not, I do have the right to know who I conduct business with ..... all this bill is doing in my mind is making it blatantly obvious the legal ramifications of existing laws. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Apr 8, 2010 9:09:01 GMT -5
Retina scan ID would be extremely costly to install and take quite a while to universally implement...but such a system would solve this problem.
Seems like a long way to go to accommodate, though.
Would a fingerprinting scanning system work as well?
===========================================
Am I the only one that finds it quite ironic that a Quebec government that is committed to protecting their culture within Canada, comes up with a law that demands another culture conform to theirs, security issue notwithstanding?
Not trying to start a political argument....just an observation that starts and ends there.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 8, 2010 9:52:22 GMT -5
Actually not ironic but totally logical.
Can what they are doing be considered xenophobic?
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 8, 2010 9:58:18 GMT -5
Retina scan ID would be extremely costly to install and take quite a while to universally implement...but such a system would solve this problem. Seems like a long way to go to accommodate, though. Would a fingerprinting scanning system work as well? =========================================== Am I the only one that finds it quite ironic that a Quebec government that is committed to protecting their culture within Canada, comes up with a law that demands another culture conform to theirs, security issue notwithstanding? Not trying to start a political argument....just an observation that starts and ends there. I don't think they are demanding that a culture conform to theirs. I think they are saying that there is only so far you can go to accommodate another one though. From what I understand, there are only 20-25 people in the entire province that this affects. Do you put the time, energy and money into changing government policies for 25 people? A little bit of a digression here, but bare with me ... in Newfoundland we have two distinct cultures, what we refer to as baymen and townie. When Joey was premier, many moons ago, he figured it was getting to costly to support services and the like to various bay towns, so he basically forced resettlement on them. They had to move into more urban centers (not necessarily a city mind you, but some of these towns had populations of 10). In Newfoundland today, I know of two towns where the populations are under 5 ... how far do you go to accommodate these people, in the name of culture/lifestyle? |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 8, 2010 10:04:58 GMT -5
Do you put the time, energy and money into changing government policies for 25 people? In Newfoundland today, I know of two towns where the populations are under 5 ... how far do you go to accommodate these people, in the name of culture/lifestyle? Depends on how valuable those votes are I guess  Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 8, 2010 10:24:17 GMT -5
Do you put the time, energy and money into changing government policies for 25 people? In Newfoundland today, I know of two towns where the populations are under 5 ... how far do you go to accommodate these people, in the name of culture/lifestyle? Depends on how valuable those votes are I guess Cheers. That arguement does have a lot of merit ... and I, from 7 seat NL out of 308 (soon to be 388) seat Canada know this all too well ... But there is a limit to how far you can go in accommodating visible minoirties. Is this the limit for Quebec? I have no idea ... I do know accommodating minorities was an election issue not long ago. Should we all be forced to erect wheelchair ramps for our homes because there may be a wheelchair Jehovah's Witness that will come to our homes? Security is a big issue now, and probably will be for a long time .... identifying who you are dealing with is apart of security. Everyone entering a government office in Newfoundland has to identify who they are (sign in, show ID to prove who you are, and sign out in plain view of security guards). Been that way since shortly after 9/11 ... it has its fallacies, but it is government policy. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 8, 2010 11:42:12 GMT -5
Depends on how valuable those votes are I guess Cheers. That arguement does have a lot of merit ... and I, from 7 seat NL out of 308 (soon to be 388) seat Canada know this all too well ... But there is a limit to how far you can go in accommodating visible minoirties. Is this the limit for Quebec? I have no idea ... I do know accommodating minorities was an election issue not long ago. Should we all be forced to erect wheelchair ramps for our homes because there may be a wheelchair Jehovah's Witness that will come to our homes? Here's something I found interesting, Skilly. Sharia Europe is a very small read but it's quite informative. Give it a once-over when you have time. Here's a cut and paste from the article: In Germany, for example, Muslim men have successfully used the Sharia law in court to defend their right to beat their wives and to practice polygamy.I think Quebec has done an outstanding job in laying the groundwork in preventing a similar situation from happening in their province. And while I'm not a strong supporter of McGuity here in Ontario, he did say no to Sharia Law in a move to ban all faith-based arbitrations. Hey, if you allow just one ... But, where's the disconnect here? In England, Pat Condell, considers multi-culturalism to be a "poisonous fiction." Perhaps this had something to do with his comments, though I really don't know. Only he does: Revealed: UK’s first official sharia courtsAbul Taher ISLAMIC law has been officially adopted in Britain, with sharia courts given powers to rule on Muslim civil cases. The government has quietly sanctioned the powers for sharia judges to rule on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence.[/i] Is this the best definition of multiculturalsim, or is it something else? Trying to identify an all-compassing policy that pleases everyone is extremely hard to do. Having said that, I don't know the secret to success, but I've found that the secret to failure often reveals itself when trying to please everyone. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Apr 8, 2010 12:43:47 GMT -5
Well, I will go on record right now as saying that a definite line should be drawn in the law re: anyone who practices the beating/abuse/killing of females (among other things) using their religion as a "right" to do so.
It has to be against the law, period.
Such is the power of brainwashing/indoctrination.....being able to justify, under your "god", the beating/abuse/killing of a family member/spouse.
That is abominable.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 8, 2010 12:59:31 GMT -5
I'm going on record...
I will fight ANY Sharia law in any way possible and if that fails, I will join and support ANY party that condemns it. Even if that party is Marxist or worse.
Sharia law is fifty steps backward.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 8, 2010 13:26:07 GMT -5
I'm going on record... I will fight ANY Sharia law in any way possible and if that fails, I will join and support ANY party that condemns it. Even if that party is Marxist or worse. Sharia law is fifty steps backward. What I found particularly gratifying about this decision wasn't so much about squashing faith-based arbitration, yes that was absolutely necessary for many reasons; but, the Ontario Liberals weren't worried about the threat of losing any votes over it. It was a deliberate decision that sent a clear message to all faiths, which I found was the most necessary about it. As I posted to Skilly, this isn't necessarily the case in some European countries though. Those countries who have allowed Sharia Law have now established a dangerous precence in my opinion. Here's a cut and paste from the link I gave to Skilly: In United Kingdom, where Islamic imams now outnumber Christian pastors and converting empty church buildings into mosques has become a cottage industry, the Archbishop of Canterbury - the leader of the Church of England - recently stated that adopting elements of the Sharia law into the English judicial system was “unavoidable”. What kind of precedence is this setting? You have to applaud the efforts of the Ontario Liberals by implementing an initiative that benefited everyone in the province and not just a select few. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Apr 8, 2010 23:31:40 GMT -5
I'm sorry, but that's a ridiculous argument. This law doesn't just apply when ID is required, it applies in all situations, even just going to pick up a form. That's the way government policies tend to operate ... throughout ALL government. Ridiculous or not, I do have the right to know who I conduct business with ..... all this bill is doing in my mind is making it blatantly obvious the legal ramifications of existing laws. I see. And what about a burn victim whose face is covered in bandages? |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 9, 2010 6:26:37 GMT -5
That's the way government policies tend to operate ... throughout ALL government. Ridiculous or not, I do have the right to know who I conduct business with ..... all this bill is doing in my mind is making it blatantly obvious the legal ramifications of existing laws. I see. And what about a burn victim whose face is covered in bandages? We can each pick out examples that will be to the exteme MC .... for instance, what about a person with bandages on his face claiming to be a burn victim with unseen explosives strapped to his chest? To be honest, I am not sure of the policy for that scenario (but I'm sure there would have to be some means of identification provided), or the liklihood of that scenario. I do know of a burn victim that works in a government office, with burns to the face, but he obviously doesn't wear bandages. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Apr 9, 2010 7:02:30 GMT -5
I see. And what about a burn victim whose face is covered in bandages? We can each pick out examples that will be to the exteme MC .... for instance, what about a person with bandages on his face claiming to be a burn victim with unseen explosives strapped to his chest? To be honest, I am not sure of the policy for that scenario (but I'm sure there would have to be some means of identification provided), or the liklihood of that scenario. I do know of a burn victim that works in a government office, with burns to the face, but he obviously doesn't wear bandages. It's an extreme example, but it's to the point as well. Let me step back for a minute, and take a look at some of your previous comments. You say that every (provincial, I presume, since that's what we are talking about) government office has a policy where you come in, show your ID, and take a number. Well, you're mistaken. Every office building (for example, Confederation Building) sure. Although frankly I wouldn't call security there tight given the number of loopholes even I know about. But in other government offices - let's say, I don't know, the Department of Motor Vehicles office in Mount Pearl. It's a government office. But I happen to know that at least two people waltzed in there about four months ago and were never questioned. They came in, got the forms, left, came back later, got a number, waited, waited, waited some more, got called, went up, handed in the filled out forms and only then were challenged for identification. And that was only because the couple had to prove ownership of their vehicle before they could finally ditch those ugly Ontario plates. It's a far cry from the situation you describe. I have no problem with people being forced to identify themselves if there's a situation that calls for it. Confederation Building is a high security location and with good reason. Not only is there the risk of someone doing harm to others (as you suggest as being the primary motive) but the information that's traded there is also very sensitive. But if the young couple mentioned above had been in Quebec, and if the woman had worn a burqa, then she would be obligated to reveal herself simply to get a form. Health is also covered under the provincial government. Will they be expected to reveal themselves when they are visiting the doctor's office for a checkup (excluding to the doctor, of course). When they are visiting a friend in the hospital and need to ask directions? What end does that serve? You respond with "it's the government, one rule fits all" but that's untrue. The difference between Confederation Building and the DMV is but one example of how different rules can apply in different situations. But if you don't like that, why not make the rule "if the Government requires your identification, then you must identify yourself to proceed". Simple and easy. You need a form? We don't need to identify you for that. You want to attend a French class? We don't need to identify you for that. You want to drive a car? Sorry - lose the head covering or you don't drive. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 9, 2010 8:16:27 GMT -5
We can each pick out examples that will be to the exteme MC .... for instance, what about a person with bandages on his face claiming to be a burn victim with unseen explosives strapped to his chest? To be honest, I am not sure of the policy for that scenario (but I'm sure there would have to be some means of identification provided), or the liklihood of that scenario. I do know of a burn victim that works in a government office, with burns to the face, but he obviously doesn't wear bandages. It's an extreme example, but it's to the point as well. Let me step back for a minute, and take a look at some of your previous comments. You say that every (provincial, I presume, since that's what we are talking about) government office has a policy where you come in, show your ID, and take a number. Well, you're mistaken. Every office building (for example, Confederation Building) sure. Although frankly I wouldn't call security there tight given the number of loopholes even I know about. But in other government offices - let's say, I don't know, the Department of Motor Vehicles office in Mount Pearl. It's a government office. But I happen to know that at least two people waltzed in there about four months ago and were never questioned. They came in, got the forms, left, came back later, got a number, waited, waited, waited some more, got called, went up, handed in the filled out forms and only then were challenged for identification. And that was only because the couple had to prove ownership of their vehicle before they could finally ditch those ugly Ontario plates. It's a far cry from the situation you describe. I have no problem with people being forced to identify themselves if there's a situation that calls for it. Confederation Building is a high security location and with good reason. Not only is there the risk of someone doing harm to others (as you suggest as being the primary motive) but the information that's traded there is also very sensitive. But if the young couple mentioned above had been in Quebec, and if the woman had worn a burqa, then she would be obligated to reveal herself simply to get a form. Health is also covered under the provincial government. Will they be expected to reveal themselves when they are visiting the doctor's office for a checkup (excluding to the doctor, of course). When they are visiting a friend in the hospital and need to ask directions? What end does that serve? You respond with "it's the government, one rule fits all" but that's untrue. The difference between Confederation Building and the DMV is but one example of how different rules can apply in different situations. But if you don't like that, why not make the rule "if the Government requires your identification, then you must identify yourself to proceed". Simple and easy. You need a form? We don't need to identify you for that. You want to attend a French class? We don't need to identify you for that. You want to drive a car? Sorry - lose the head covering or you don't drive. The DMV has been the bane of government policy for years .... and I agree with you, they don't ask you to identify yourself because their arguement is you have to eventually identify yourself. I do know that the government are striving for the identification policy in all buildings. And really, there aren't many were you can waltz on in, in NL, and walk around without being met with a counter ... which is why the Confed Bldg had the policy first. You don't see the problem with being able to go incognito, and I don't see the problem with asking someone to not wear a ski-mask / burqua while in the conduct of business .... doctor's office? No, just to the doctor/nurses when getting treated and especially if being perscribed anything. hospital visits / directions? I don't think that is the intent of the law. Requesting a form? Nope, here you go .... but if you want me to process that form, yep, I need to be able to identify the person in case they gave false information on that sheet intentionally... |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 9, 2010 8:55:46 GMT -5
Just some lower level experience. I used to be one of my unit's harassment counselors. Once a complaint came into my office (at one point I had four to deal with all at the same time) I had to drop everything I was doing, defer all responsibilities onto my subordinates and handle the issue(s) first and foremost until they were resolved. I had everything from "it's my right to play hockey (on the unit team) during work hours but my bosses won't let me," to actual harassment cases that needed attending to.
I've had some experience in what accommodation is about. It got so pety where I worked that we actually had to adopt a specific way of pronouncing, harassment. We had to be careful not to pronounce it, "her-ass-ment." That was a strict taboo because it could be construed as referring to "her ass." The new pronounciation was to be, "hairess-ment." I still shake my head over that one. The army actually bought into it. Made the troops laugh ... and rightly so.
It's not racist, or an act of harassment to ask someone to comply with one set of rules that apply to everyone. How often do we accommodate before those accommodations become ridiculous? What's worse is that some might preceive these accommodations as previliges and once that seed is planted we're going to have more problems.
I think Quebec has it right. You want government services that require identification then identify yourself. If, after that, you wish to cover your face again then go ahead. That's not racist, harassment or wrong. It's a law that applies to everyone.
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Apr 9, 2010 9:04:38 GMT -5
The DMV has been the bane of government policy for years .... and I agree with you, they don't ask you to identify yourself because their arguement is you have to eventually identify yourself. I do know that the government are striving for the identification policy in all buildings. And really, there aren't many were you can waltz on in, in NL, and walk around without being met with a counter ... which is why the Confed Bldg had the policy first. You don't see the problem with being able to go incognito, and I don't see the problem with asking someone to not wear a ski-mask / burqua while in the conduct of business .... doctor's office? No, just to the doctor/nurses when getting treated and especially if being perscribed anything. hospital visits / directions? I don't think that is the intent of the law. Requesting a form? Nope, here you go .... but if you want me to process that form, yep, I need to be able to identify the person in case they gave false information on that sheet intentionally... And therein lies the problem. You say it's not the intent of the law, and you may (or may not) be right. However the intent of the law matters very little, especially when placed in the hands of those who want to twist society to meet their own close-minded model. It may not be the "intent" of the law, but as written (or at least, as I understand it as written - IANALOAF) it will certainly be well within the rights of various and sundry public servants to do just that. And while the vast majority, I'm sure, will be good natured about it a few bad apples will fan the fires of racial hatred - just as the woman in the French class did with her actions. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 9, 2010 10:17:30 GMT -5
It's not racist, or an act of harassment to ask someone to comply with one set of rules that apply to everyone. How often do we accommodate before those accommodations become ridiculous? What's worse is that some might preceive these accommodations as previliges and once that seed is planted we're going to have more problems. Interesting editorial in today's National PostAs Canadian society becomes ever more pluralistic, minority religious practices increasingly come into conflict with laws designed for universal application. The controversy this year over the wearing of the niqab in Quebec highlighted the clash between religious freedom and our society's baseline expectation of equality in the treatment of men and women. Similarly, in British Columbia, the provincial government recently asked its courts to rule on the constitutionality of polygamy laws, in response to a religious sect that practices multiple marriage.
And now in Ontario, two incidents -- one outside the courtroom, one in it -- are pitting religious freedom against the criminal law, reviving an old controversy and raising a new one.
The first involves the wearing of the kirpan, or Sikh ceremonial dagger. Canada's Sikh community has argued for decades that members are entitled to carry this blade as a symbol of faith and their commitment to confront evil. In 2006, the Supreme Court ruled that the kirpan could be worn by Sikh students, even in the classroom, on the condition that it be sewn into its sheath and worn under clothing.
Last week, lawyer Manjit Mangat suffered serious stab wounds when he was attacked with a kirpan outside a community centre in Brampton. There have been three other incidents of violence in Toronto involving the daggers in the past few years, in addition to stabbings in British Columbia and Quebec. The latest attack has renewed calls for the wearing of kirpans to be banned, on the basis of public safety. the rest |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Apr 9, 2010 13:02:00 GMT -5
The first involves the wearing of the kirpan, or Sikh ceremonial dagger. Canada's Sikh community has argued for decades that members are entitled to carry this blade as a symbol of faith and their commitment to confront evil. Last week, lawyer Manjit Mangat suffered serious stab wounds when he was attacked with a kirpan outside a community centre in Brampton. And therein lies the danger of religious fundamentalism. When a religion holds the tenet that a lethal weapon be worn as a symbol of "the commitment to confront evil", what's inherent in that teaching? Was the lawyer in this incident considered/deemed evil by the attacker? That would be interesting to know...and it would be my guess that it was indeed the case/excuse used. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 9, 2010 13:06:39 GMT -5
It's not racist, or an act of harassment to ask someone to comply with one set of rules that apply to everyone. How often do we accommodate before those accommodations become ridiculous? What's worse is that some might preceive these accommodations as previliges and once that seed is planted we're going to have more problems. Interesting editorial in today's National PostAs Canadian society becomes ever more pluralistic, minority religious practices increasingly come into conflict with laws designed for universal application. The controversy this year over the wearing of the niqab in Quebec highlighted the clash between religious freedom and our society's baseline expectation of equality in the treatment of men and women. Similarly, in British Columbia, the provincial government recently asked its courts to rule on the constitutionality of polygamy laws, in response to a religious sect that practices multiple marriage.
And now in Ontario, two incidents -- one outside the courtroom, one in it -- are pitting religious freedom against the criminal law, reviving an old controversy and raising a new one.
The first involves the wearing of the kirpan, or Sikh ceremonial dagger. Canada's Sikh community has argued for decades that members are entitled to carry this blade as a symbol of faith and their commitment to confront evil. In 2006, the Supreme Court ruled that the kirpan could be worn by Sikh students, even in the classroom, on the condition that it be sewn into its sheath and worn under clothing.
Last week, lawyer Manjit Mangat suffered serious stab wounds when he was attacked with a kirpan outside a community centre in Brampton. There have been three other incidents of violence in Toronto involving the daggers in the past few years, in addition to stabbings in British Columbia and Quebec. The latest attack has renewed calls for the wearing of kirpans to be banned, on the basis of public safety. the restNo one could have seen that coming .. huh? ... Carrying a concealed weapon IS against the law ... whether a religious relic or not, a reasonable person could have seen this as a possibility. And in this age of heightened security, I'm sure a reasonable person can see the downfalls of covering your face. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 9, 2010 13:14:22 GMT -5
It's not racist, or an act of harassment to ask someone to comply with one set of rules that apply to everyone. How often do we accommodate before those accommodations become ridiculous? What's worse is that some might preceive these accommodations as previliges and once that seed is planted we're going to have more problems. Interesting editorial in today's National Post As Canadian society becomes ever more pluralistic, minority religious practices increasingly come into conflict with laws designed for universal application. The controversy this year over the wearing of the niqab in Quebec highlighted the clash between religious freedom and our society's baseline expectation of equality in the treatment of men and women. Similarly, in British Columbia, the provincial government recently asked its courts to rule on the constitutionality of polygamy laws, in response to a religious sect that practices multiple marriage.
And now in Ontario, two incidents -- one outside the courtroom, one in it -- are pitting religious freedom against the criminal law, reviving an old controversy and raising a new one.
The first involves the wearing of the kirpan, or Sikh ceremonial dagger. Canada's Sikh community has argued for decades that members are entitled to carry this blade as a symbol of faith and their commitment to confront evil. In 2006, the Supreme Court ruled that the kirpan could be worn by Sikh students, even in the classroom, on the condition that it be sewn into its sheath and worn under clothing.
Last week, lawyer Manjit Mangat suffered serious stab wounds when he was attacked with a kirpan outside a community centre in Brampton. There have been three other incidents of violence in Toronto involving the daggers in the past few years, in addition to stabbings in British Columbia and Quebec. The latest attack has renewed calls for the wearing of kirpans to be banned, on the basis of public safety. the restThanks Franko. One of the guys I work with is from Brampton, where the incident occured. He provided me with a link. Here's what the victim, Manjit Mangat, had to say: Kirpan debate ignites (link) “We are fighting for two symbols all over the world — turban and kirpan,” said Gurdev Gill, who witnessed the attack on Mangat. “They have both been misused in front of everyone. Why would people listen to us when we now say that it (kirpan) is ceremonial in nature ... not meant to kill people?”...
Every time, the kirpan comes back into the spotlight, “it means an uphill battle for us to educate people about its spiritual significance,” said Bal ... Yet, I found this statement to be particularly interesting: But Mangat, who also wears a kirpan, says this abuse of the dagger should not be used against the religion. “These people have used religious emotions and symbols to attack others. It does not mean all Sikhs are violent.” This is a sentiment I've heard from other faiths as well when they try to distance themselves from the stigma of extremism. ============================================================== Still, I mentioned earlier in the thread about the Muslim Canadian Congress (MCC) expressing their desire to see religious/traditional head garb go away. Here's a similar opinion that shows me there are others who want to see contemporary change. I found this while looking for the previous quotes. Check it out when you have the time: Sikh wants kirpans banned (link) Taking a stand. Condemning the spate of violence that has rocked his community recently, a prominent member of the Sikh community in the Greater Toronto Area, said kirpans or ceremonial daggers worn by orthodox members of his religion has no place in Canada and should be banned. Ken Hay Condemning the spate of violence that has rocked his community recently, a prominent member of the Sikh community in the Greater Toronto Area, said kirpans or ceremonial daggers worn by orthodox members of his religion have no place in Canada and should be banned.[/i] Will multiculturalism work? Well, there's a lot of people working towards it. I see the MCC and now Dr. Bikram Lamba, a Sikh, contributing to the society they live in. They're not dictating, but they're adapting. Certainly, their views aren't shared by all of their brethren. But, I think it's important for us not to judge an entire order, or race for that matter, who sincerely want to adapt and are making concessions, important concessions to facilitate that. They are quite different from the few who obviously have agendas of their own. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Apr 9, 2010 13:22:15 GMT -5
When a religion holds the tenet that a lethal weapon be worn as a symbol of "the commitment to confront evil", what's inherent in that teaching? Actually the kirpan (which literally means "weapon of defense") is not a bad idea in and of itself. As I understand it, the weapon is not to serve as a means to confront evil directly, but to protect the defenseless from evil. It spiritually induces the bearer to step up and say 'no' when others are unable to. However that's the religious ideal. The cold reality is that it is a weapon that can be abused by the wearer. And that's wrong and dangerous. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 10, 2010 1:14:23 GMT -5
When a religion holds the tenet that a lethal weapon be worn as a symbol of "the commitment to confront evil", what's inherent in that teaching? Actually the kirpan (which literally means "weapon of defense") is not a bad idea in and of itself. As I understand it, the weapon is not to serve as a means to confront evil directly, but to protect the defenseless from evil. It spiritually induces the bearer to step up and say 'no' when others are unable to. . Same thing I say about carrying a Walther PPK. I don't want to use it but by carrying, I feel this spiritual defense against evil. It certainly helps me say no to anyone who wants to relieve me of my earthly possessions. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 10, 2010 8:12:58 GMT -5
Actually the kirpan (which literally means "weapon of defense") is not a bad idea in and of itself. As I understand it, the weapon is not to serve as a means to confront evil directly, but to protect the defenseless from evil. It spiritually induces the bearer to step up and say 'no' when others are unable to. . Same thing I say about carrying a Walther PPK. I don't want to use it but by carrying, I feel this spiritual defense against evil. It certainly helps me say no to anyone who wants to relieve me of my earthly possessions. I knew of the ceremonial daggers but I never knew what they were called until I started researching what Franko posted. Where the contradiction for me is in the accommodation for carrying one. It doesn't seem right that kirpans can be carried if they're properly concealed. Concealing a weapon, ceremonial or not, is still concealing a weapon. One I didn't have to look up was the Sgian Dubh. That's the little knife that's carried in the socks when wearing a kilt. Is the same accommodation made for that? Can students carry their Sgian Dubh's in school as well? They can be construed a weapon, yes, and no, they're not a religious symbol, but if they're properly concealed ...  Just a sec ... in the strictest sense of the word, it is a weapon and so is the kirpan. Another accommodation? Can't be. I haven't even mentioned my authentic Medievil German sword I have transport around in the trunk. It's considered a decorative item, but I still have to keep it out of view when I'm in public. Whatever ... Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Apr 11, 2010 12:18:27 GMT -5
I see. And what about a burn victim whose face is covered in bandages? We can each pick out examples that will be to the exteme MC .... for instance, what about a person with bandages on his face claiming to be a burn victim with unseen explosives strapped to his chest? To be honest, I am not sure of the policy for that scenario (but I'm sure there would have to be some means of identification provided), or the liklihood of that scenario. I do know of a burn victim that works in a government office, with burns to the face, but he obviously doesn't wear bandages. Obviously I meant a recent burn victim who has to wear bandages, and I was talking about cases where there is no need for photo ID, which you previously suggested should be covered by this law. But if you want a less extreme example, let's say you work behind a desk in a government building, it's winter, and someone comes in wearing a winter scarf and hat (or ski mask), and you can't see their face. Let's say they just want to pick up a form. Do you refuse to serve them without seeing their face? Do you even pause to be offended by the fact that you can't see their face? My claim is that for most people, this law has nothing to do with being able to see people's faces - it's the particular religious symbol itself that offends, and I think we should be honest about that, rather than pretending this is just some "clarification" of existing laws about showing your face. The law in question itself actually says it should be applied when the veil "impairs communication," to which I say, what about blind people? If you've ever tried to give directions to a blind person, you know it's not easy - much harder than talking to someone whose face is covered. Or, what about someone with a lisp, or a heavy accent, or a low voice? Why are we picking on this specific case where communication is much less impaired than any of the above? |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Apr 11, 2010 12:26:05 GMT -5
I don't think they are demanding that a culture conform to theirs. I think they are saying that there is only so far you can go to accommodate another one though. From what I understand, there are only 20-25 people in the entire province that this affects. Do you put the time, energy and money into changing government policies for 25 people? Well that's exactly what they are doing, except they're putting time, energy, and money into changing government policies to upset 25 people. The word 'meanspirited' has never seemed more apt. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 11, 2010 13:59:00 GMT -5
I'd say their answer is "we're making sure there is no precedent" . . . 'cause after all, once you let one Muslim woman wear a burqa, they'll all want to wear one.
|
|
Just a sec ... in the strictest sense of the word, it is a weapon and so is the kirpan.