You really are evil. 
What about the women who were born there? You’re just assuming they are all immigrants. I’m sure many, maybe most, are, but there are converts and children do grow to adulthood keeping the religious practices of their parents.
BTW, I have no problem with NOT giving special treatment like this to veiled women. There are simply times in a modern society when a man who is not your relative is going to have to see your face. Face reality.
Sometimes it is the exceptions anad exemptions that grease the wheel of cultural integration.
No. Showing special treatment and giving exceptions and exemptions only reinforces that they’re different.
Next thing, the Hmong go back to arguing that their culture requires allowing men in their mid to late 30’s to marry 11-13 year old girls, which we’ve (for the most part) successfully stamped out by enforcing our existing laws against such things.
I’m torn. On one hand, I hate the prejudice these religious women are expressing towards men, but on the other hand, Quebec is being a dick in the way they are handling it. I wish they could both lose
which way does that cut?
she’s immigrating, she can do with a bit of exception and exemption herself in terms of porting her emigrating cultural values onto her immigrating society.
Oh, in that case, so am I.
Can’t we all just point and laugh at them, especially when the weather is nice and sunny?
no, having an open mind should be a fucking prerequisite to immigrating into a secular western society. we didn’t need to immigrate them in the first fucking place; you ought not to have to jump through fucking hoops and fire rings to coddle someone into the society you’re inviting them into and they’re voluntarily hoping to enter into.
I understand Canada prides itself on tolerance, but Christ what you propose is setting up for a clusterfuck of individual accommodations resulting in an utter collapse of any semblance of the extant culture. Like dipshits who want to be apologized to for wearing a hood indoors, being told to take it off, and then claiming that his it’s a part of his “jedi” religion and becoming all offended and shit.
oh great, a pedant.
their parents who harbored these views shouldn’t have been let in (or made to conform) in the first place then, happy?
I bet she’s a fucking picky eater that forces all her friends to go th TAIF’s every week too.
Be glad I held back. I was going to bring up the canker sores and bad breathe too originally.
This is the advertisement I saw just now, in this thread. It gave me a good chuckle.
That is a stereotypical, bigoted, and totally hilarious statement.
That would depend on whether or not the person were to raise a Charter claim.
Matters arising out of a s. 92 provincial constitutional power would be handled by the Québec Human Rights Tribunal, using Québec law. Matters arising out of a s. 91 federal constitutional power would be handled by the Canadian Human Rights Commission, using federal Canadian law. Since provincial CEGEP education and provincial health insurance are both under provincial jurisdiction, Québec law would apply, not federal Canadian law.
If she were to raise a Charter claim, then the federal “*Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms * (*The Constitution Act *, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.), 1982, c. 11) would be applied by the Québec Human Rights Tribunal on top of the Québec law, with the Charter trumping.
Section 1 sets out that: “*The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms *guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”
Section 2 (a) sets out that “religion” is a “fundamental freedom.”
If the person were to make a Charter claim, then the person would have to establish that the face covering was part of her religion, as opposed to being part of her culture but not part of her religion.
If she were to be able to establish that the face cover was part of her religion, then the court would apply section 1 to determine if it would be appropriate to limit her freedom of religion. As noted in the Oakes decision by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, with unanimous concurrence by the other judges:
Asked and answered.
Wow. Racy.
I just thought it was funny seeing an advertisement featuring a photograph of a Muslim woman in a thread about a Muslim woman who wouldn’t allow herself to be photographed.
ankles or GTFO!
Most common bumper sticker seen on middle eastern VW vans:
“Face, Fallafels, or Fuel”