Hijab dispute a flashpoint

[the truth]

[uote="the truth"]

here is the link to the whole story.
she seems just like a sh-t disturber to me
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/ ... -1.2974282

the hijab is not a religious article of clothing,so what religious right was violated ???? if the court says no headwear take it off or leave , you have a choice lady-welcome to Canada were you do have a choice.if you are not happy with are laws once again you have a choice in this great country you are welcome to leave

like i said[/quote]

[steven lloyd]

Oh, I see the difference (BTW, I think you got those all mixed up)

Thanks, I did (edited to correct).

So to say that we allow one type of religious garb for religious freedoms "by law" but not another because it hides the face is in fact a line drawn ….

Yes it is - and in my own personal opinion, that line is pretty clear.

[the truth]

if this women is going to throw Canadian law in are face, then how about we start with her not letting her son not drive her car on a suspended licence

[the truth]

on the video she says she is also currently on welfare ,wow welcome to Canada -I am ure she has no problem collecting that cheque

[Glacier]

[Poindexter]

Religion should never take precedence over laws of a country. If they want to become Canadian citizens they should have to uncover their face. They should have their pictures on drivers licences etc.. They should have to be uncovered to vote. I know for a fact they can get permission from the church to eat normal (to us) food etc. in certain situations. We had Muslims in camp who ate all our normal food. When I asked a couple of them how they did that they said the church gave them permission. They could do exactly the same thing here. If you wish to live in Rome do as the Romans do.

I agree. Having them stew a bit in the melting pot forcing them to assimilate has worked out far better than segregating them under the European model of hyper tolerance.

[Dizzy1]

Yes it is - and in my own personal opinion, that line is pretty clear.

But there is a line? So, saying that people are free to express their religious freedoms by law is incorrect? A more accurate statement would be one is free to express their religious freedoms within the law ... no?

[Jx3]

I'd prefer freedom from religion personally.

Lucky you - we already enjoy that freedom in Canada.

If that were true we wouldn't be having this discussion right now.

Oh, and yes, I do realize that my preference is not realistic unfortunately.

[steven lloyd]

if this women is going to throw Canadian law in are face, …

I don’t know how you can presume to “always speak the truth”, when it seems for the most part you don’t even have an interest in knowing it.

She was not disguising her face. In other words, she was breaking no law.

It is not against the law (criminal law) to wear a baseball cap in Court. However, it is against courtroom decorum and will not be allowed. The Judge also has the option of charging someone with contempt (which is a criminal code offence), but just wearing a baseball cap in Court is not, in itself, a criminal offence.

Unless you want to argue the women was intentionally showing disrespect to the Court, and thus guilty of contempt, she was breaking no law. However, for all of us who do understand some truth, wearing the hijab is not a deliberate act of disrespect, and in fact, is an act of modesty. Once you make some effort to know the truth, you will be better able to speak it.

[steven lloyd]

A more accurate statement would be one is free to express their religious freedoms within the law ... no?

Yes, I would agree with that – and argue this woman was doing that very thing as she was breaking no law.

[steven lloyd]

I'd prefer freedom from religion personally.

Lucky you - we already enjoy that freedom in Canada.

If that were true we wouldn't be having this discussion right now.

Hmmm, well I don’t know about you but no one was forcing me to go to church this last Sunday. Or to stop and pray at any time. In fact, I’d be very interested in hearing why you think you’re not free to not be religious. I have no problem declining.

[flamingfingers]

In the Muslim (UAE) country I lived in for a decade, women wore what they called an abaya which was a black cloak that covered them from the neck to the ankle bones and wrist bones. Some even wore gloves.

They also wore what they called the abaya which was a black scarf that covered their hair completely and could be arranged to be drawn down over their entire faces. Both the shayla and abaya were of thin material that THEY could easily see through but an onlooker could not.

To get their driver's license picture taken women had to uncover their faces just like here; however, the photographer was a woman. To do banking business, the customer also had to uncover but her identity was confirmed by a woman banking official, and the customer could cover again if she dealt with a male.

There is no 'law' decreed from the Q'ran that a Muslim woman must be 'covered'. Mohammed only states that women should be modest and walk quietly so as not to slap their feet or by body movement advertise their attributes (told to me by a Muslim male). The stricture of 'covering' is man-made. Not governed by 'religion.'

If the judge ruled that a scarf covering the hair was contempt of court I would say she is wrong; however, a Muslim female refusing to uncover her face in a court proceeding SHOULD be held in contempt. It has nothing to do with 'religious rights.'

[the truth]

correct, it has nothing to do with religion,thats my whole point, she turned it into something it was not,

[the truth]

if this women is going to throw Canadian law in are face, then how about we start with her not letting her son not drive her car on a suspended licence

like I said

[the truth]

on the video she says she is also currently on welfare ,wow welcome to Canada -I am ure she has no problem collecting that cheque

cheque please