the niqab isn’t a values issue. it’s just a tyranny of the majority. there’s a constitutional right on the table. it’s not an issue that is up for debate, or is to be determined by majority decree. the government doesn’t have the ability to legislate the way it’s claiming to. the court is going to overturn all of it.
so, even if there’s truly a perception of these trivialities being important and defining in some way, there’s no means to that end. we’d have to suspend the constitution.
which means this is either a lot of meaningless hot air, or those comparisons to hitler are less extreme than so-called moderate voices may suggest. there’s not a middle point.
you don’t expect conservatives to take tyranny of the majority style positions, urinating all over de tocqueville’s grave. it’s a big part of what a conservative is supposed to be.
and you don’t expect anybody at all to openly campaign on them; not in a liberal democratic society.
so, your context is there: sure. the idea that this is some kind of an issue to be voted on at all is a big victory for totalitarianism, and a strong loss for liberal democracy. but, it’s hard to see how this goes anywhere beyond empty electoral rhetoric.
i dunno. maybe i’m just saying this can’t happen here…
www.ekospolitics.com/index.php/2015/10/so-who-will-win-the-42nd-federal-election
shob
Minority rights have limits. They can’t infringe on others rights. And there are things in Canadian society people can’t consent to.
We can’t advocate hate of any identifiable group in Canada. Wearing a Niqab is threatening. I will put forward that it advocates hate of women’s rights. We also live in a society where security trumps rights. People need to be identified. They can’t walk into a band wearing a hoodie. We also have lots of other laws about clothing in restaurants for public health reasons, on public transit. I can’t get on a bus without shoes on. Wearing a niqab is no more a right than wearing a bondage outfit to grade school. That wouldn’t be allowed either.
I don’t believe the niqab should be allowed in open Canadian society. If they want to wear that garment at home, or in their mosque that’s fine. Not in public, anywhere. I find it infringes on my rights to not be threatened by radical misogyny in public.
I am absolutely fine with head coverings, but the face goes to far. What if they make all women wear dog collars and leashes next, with an electrical shock if they speak? Will that be ok, if the woman says she’s good with it and it’s her choice?
Women choose to be in abusive situations all the time. Canada has a right to make it against the law. The niqab is abuse of women in public.
To pretend this a simple religious choice is absurd. This comes from cultures that stone women to death, or gang rape them at the whim of the village elders if they step out of line.
It’s fine for Canada to say no to this symbol of oppression.
deathtokoalas
see, i don’t even think your points are worthwhile enough to address. you’re either ridiculously ignorant of how our legal system works, or you’re disingenuously stoking up fear.
the reason we have a supreme court with nine learned judges on it is because we realize that this isn’t the kind of decision that can be left up to the general public – because they will no doubt present the kind of absurd arguments that you’re presenting. call it elitist if you want, and it is, a little. but, the reality is that our constitution is built to prevent the braying masses from attacking minority rights. and, the only way to break through the constitution is to discard it.
it does lead to some frightening conclusions, in the abstract, even if the more likely scenario is that this goes nowhere at all.
i’ve said this before: the most enduring legacy of stephen harper, the part that survives his lifetime and carries on through the generations, is going to be the supreme court rulings against him. there’s not much legislative law that he’s written that’s going to outlast him. but, he has unwittingly greatly enriched the judicial precedents to be used in upholding the constitution, and it’s charter of rights.
Shob
Do you know why its law in Canada that domestic abuse has to be prosecuted, even if the victim says it’s fine and they are ok? Because it happens all the time.
The Niqab is abuse of women and it should be illegal in public, not just at the polling station. it doesn’t matter if she says it’s her choice. It’s abuse and it stands for the complete dehumanizing of women and the removal of their rights.
deathtokoalas
so, i suppose you’re comfortable with harper suspending the constitution, then?
are we to expect the fashion police to actually patrol the streets?
again: so-called reasonable voices may suggest that it’s all a lot of hubris.
but, the ramifications are actually quite frightening, and cause for some rather serious alarm.
Mk
deathtokoalas: it’s your points that aren’t worthwhile and you’re completely ignorant if you think people’s fear of a barbaric practice and culture invading Canada isn’t justified. The niqab is all about oppressing women, why do these women cover their faces? So the their men don’t feel like raping them. Why should Canadian women put up with this obvious misogyny? Either you’re a sexist yourself or you’re so desperate to defend Trudeau that you’ll just make up excuses.
People should not be allowed to cover their face in public, it’s bad enough they wear those bulky burqa things. I’ve seen little kids flee in terror when catching sight of these black blobs gliding down the streets. They don’t even look human, and that’s the point, to dehumanize women. If Muslims want to keep being misogynistic, they need to stay in their own countries not come here and force their backwards beliefs on civilized people.
deathtokoalas
well, then i suppose you think we have an equal right to ban fat people in bikinis, or hipsters wearing glasses with no lenses, or any other fashion decision you don’t like, right?
all hail the fashion police!
fortunately, we have a constitution with a bill of rights. you can howl all you want. it makes no difference.
if you want to live in a society without a bill of rights that bans articles of clothing, i’d suggest moving to egypt or pakistan.
--
i suppose i should post a prediction, as well – although it’s a fool’s game.
liberals – 150-169.
i think there’s a brick wall there. the models are using uniform proportional swing, which i think is overweighting them in rural areas and underweighting them in urban areas. for example, cbc has them winning in haldimand-norfolk and losing in kitchener. i think, at 40%+ they win kitchener, and it’s hard to see how they win haldimand at all without a split. it looks to me like they will sweep most of the urban areas – and that may include calgary and edmonton, if there is some strategic voting. the only exception seems to be quebec city.
conservatives – 100-120
it’s all rural seats, at this point. the ridings nobody else could possibly win.
ndp – 40-60
they’ll get a few seats in quebec, but i think the ndp are back to their traditional seats after this election.
bloc – 10-30
i know ekos is charting them downwards, but at the end of the day i don’t see how the ndp keeps those seats without the additional boost from the liberals. see, that’s the tricky part. the ndp got a big swing from the bloc in 2011, it is true. they also got a 10 point boost from the liberals. and, they would not have beat the bloc in a lot of places without that ten point swing from the liberals. you take that way, and the bloc only have to run around 20 to win a lot of seats back. again: i don’t like uniform swing models, and they’re especially tricky in quebec.
oh yeah. greens get the one.
if it’s really close, i think the liberals can get a few floor crossings. i think they’re going to want to avoid any kind of actual agreement with elizabeth may; i’m not even convinced they’d welcome her into caucus.
i mean, if the liberals get 169 seats and lose five seats to the conservatives by a margin that is less than the green vote, it’s hard to see how they interpret her as anything less than a pariah. the last thing they want to give her is a platform to speak over. she’d have to cross; that’s the only acceptable condition. but, what the liberals are going to actually want to do is push some solid environmental policy to try and get rid of them. a floor-crossing would help deflate them. but, she’s so remarkably invested in the party, that it’s almost hard to take the premise seriously.
another idea: maybe she’d like a nice seat in the senate.
you get the point.