Tory Calls For Calm In Headscarf Hubbub

Discrimination is discrimination and should not be tolerated no matter how small an issue or incident it is. It is a violation of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Constitution. It is up to our elected Officials to protect these rights at all times for all Canadians whether one personally agrees with it or not the rule of law must apply. Politicians have no right to cherry pick what laws, rights and freedoms, which Canadians they will stand up for or defend. Whether they get away with it or not is every Canadians responsibility to guard against it and hold them accountable for their responsibilities.

---
Perception is two thirds of what we perceive reality to be.

Difficult decisions are a privilege of rank.

<i>Discrimination is discrimination and should not be tolerated no matter how small an issue or incident it is. </i><p>Discrimination is one thing, one's level of tolerance another. Would the same call of discrimination hold if some muslim women began walking our Canadian city streets wearing burkas ? When does visible signs of one's religious belief become a discriminatory matter for the one wearing it ?<p>---<br>« Il y a une belle, une terrible rationalité dans la décision d'être libre. » - Gérard Bergeron <br />

"Would the same call of discrimination hold if some muslim women began walking our Canadian city streets wearing burkas ?"

Last time I checked, the streets weren't policed by minor league soccer referees.

However, if some narrow minded jackbooted Harper supporter of a cop took offence, then all bets are off.

"When does visible signs of one's religious belief become a discriminatory matter for the one wearing it ?"

As soon as someone silently takes issue with it, theoretically.

Operationally: as soon as someone opens their mouth.

---
"and the knowledge they fear is a weapon to be used against them"

"The Weapon" - Rush

Interesting this. In other words, being forced to wear a burka or a star of David would be based on the same kind of reasoning. <p> If Canadian immigrants wish to continue using symbols debasing their own kind, Canada is the land of choice since the "all allowed in the name of multiculturalism" is in effect here. Next step, we might as well introduce the Sharia law alongside our own legal rights. This way, no muslim immigrant need be judged based on our own Canadian discrimination turf and they can in return judge their kind based on their own discriminatory rulings. <p> I just can't wait to see our Canadian kids taking a school bus driven by a burka wearing woman. And why wouldn't she be allowed if not for our blind discriminatory reasoning...<p> The hijab, the burka, the chador are all outward clothing signs promulgated by religious customs in order to debase, hold in check, overlord and constrict women before their rulers, their superiors, their owners. <p> So to all of those thinking of emigrating to Canada, there is no need to consider having to integrate into Canadian society because as the official immigration welcoming pamphlet states on page 3 (sorry, could not find the english translation...) : <p> <i>« Certains pensent qu’en devenant citoyens canadiens, ils devront renoncer définitivement à leur passé et adopter un tout autre mode de comportement. Toutefois, il n’en est pas ainsi au Canada, car la Constitution canadienne garantit à tous l’égalité devant la loi et donne à chacun le droit d’être soi-même. <b>Vous n’avez donc pas à renoncer à vos antécédents en devenant Canadien, car s’il existe deux langues officielles au Canada, il n’y a pas de culture officielle. Vous êtes donc libre de vivre selon vos propres coutumes. »</b></i><p>Translation of last two sentencces: "You do not have to renounce your past in becoming a Canadian, because even though there exists two official languages in Canada, there is no official culture. You are thus free to live according to your own customs. " (personal note : ... "and if your customs consider women to be your slaves, your underlings, your property, that is just fine by Canadian standards") <p>---<br>« Il y a une belle, une terrible rationalité dans la décision d'être libre. » - Gérard Bergeron <br />

I referred to Canadian law, the Constitution of Canada and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of this Democratic country of Canada including who is responsible to defend them and which deal with this subject intensively. If the law is being broken then it should be enforced by those whose responsibility it is to do so.

If you think that all of these things are wrong you are entitled to work to change them, rewrite them, openly condemn them, even work or help others to undermine them.

It is my opinion that since these laws and documents were put into place democratically in a free country by the people democratically elected to do so by the free people of this country and have not been changed nor challenged by the majority of Canadians through the democratic processes in place to do so I there fore put to you that this the will and beliefs of the majority of Canadians.

It is my opinion that it is above my understanding why anyone who does not like, respect, believe in or would not stand up for the country that they live in would stay and live in such a country or even be associated with.

Also, I do not understand anyone defending someone who is in a position of trust dealing with the general public applying their personal beliefs upon others who do not share their beliefs, could be in violation of the laws of the land and may not even be up held by institution in which rules they say they are defending and enforcing.

One must remember that the laws which protect such people, their behavior and their beliefs that some of us disagree with also protect the same things for us, democracy, liberty and freedom.


---
Perception is two thirds of what we perceive reality to be.

Difficult decisions are a privilege of rank.

Wow! I am a bit confused here. We have freedom of religion which allows
anyone to belong to any religion and chose to wear the religious garments
that are associated with such religions. So a woman driving our kids to school
wearing a burka, is no different than a man driving our kids to school wearing
a crucifix around their neck, or a Star of David etc etc.

I don't understand the issue as its being discussed. I agree that we have
rights in this country that should be upheld. So the child wearing a headscarf
in a soccer game should not be discriminated against for something they
believe is part of thier religious beliefs. If someone's religion is seen by
outsiders to debase women, but it is the woman's choice, why would we want
the government to prevent them from participating in that religion. That
would be against the right to chose our religious association.

Saying that these religions are anti-women is an opinion. Women who chose
to wear a nun's habit could be seen as wearing a garment that denies their
sexuality and is anti-women, however it is their choice. That is why Canada
is so great, because we accept that each person has the right to chose their
religion and not be impeded from practicing it.

It would be wrong if the government forced a person to join a religion against
their wishes; and to say that someone cannot wear a burka or a turban or a
nun's habit in public is tantamount to saying they must deny their religion in
favour of the state religion. That is the real danger here. Whether we each see
another's religion as wrong or negative towards women or men is something
we can discuss and share our opposing views, but not something we should
be legally denying. I would be equally offended if the government or a sports
group forced my child to wear something to cover their body (with the
exception of safety issues) when I believe they should not . Or if they said my
child could not wear a lucky charm, or a religious necklace or special sacred
undergarments that would be just as wrong as denying a child the ability to
wear a headscarf.

So whether we agree or disagree with other's views on religion we should be
able to see that the right to chose that religion is very much a part of being
free people. When we have to hide our religious affiliation, or family culture
and traditions in order to function in this country then we have crossed a
dangerous line. I sure hope we are not going there!

---
"aaaah and the whisper of thousands of tiny voices became a mighty deafening roar and they called it 'freedom'!"' Canadians Acting Humanely at home & everywhere

If this was a safety issue then I could see the point. Apparantly it (the scarf) was a digression from the rules but the rules don't give the (legit)reason for the ban. So why the big deal? I have heard often the term "rag head" and what is an indication that bigotry will not go away. Even today I have heard from Canadians that our troops are in Afghanistan to kill a bunch of rag heads. Obviously a bigot is not only proud of being a bigot but proud of being ignorant as well. The term bigotry should not include Canadians in its definition.

---
Expect little from life and get more from it.

>Saying that these religions are anti-women is an opinion. Women who chose to wear a nun's habit could be seen as wearing a garment that denies their sexuality and is anti-women, however it is their choice. That is why Canada is so great, because we accept that each person has the right to chose their religion and not be impeded from practicing it. <<

Very well put Whelan.


---
Expect little from life and get more from it.

Last time I checked, 11 year old children were still subject to the oversight of their parents.

This also includes religious and cultural matters.

Until the child in question reaches the age of majority in their jurisdiction, these rules apply as far as I am aware.

My question to you is this: supposing a Muslim woman wears the headscarf of her own free will?

Now, if you can equate that with the methodical dehumanization of Jews in Hitler's Germany prior to WWII I am interested to see your logic behind such an argument.

---
"and the knowledge they fear is a weapon to be used against them"

"The Weapon" - Rush

>>So why the big deal?<<

If it is a safety issue or hazard then FIFA should put up the data to show and prove it not just an opinion or ruling that has no sound data to back it up. It should be determined first if it is in conflict with Canadian Law not just accepted as beening right.

In my opinion the big deal is that this happened in Canada on a local level not an international level whether it is a game or anything else, no foreign agency or other institution has the right to under mine the laws of this country. When we as a people allow small things like this to go unchallenged we weaken our laws and civil liberties thus putting all of us at risk.

This game is played around the world and changes in the rules have been made to allow for culture, religion etc. and it has not harmed the game or the love for it.


---
Perception is two thirds of what we perceive reality to be.

Difficult decisions are a privilege of rank.

The newspaper article clearly states that this was done "by a Muslim referee" - whose name is not mentioned at all in this skirmish. Who is to blame, if there is any blame?

I still would like to know (see other post) what would have happened if a group of blonde Canadian girls would have played bareheaded in a soccer tournament in a predominantly Muslim country.

That all depends on who saw them, and assumes they would be allowed to play in the first place.

In some jurisdictions, the risk to the girls in question would be severe.

As in all religions, there are Muslim zealots whose devotion to the strict tenets of their faith would preclude any concern for any diplomatic consequences of their actions.

Remember, THIS country is Canada. We are in theory protected by the laws of our own nation when we are within her borders.

When you are in another nation their law applies as much to you as to anyone else.

Which is why we don't behead people, and other countries do.

It's all about the law, and how it's applied in different national jurisdictions.

If you don't like another nations law, then don't go there.

---
"and the knowledge they fear is a weapon to be used against them"

"The Weapon" - Rush

Thank you, Deacon. The more I see it, this is an intra-muslim thing. The federal / provincial governments should not become involved.

You're welcome.

I agree. If it's an argument between two sects, regardless of religion (and as long as things like shootings, bombings, and other illegal acts don't happen as a result) then the government should stay the hell out of it.

---
"and the knowledge they fear is a weapon to be used against them"

"The Weapon" - Rush