Muslim Women will be forced to uncover their faces In Quebec Canada

[Dattebayo]

^ When it comes to religion vs laws, a true believer chooses religion.

It's one set of laws or another, you don't have to be a believer to follow dogma.

[hitbychance]

It seems to be more of a place in Canada, they've been pushing for a long time to be independent..

I say

[TroubleBound]

EDIT: Lol they didn't like me hotlinky, good thing i saved such a beautiful picture:
Modified by TroubleBound at 1:36 PM 3/27/2010

[Razi]

^ When it comes to religion vs laws, a true believer chooses religion.

I don't think Datte met a "true believer", she was a scamming tard.

[Alfador]

Quote »^ When it comes to religion vs laws, a true believer chooses religion.

I believe Muslim women can only show their faces when no men are present. Just allow them to interact with women only at the DMV and there should be no problem.[/quote]What happens the first time they have to use their ID? When they get pulled over? Is a cop supposed to sit there and wait for a female officer to come and verify that the woman standing in front of him is indeed the person on the ID?

True believers can choose religion over law all they want. That doesn't make them exempt of immune though. Choices, consequences, actions, reactions... it's a whole big magic circle of fun.

[TroubleBound]

What happens the first time they have to use their ID? When they get pulled over? Is a cop supposed to sit there and wait for a female officer to come and verify that the woman standing in front of him is indeed the person on the ID?

That is EXACTLY what happens in the state of VA when a search is to be done a any female. Male officers can't search females they have to wait for a female officer to conduct a search. For the whopping 25(!!) Muslims in Quebec i think they can handle having to wait a couple minutes for the rare occasion that a Muslim woman commits a crime.

[Alfador]

Did you seriously just compare search & seizure to a routine traffic stop or ID check? One of them is supposed to be a trivial matter. One is not. The number has nothing to do with it. Comparing a traffic stop to a search is laughable. I mean I guess I can't speak for VA but in any state I've been in, getting pulled over doesn't automatically get your car or your person searched.

Unreasonable and unacceptable to expect an officer to have to wait for a second officer to assist with the most basic action an officer will ever do. It's a ridiculous waste of time.

[TroubleBound]

Haha well in that case Canada should stop advertising religious freedom =)Seriously, how often do you think they get trouble from those 25 women out of 118,000 people?

It is unreasonable and unacceptale that Canadian Police cannot take 10 minutes from their day to keep a woman from sinning in her mind after claiming they are a religiously free country. Heh like someone mentioned, Muslim women don't do a lot of driving or buying alcohol/cigs or clubbing, not too much at all really that requires them to have a picture ID. Out of those 25 Niqab wearing people i bet only like 3 or 4 of them drive. Yo

[breadbox]

I mean I guess I can't speak for VA but in any state I've been in, getting pulled over doesn't automatically get your car or your person searched.

I drove my Girls car with an invalid registration year. She forgot to renew because the DMV doesn't send us anything.

I got pulled over, he grabs my ID and reg. Second cop pulls up as he is walking to his car, and will stay there until stop is over or second car gets called to something more important. They alot of the time try to get you to consent to a search just cuz they can maybe find something.

I have never been asked by a cop to step out of the vehicle so I've not been searched yet.

Around here there is a saying. "You're driving, its illegal."

[Eikon]

I believe this debate is about biometrics.

But, not the biometrics we are used too.. fingerprints and retinal scans, etc.. It's about clearing the way to make facial recognition a common usable technology. They have to set a precident with a case like this so that later on they can stretch the laws to make it illegal to cover your face in places where they want to install facial recognition.

That's my conspiracy theory at least.

[Alfador]

Again, it's no those 25th people they should worry about. It's the 26th who sees it as an exploitable loophole to take advantage of. It's completely asinine to make exceptions for people just because there aren't that many of them.

I don't care of the chances are 1/10 or 1/10,000,000. I wouldn't expect someone to go out of their way to accommodate something as unreasonable as this. Someone has the rights to do what they want for their religion, but if it conflicts with the greater good, they are the one who can shoulder the inconvenience, not everyone else. I'd also like the cops in my jurisdiction to be out enforcing the law, not sitting on the side of the road because someone refuses to provide them ID.

Say there is a major religion in which, for whatever reason, certain people (or the group as a whole) are not allowed to wear shoes. That's fine. No one is making them wear shoes. However, they loose the right to go certain places where for public health, or even just social reasons, shoes are required. The same goes for this.

Hell, if I wanted to hide my identity for criminal means, this is how I would do it, plain and simple because of the increased chances of it going unnoticed. Wear a ski mask and people immediately assume you're up to no good (as they should.) Do the same as this and no one makes that assumption. People are more willing to accept it, and obviously less likely to challenge it, given the apparent moral outrage at doing so.

Modified by Alfador at 3:13 PM 3/27/2010
Modified by Alfador at 3:14 PM 3/27/2010

[TroubleBound]

Okay, you're right. If it was that big of a deal to those people they could have stayed in or moved to Saudi, Kuwait, Pakistan, etc.

BUT Canada needs to stop acting all religiously free and be more like "You can practice whatever religion you like, unless you're Muslim."

[Alfador]

I can see that. Then again, there is a reasonableness exception for everything.

US Con. Bill of rights:

1st ammendment: Free speech doesn't apply to unreasonable acts like shouting "fire" in a not-burning crowded theater, or making threats. Freedom of assembly requires that it doesn't impede safety or the smooth functioning society. Freedom of religion generally doesn't allow you to practice anything that violates common decency or another person's personal posessions/space/rights. Plenty of actual, legitimate religions call for human or animal sacrifices, violent tests of character, and plenty of other less extreme things that for one reason or another are prohibited by law.

Striking the balance to what is reasonable is obviously the hot button issue.

[breadbox]

I believe this debate is about biometrics.

But, not the biometrics we are used too.. fingerprints and retinal scans, etc.. It's about clearing the way to make facial recognition a common usable technology. They have to set a precident with a case like this so that later on they can stretch the laws to make it illegal to cover your face in places where they want to install facial recognition.

That's my conspiracy theory at least.

I wanted to say I'm gonna wear a Paintball mask everywhere til I read this.

� 18.2-422. Prohibition of wearing of masks in certain places; exceptions.

It shall be unlawful for any person over sixteen years of age while wearing any mask, hood or other device whereby a substantial portion of the face is hidden or covered so as to conceal the identity of the wearer, to be or appear in any public place, or upon any private property in this Commonwealth without first having obtained from the owner or tenant thereof consent to do so in writing.

However, the provisions of this section shall not apply to persons (i) wearing traditional holiday costumes; (ii) engaged in professions, trades, employment or other activities and wearing protective masks which are deemed necessary for the physical safety of the wearer or other persons; (iii) engaged in any bona fide theatrical production or masquerade ball; or (iv) wearing a mask, hood or other device for bona fide medical reasons upon the advice of a licensed physician or osteopath and carrying on his person an affidavit from the physician or osteopath specifying the medical necessity for wearing the device and the date on which the wearing of the device will no longer be necessary and providing a brief description of the device.

The violation of any provisions of this section shall constitute a Class 6 felony.

For Class 6 felonies, the jury or court may choose imprisonment for one to five years or jail for up to 12 months and a fine of up to $2,500, either or both.

All for wearing a mask in Public, according to this.

[szh]

It's completely asinine to make exceptions for people just because there aren't that many of them.

On the contrary, it is completely asinine to work on, debate, and pass a law banning something that only 25 people in an entire province might "violate" ... might happen 0 to 10 times ... maybe!

Particularly when there are easy and trivial ways to deal with those 0 to 10 occurrences. Then it smacks of deliberate and intentional intolerance.

Z

[driverdriver]

Canada more than any other country has bent over backwards for muslims.

(1.) The Lords Prayer was cancelled at many school boards because they complained the loudest.

(2.)Most school boards in Canada no longer hold Christmas concerts, because Muslims complained the loudest. In some cases Christmas concerts where renamed Holiday concerts to be inclusive to everyone and they where still cancelled, because they complained.

(3.)Muslims wanted Sharia law at part of the Canadian judicial systems. It was studied and parts of it where made available for mediated legal binding dispute resolution.

(4.) Most employers over a certain size, with Muslim employees are mandated to have a prayer room so they can pray at work.

I applaud Quebec for doing what they did. I hope the other provinces follow suite. I think Canadians in general are tired of bending over backwards to accomodate people. There is a limit to how far you can go. This sentiment is shared with large numbers of Canadians who are 2nd or 3rd generation born in Canada visible minorities like me. I think his law is a symptom of that growing sentiment. If you want to live in Canada and have Canadian citzenship be Canadian or go back to whatever 16th century medievel society you came from.