|
Post by snow on Mar 17, 2015 21:07:38 GMT -5
So, are you saying that the "girl" (woman, - if she is old enough to be employed, she is a woman, not a "girl"); are you saying that the woman in a niqab doesn't want to be employed anyway but those NOT wearing a niqab do want to be employed?
You keep hopping around so much that it really is hard to determine exactly what you mean.
Are saying that if I am wearing a dress down to my ankles, long sleeved, high necked dress, like in the 2x2's at one time; that I really don't want to be employed anyway?
Discussing this issue with fixit is a bit like herding cats. Of course, wearing a niqab and cutting off an appendage aren't on the same level at all. Rather than accept that point and address it, he's off again in another direction. The problem I'm having with this discussion, and I think I'm about done, is that some dozen posts ago it stopped being productive. The 'niqab' to me is a genuine issue. It does expose the limits of tolerance in Western countries. No one likes to see women covered from head to foot. But the question is whether we can or should do anything about it, and if so, on what basis. I don't think I'm going to get an answer from fixit on that all important question, so I think I'll let it go. It's time to watch some NCAA basketball so I'm off for a bit. It certainly is becoming a hot issue even in Canada. This came through today and I think there are getting to be more and more people that feel like he does. I don't. I feel if Canada doesn't want people that wear the niqab then they shouldn't allow them to immigrate in the first place. Why let them come knowing full well that it is their religion that does not allow them to show their face in public and then when it comes time for them to swear in, expect something totally different from them? Either we accept it and let them immigrate or we don't and refuse immigration. We do have that right. But after they get here they should have the same rights as others to how they dress. globalnews.ca/news/1886751/tory-mp-to-women-wearing-niqab-during-ceremony-stay-the-hell-where-you-came-from/?hootPostID=47f25974b2dd2847e7f063c54d9b3809
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Mar 17, 2015 22:34:00 GMT -5
Discussing this issue with fixit is a bit like herding cats. Of course, wearing a niqab and cutting off an appendage aren't on the same level at all. Rather than accept that point and address it, he's off again in another direction. The problem I'm having with this discussion, and I think I'm about done, is that some dozen posts ago it stopped being productive. The 'niqab' to me is a genuine issue. It does expose the limits of tolerance in Western countries. No one likes to see women covered from head to foot. But the question is whether we can or should do anything about it, and if so, on what basis. I don't think I'm going to get an answer from fixit on that all important question, so I think I'll let it go. It's time to watch some NCAA basketball so I'm off for a bit. It certainly is becoming a hot issue even in Canada. This came through today and I think there are getting to be more and more people that feel like he does. I don't. I feel if Canada doesn't want people that wear the niqab then they shouldn't allow them to immigrate in the first place. Why let them come knowing full well that it is their religion that does not allow them to show their face in public and then when it comes time for them to swear in, expect something totally different from them? Either we accept it and let them immigrate or we don't and refuse immigration. We do have that right. But after they get here they should have the same rights as others to how they dress. globalnews.ca/news/1886751/tory-mp-to-women-wearing-niqab-during-ceremony-stay-the-hell-where-you-came-from/?hootPostID=47f25974b2dd2847e7f063c54d9b3809I think he could have said it more diplomatically, but I agree with him: this woman and Canada would be better served by her staying in Pakistan. It's a big mistake to accept immigrants who show by their actions that they have no intention to integrate in their new country. If people want to retain all of their customs they should stay where those customs are practiced. What benefit is the niqab to Canada? "When in Rome, do as the Romans do".
|
|
|
Post by fred on Mar 17, 2015 22:42:11 GMT -5
The 'rod' is discipline, and discipline is composed of boundaries and consequences. I've witnessed far too many children raised without boundaries, be that in careless upbringing or very 'loving' parents who have never said no to their children. And I can't tell you how many children I have seen go through treatment because they were disciplined. No one is talking about not saying "No" or not setting boundaries. The bible verse was speaking about striking a child with a rod. But even using 'discipline' as a substitute for 'rod' is not a huge improvement. discipline1. train (someone) to obey rules or a code of behavior, using punishment to correct disobedience.You have used a very narrow definition of 'discipline' rat. But yes, I am talking about "setting boundaries and saying no". An athlete applies discipline in their training schedule but they don't strike themselves. However there are times when it is appropriate to use physical force in dealing with children. Your statement "but even using discipline as a substitute for the rod is not a huge improvement" would not find favour with modern education philosophy.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 17, 2015 23:56:05 GMT -5
And I can't tell you how many children I have seen go through treatment because they were disciplined. No one is talking about not saying "No" or not setting boundaries. The bible verse was speaking about striking a child with a rod. But even using 'discipline' as a substitute for 'rod' is not a huge improvement. discipline1. train (someone) to obey rules or a code of behavior, using punishment to correct disobedience.You have used a very narrow definition of 'discipline' rat. But yes, I am talking about "setting boundaries and saying no". An athlete applies discipline in their training schedule but they don't strike themselves. However there are times when it is appropriate to use physical force in dealing with children. Your statement "but even using discipline as a substitute for the rod is not a huge improvement" would not find favour with modern education philosophy. THERE ARE NEVER, EVER, "times when it is appropriate to use physical force in dealing with children." NEVER!
I can go into all the detail if you really want to know.
My husband worked diligently with many others, pediatricians included, to finally get "physical force" eliminated in our public schools.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 18, 2015 0:00:12 GMT -5
So, are you saying that the "girl" (woman, - if she is old enough to be employed, she is a woman, not a "girl"); are you saying that the woman in a niqab doesn't want to be employed anyway but those NOT wearing a niqab do want to be employed?
You keep hopping around so much that it really is hard to determine exactly what you mean.
Are saying that if I am wearing a dress down to my ankles, long sleeved, high necked dress, like in the 2x2's at one time; that I really don't want to be employed anyway?
Discussing this issue with fixit is a bit like herding cats. Of course, wearing a niqab and cutting off an appendage aren't on the same level at all. Rather than accept that point and address it, he's off again in another direction. The problem I'm having with this discussion, and I think I'm about done, is that some dozen posts ago it stopped being productive. The 'niqab' to me is a genuine issue. It does expose the limits of tolerance in Western countries. No one likes to see women covered from head to foot. But the question is whether we can or should do anything about it, and if so, on what basis. I don't think I'm going to get an answer from fixit on that all important question, so I think I'll let it go. It's time to watch some NCAA basketball so I'm off for a bit. Good Idea!
|
|
|
Post by fred on Mar 18, 2015 0:06:20 GMT -5
You have used a very narrow definition of 'discipline' rat. But yes, I am talking about "setting boundaries and saying no". An athlete applies discipline in their training schedule but they don't strike themselves. However there are times when it is appropriate to use physical force in dealing with children. Your statement "but even using discipline as a substitute for the rod is not a huge improvement" would not find favour with modern education philosophy. THERE ARE NEVER, EVER, "times when it is appropriate to use physical force in dealing with children." NEVER!
I can go into all the detail if you really want to know.
My husband worked diligently with many others, pediatricians included, to finally get "physical force" eliminated in our public schools.
Heh heh, you can be dogmatic at times dmg. I wonder what details you would go into. I didn't spend a lifetime in education with a double degree under my belt not to know the polices of the education system in my country.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 18, 2015 1:08:14 GMT -5
THERE ARE NEVER, EVER, "times when it is appropriate to use physical force in dealing with children." NEVER!
I can go into all the detail if you really want to know.
My husband worked diligently with many others, pediatricians included, to finally get "physical force" eliminated in our public schools.
Heh heh, you can be dogmatic at times dmg. I wonder what details you would go into. I didn't spend a lifetime in education with a double degree under my belt not to know the polices of the education system in my country. Since you have spent a lifetime in education with a double degree under your belt, then I am sure that you know the history of "physical force" against children used in the educational system.
I'm also sure that you must know that "physical force" is not a constructive method of instilling knowledge in a child.
Since you have spent a lifetime in education with a double degree under your belt, I'm also sure that you are aware of the problems that the use of "physical force" can have on a child.
And yes, (Heh heh,) - I can be damn "dogmatic" about something I care a lot about.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Mar 18, 2015 1:21:52 GMT -5
Here's something to consider:
|
|
|
Post by fred on Mar 18, 2015 1:56:10 GMT -5
Heh heh, you can be dogmatic at times dmg. I wonder what details you would go into. I didn't spend a lifetime in education with a double degree under my belt not to know the polices of the education system in my country. Since you have spent a lifetime in education with a double degree under your belt, then I am sure that you know the history of "physical force" against children used in the educational system.
I'm also sure that you must know that "physical force" is not a constructive method of instilling knowledge in a child.
Since you have spent a lifetime in education with a double degree under your belt, I'm also sure that you are aware of the problems that the use of "physical force" can have on a child.
And yes, (Heh heh,) - I can be damn "dogmatic" about something I care a lot about.
Oh, I see, you are talking about assault. And by the way, I resent you implying that I don't care about children. Here are the guidelines that I was instructed to work with : "Reasonable physical force may be used to restrain a student in the following circumstances............. to prevent a student from harming themselves............. to prevent a student from harming another.............. to prevent a student from destroying property." Of course, one could stand by and allow a student to cause bodily harm to another - that is the end result of your position.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 18, 2015 2:36:53 GMT -5
Since you have spent a lifetime in education with a double degree under your belt, then I am sure that you know the history of "physical force" against children used in the educational system.
I'm also sure that you must know that "physical force" is not a constructive method of instilling knowledge in a child.
Since you have spent a lifetime in education with a double degree under your belt, I'm also sure that you are aware of the problems that the use of "physical force" can have on a child.
And yes, (Heh heh,) - I can be damn "dogmatic" about something I care a lot about.
Oh, I see, you are talking about assault. And by the way, I resent you implying that I don't care about children. Here are the guidelines that I was instructed to work with : "Reasonable physical force may be used to restrain a student in the following circumstances............. to prevent a student from harming themselves............. to prevent a student from harming another.............. to prevent a student from destroying property." Of course, one could stand by and allow a student to cause bodily harm to another - that is the end result of your position. Don't patronize me.
You knew what I meant.
You were the one that started the conversation considering "the use of the rod" (assault, if you prefer that word) when you answered Rational's post:
11 hours ago rational said:
"It is the same kind of crazy thinking that came up with: "He that spareth his rod hateth his son:"
8 hours ago fred said: (YOU)
"Crazy?? There is a truth in that little piece of advice."
The dialogue was about using a "rod" on a child, in this case a son.
I'm well aware of the guide lines that you gave and nothing in my post indicated that my position would be to "stand by and allow a student to cause bodily harm to another."
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 18, 2015 10:41:38 GMT -5
discipline1. train (someone) to obey rules or a code of behavior, using punishment to correct disobedience. You have used a very narrow definition of 'discipline' rat.[/quote] I used the first definition in the dictionary. My definition does not include the word strike. You were using discipline in the sense that one entity was applying it to another. The members of a marching band are also disciplined but that is another sense of the word. Physical force does not equal punishment. I might physically restrain my child from falling off the bridge but it is not punishment. Assuming you are talking about physical punishment, when is it required to teach children proper behavior? Can you provide reference to an educational philosophy that advocates punishment as an educational tool? I am assuming you are talking about behavior modification through the use of positive or negative punishment.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Mar 18, 2015 11:36:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Mar 18, 2015 12:58:55 GMT -5
Many Muslims believe and are taught that violent jihad is their Islamic duty, so a suicide belt is an expression of their religious faith. The act states that a citizenship judge shall allow the greatest possible freedom in the religious solemnization of taking the oath. Would the judge have the power to ask that a suicide belt is not worn during the swearing-in ceremony?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Mar 18, 2015 17:01:27 GMT -5
Many Muslims believe and are taught that violent jihad is their Islamic duty, so a suicide belt is an expression of their religious faith. The act states that a citizenship judge shall allow the greatest possible freedom in the religious solemnization of taking the oath. Would the judge have the power to ask that a suicide belt is not worn during the swearing-in ceremony? I don't know what they are allowed to do by law. Would be interesting to know if that was considered extreme.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Mar 19, 2015 0:30:17 GMT -5
More power to you Fixit on this thread and others. I'm too busy living out my ideals to respond to the infidel-morons.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 19, 2015 1:30:55 GMT -5
Many Muslims believe and are taught that violent jihad is their Islamic duty, so a suicide belt is an expression of their religious faith. The act states that a citizenship judge shall allow the greatest possible freedom in the religious solemnization of taking the oath. Would the judge have the power to ask that a suicide belt is not worn during the swearing-in ceremony? Ridiculous argument, fixit.
I'm sure that you are aware of that, -at least I sincerely hope you are.It is hard to believe that anyone would think other wise.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 19, 2015 1:39:50 GMT -5
More power to you Fixit on this thread and others. I'm too busy living out my ideals to respond to the infidel-morons. Oh my god!
We have "infidel-morons" on this board?
Good lord! What is the world coming to anyway?
Well, I do declare!
Going to hell in a hand basket, -no doubt about it!
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Mar 19, 2015 2:35:43 GMT -5
Many Muslims believe and are taught that violent jihad is their Islamic duty, so a suicide belt is an expression of their religious faith. The act states that a citizenship judge shall allow the greatest possible freedom in the religious solemnization of taking the oath. Would the judge have the power to ask that a suicide belt is not worn during the swearing-in ceremony? Ridiculous argument, fixit.
I'm sure that you are aware of that, -at least I sincerely hope you are.It is hard to believe that anyone would think other wise.
Laws have to draw the line somewhere. It's simply not possible to pander to every religious inclination. By discussing the various extremes, and arguing the pros and cons we can form opinions around where the line should be drawn. Jehovah's Witness children are made a ward of the state when they need a blood transfusion. The children are likely brainwashed to the extent that they would refuse blood transfusions, and it could be argued that the parents and the child are being denied religious freedom. It just makes sense sometimes for the state to intervene to protect people from themselves.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 19, 2015 8:12:36 GMT -5
More power to you Fixit on this thread and others. I'm too busy living out my ideals to respond to the infidel-morons. It would be interesting to learn what your 'ideals' are. Would you say that your posts have been an accurate reflection of your 'ideals'?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Mar 19, 2015 10:50:13 GMT -5
Ridiculous argument, fixit.
I'm sure that you are aware of that, -at least I sincerely hope you are.It is hard to believe that anyone would think other wise.
Laws have to draw the line somewhere. It's simply not possible to pander to every religious inclination. By discussing the various extremes, and arguing the pros and cons we can form opinions around where the line should be drawn. Jehovah's Witness children are made a ward of the state when they need a blood transfusion. The children are likely brainwashed to the extent that they would refuse blood transfusions, and it could be argued that the parents and the child are being denied religious freedom. It just makes sense sometimes for the state to intervene to protect people from themselves. Laws do draw lines. You should study a bit on where those lines are. The judge who ruled the Citizenship guideline on the niqab was illegal certainly understands those lines; he's had years of training and decades of experience in the area. I really don't understand where you draw the lines in your mind, and this is what I've been asking you. It seems unprincipled to say that the law should not "pander to every religious inclination" as if that is what the judge above is doing. To you the "niqab" and "a suicide belt" are part of the same culture and mindset. That is unfortunate, but also irrelevant. The law deals with the individual and everyone is equal before the law. The law does not judge you on your religious background but on your actions as an individual. A niqab is a niqab. A suicide belt is a suicide belt. There is no tangible harm to anyone in the case of the former. Canadian women who wear niqabs state they are quite open to security checks. Obviously, suicide belts are an issue and are illegal anywhere, any time. Your mention of suicide belts in connection with the judge's ruling demonstrates a lack of understanding of core legal and constitutional principles. The same with your knowledge of the principles of individual liberty and the "tyranny of the majority". I suppose you can't be blamed for not knowing these things, as many people don't. But then you should not make such strong statements on the treatment of Muslims either. I don't like the niqab either, and would like to see the practice end. But I believe the best way to do that is through education, and through tolerating those women who wear the niqab in our country. More and more Muslim women are demanding an end to "moral policing". Let me put it like this. If you were in a church where some of the people are "rules based" and morally judgemental, will the church be more progressive overall if the more liberal minded among them are friendly and continue to dialogue with the judgemental types. Or is it better to ignore the conservative people entirely and have nothing to do with them. I think open-ness, dialogue and tolerance are always the better approach; for Muslims within our society no less so. The second generation of young women will shed the niqab. The hijab, of course, is not at issue.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Mar 19, 2015 11:38:31 GMT -5
People who haven't accepted Christ are still in need of a sacrifice. For some, it's America.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 19, 2015 14:19:24 GMT -5
People who haven't accepted Christ are still in need of a sacrifice. For some, it's America. What kind of a sacrifice? A blood sacrifice? Burnt offering?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Mar 19, 2015 15:25:35 GMT -5
Laws have to draw the line somewhere. It's simply not possible to pander to every religious inclination. By discussing the various extremes, and arguing the pros and cons we can form opinions around where the line should be drawn. Jehovah's Witness children are made a ward of the state when they need a blood transfusion. The children are likely brainwashed to the extent that they would refuse blood transfusions, and it could be argued that the parents and the child are being denied religious freedom. It just makes sense sometimes for the state to intervene to protect people from themselves. Laws do draw lines. You should study a bit on where those lines are. The judge who ruled the Citizenship guideline on the niqab was illegal certainly understands those lines; he's had years of training and decades of experience in the area. I really don't understand where you draw the lines in your mind, and this is what I've been asking you. It seems unprincipled to say that the law should not "pander to every religious inclination" as if that is what the judge above is doing. To you the "niqab" and "a suicide belt" are part of the same culture and mindset. That is unfortunate, but also irrelevant. The law deals with the individual and everyone is equal before the law. The law does not judge you on your religious background but on your actions as an individual. A niqab is a niqab. A suicide belt is a suicide belt. There is no tangible harm to anyone in the case of the former. Canadian women who wear niqabs state they are quite open to security checks. Obviously, suicide belts are an issue and are illegal anywhere, any time. Your mention of suicide belts in connection with the judge's ruling demonstrates a lack of understanding of core legal and constitutional principles. The same with your knowledge of the principles of individual liberty and the "tyranny of the majority". I suppose you can't be blamed for not knowing these things, as many people don't. But then you should not make such strong statements on the treatment of Muslims either. I don't like the niqab either, and would like to see the practice end. But I believe the best way to do that is through education, and through tolerating those women who wear the niqab in our country. More and more Muslim women are demanding an end to "moral policing". Let me put it like this. If you were in a church where some of the people are "rules based" and morally judgemental, will the church be more progressive overall if the more liberal minded among them are friendly and continue to dialogue with the judgemental types. Or is it better to ignore the conservative people entirely and have nothing to do with them. I think open-ness, dialogue and tolerance are always the better approach; for Muslims within our society no less so. The second generation of young women will shed the niqab. The hijab, of course, is not at issue. Many Muslims are supportive of a niqab ban so your argument that a ban would be anti-Muslim and "tyranny of the majority" is rather weak. Your support for the niqab is making it harder for the second generation to shed the niqab. Dinosaur Imams in the West try to guilt-trip women into wearing niqab, and extremist organisations like Al Qaeda and the Taleban force women to wear them, while moderate Muslims say they are not Islamic and are supportive of a ban. I support moderate Muslims on this issue.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 19, 2015 17:17:14 GMT -5
Ridiculous argument, fixit.
I'm sure that you are aware of that, -at least I sincerely hope you are.It is hard to believe that anyone would think other wise.
Laws have to draw the line somewhere. It's simply not possible to pander to every religious inclination. By discussing the various extremes, and arguing the pros and cons we can form opinions around where the line should be drawn. Jehovah's Witness children are made a ward of the state when they need a blood transfusion. The children are likely brainwashed to the extent that they would refuse blood transfusions, and it could be argued that the parents and the child are being denied religious freedom. It just makes sense sometimes for the state to intervene to protect people from themselves. Well as I figured, you don't seem to know the difference between a suicide belt and a niqab.
Nor do you know the difference between children who are made a ward of the state when they need life saving intervention & women chooseing the right to wear what they want to which is hurting absolutely no one. Not even you!
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Mar 19, 2015 17:43:10 GMT -5
Laws have to draw the line somewhere. It's simply not possible to pander to every religious inclination. By discussing the various extremes, and arguing the pros and cons we can form opinions around where the line should be drawn. Jehovah's Witness children are made a ward of the state when they need a blood transfusion. The children are likely brainwashed to the extent that they would refuse blood transfusions, and it could be argued that the parents and the child are being denied religious freedom. It just makes sense sometimes for the state to intervene to protect people from themselves. Well as I figured, you don't seem to know the difference between a suicide belt and a niqab.
Nor do you know the difference between children who are made a ward of the state when they need life saving intervention & women chooseing the right to wear what they want to which is hurting absolutely no one. Not even you!
The oppressed women getting around in a tent have a right to wear what they want without being guilt-tripped into thinking it is virtuous to wear a niqab. Is that acceptable in a modern 21st century society? Let's support moderate Muslims who are pushing for a ban on the niqab, and Imams who say that the niqab is not Islamic.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 19, 2015 22:54:07 GMT -5
Well as I figured, you don't seem to know the difference between a suicide belt and a niqab.
Nor do you know the difference between children who are made a ward of the state when they need life saving intervention & women chooseing the right to wear what they want to which is hurting absolutely no one. Not even you!
The oppressed women getting around in a tent have a right to wear what they want without being guilt-tripped into thinking it is virtuous to wear a niqab. Is that acceptable in a modern 21st century society? Let's support moderate Muslims who are pushing for a ban on the niqab, and Imams who say that the niqab is not Islamic. You just don't get it!You are talking about making illegal something a woman wants to wear! (for whatever reason )
It already is illegal to wear a suicide belt ! Why? Because it is extremely dangerous not only to the person wearing it but YOU as well. Therefore YOU have a right to say NO suicide belts should be allowed.
It is already illegal to allow child abuse by Jehovah's Witness to deny a child a life saving blood transfusion. Why? Because it is a child & not an adult and therefore YOU as well as all of us should be concerned about child abuse.
YOU are wanting a government law that denies a grown woman the right to wear what she chooses to wear (for whatever reason) which does NOT affect YOU or the public in any detrimental way what-so-ever, - WHY? Just because YOU think it is wrong!
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Mar 19, 2015 23:46:01 GMT -5
The oppressed women getting around in a tent have a right to wear what they want without being guilt-tripped into thinking it is virtuous to wear a niqab. Is that acceptable in a modern 21st century society? Let's support moderate Muslims who are pushing for a ban on the niqab, and Imams who say that the niqab is not Islamic. You just don't get it!You are talking about making illegal something a woman wants to wear! (for whatever reason )
It already is illegal to wear a suicide belt ! Why? Because it is extremely dangerous not only to the person wearing it but YOU as well. Therefore YOU have a right to say NO suicide belts should be allowed.
It is already illegal to allow child abuse by Jehovah's Witness to deny a child a life saying blood transfusion. Why? Because it is a child & not an adult and therefore YOU as well as all of us be concerned about child abuse.
YOU are wanting a government law that denies a grown woman the right to wear what she chooses to wear (for whatever reason) which does NOT affect YOU or the public in any detrimental way what-so-ever, - WHY? Just because YOU think it is wrong! You're entitled to your opinion. In a few years time Liberals will be complaining because a segment of the population is impoverished and society will be blamed for not integrating immigrants properly. You're not going to integrate people who insist on getting around in tents and not showing their faces. By supporting the niqab you're aligning yourself with Islamic extremists who have no respect for democracy and human rights. I'm with the moderate Muslims who want to ban the niqab as oppressive and un-Islamic.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 20, 2015 2:12:06 GMT -5
You just don't get it!You are talking about making illegal something a woman wants to wear! (for whatever reason )
It already is illegal to wear a suicide belt ! Why? Because it is extremely dangerous not only to the person wearing it but YOU as well. Therefore YOU have a right to say NO suicide belts should be allowed.
It is already illegal to allow child abuse by Jehovah's Witness to deny a child a life saying blood transfusion. Why? Because it is a child & not an adult and therefore YOU as well as all of us should be concerned about child abuse.
YOU are wanting a government law that denies a grown woman the right to wear what she chooses to wear (for whatever reason) which does NOT affect YOU or the public in any detrimental way what-so-ever, - WHY? Just because YOU think it is wrong! You're entitled to your opinion.In a few years time Liberals will be complaining because a segment of the population is impoverished and society will be blamed for not integrating immigrants properly. You're not going to integrate people who insist on getting around in tents and not showing their faces. By supporting the niqab you're aligning yourself with Islamic extremists who have no respect for democracy and human rights. I'm with the moderate Muslims who want to ban the niqab as oppressive and un-Islamic. YOU STILL DON'T GET IT!
We are NOT taking about my opinion!
We are talking about making LAWS infringing on people's right to wear what they want to wear as long as it is no danger to others!
We are talking about the rights of a woman to wear what she wants to wear and not what YOU think that she should wear!
YOU want MY real opinion?
I think YOU should wear a long baggy shirt & long below the knee baggy swim pants when you go to the beach because I don't like to see your shirtless body in regular swim wear.
It offends me!
Maybe I should try and get a new law passed to that effect!
|
|