February 02, 2009
Judge Forces Woman To Remove Face Veil in Toronto Court
Hmmm. I really wonder how this will pan out.
I think there is a real problem here, but maybe I am just a stupid infidel. The issue is that you can't have it both ways.
Either the veil is compulsory (as is the claim in this case), or it is 'voluntary' without compulsion (as it is claimed by proponents of face veils and burkhas).
So, which is it? Compulsory or voluntary?
Make up your minds.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
So, which is it? Compulsory or voluntary?
Both and, depending on the situation and how many PC-points someone can gain.
Depends. Is she hot?
the koran is "dualistist". drives us infidels crazy because the "logic" of islam makes no sense to freeborn men and women in the west. but it gives the muzzies so much to work with....they can tell you ANYTHING and still sleep well at night....be mindful...it's okay to lie to the infidel. there is no compulsion in religion...except when there is....don't confuse the "revelations" to bif moe in mecca with those in medina....
Finally, a judge with some guts to do the right thing and send a message to these people who choose not to integrte into Canada and follow customs that come from barbaric uncivilized cultures let alone customs that at centuries old..and demean the position of women....
Let these people who colonize in Canadian ghettos either assimilate into this culture or leave if they don't like it..
We must begin to be more outspoken otherwise all the irrational dhimmis many of whom live in Ontario will win out over the rationally thinking Canadians who can see the implications far down the road of appeasing to these backward thinking and practicing cultures.
Meanwhile, some lunatic Christians are trying to get Uyghur muslims who have been "fighting for independence from China" out of Guantanamo and into Canada.
http://tinyurl.com/d4h2jd
What are they thinking? Suicide? A need for leaders for the "independence from Canada" movement?
Write Mr. Jason Kenney and offer a few choice words if you think this is a really REALLY bad idea.
I think the judge is right to order this. However, I also think that it would be good to be more affirmative about shared values under Western law, like the right for the judge and jury of your peers to see the accused and the suspect face to face, and hence judge the truth of the matter from their demeanor as well as their words. If I were the judge, I would liken the matter of entering court as affirming your membership in the great family of Canada. In court, you face your fellows and they face you as equals under the law. It is both something public and impersonal and deeply intimate. Not to bare your face is to say that you aren't part of that Canadian family, that you don't trust your fellow Canadians and they shouldn't trust you.
I realize that a lot of people aren't raised to appreciate Western values or are shamed out of them. But if you can't expect eloquent defenses of the law from lawyers and judges, who can you get them from?
There is another solution, which would both protect her modesty, while adhering to the strict Islamic standards, and allow her to remove the veil in court.
Of course, it sounds a little 'unusual' to us, in the West, but it is actually something that a conservative Imam had suggested as an option for unrelated men and women who work in the same offices - and where the women go unveiled. Please, this was actually suggested by a Muslim scholar! What can be done in an office can also be done in a courtroom.
The woman said her family can see her without a veil.
The solution, then, is for every man there to become her adoptive son, and therefore 'forbidden' to her. To become their 'surrogate mother', all she has to do is nurse each of them 2 or 3 times (I cannot recall - it's a bit back that I read the Imam's enlightened suggestion.)
By nursing each man 2-3 times, according to strict Islamic rules, she becomes their 'wet-nurse' (which is considered 'surrogate mother), and she may freely remove her veil in front of them while preserving her honour and modesty!
And, all would be perfectly in observance of her religion!
Frankly, I think it is less ridiculous than wearing a veil to hide her face while 'facing' the defendant! With her face hidden, she would be 'veiling' him, not 'facing' him!!!
But, we are a tolerant, accommodating society: let's respect her religion and allow her to nurse the men, so she can satisfy the law of the land without loosing honour!
Being a tit man and partial to a bit of eastern promise, I'll go with chamberpot's idea
Post a Comment