Sunday, February 8, 2015
People like me who complain about certain stuff which we see as wrong and dangerous, do so only because we believe that prevention is better than the cure and not because we hate people for their religion or traditions.
The dhimmi judge in the case as detailed below has perhaps the same kind of mentality judges had in the UK, Australia, France, Germany, Sweden, The Netherlands and many other EU countries just a few short years ago. Look at what's happening in those countries now. Will the looming "cure" that's likely going to happen in those countries, will it be better than the preventive measures if they had been in place?
I hope the government will appeal the foolish ruling by a dhimmi nitwit judge and let's hope the case will reopen before a person with at least a modicum of intellect which was clearly lacking in this judge.
Another preventive measure would be to add one more sentence in the application form for prospective new immigrants. Something like making it mandatory that new immigrants will be arrested if they cover or mask their faces when in public places and that it is absolutely necessary for new immigrants to shown their faces to one and all at the swearing-in ceremonies. Failure to comply with this rule will result in deportation .... that should be made very, very clear.
From ChristianScienceMonitor via YahooNews:
A controversial Canadian ban on wearing face veils during citizenship swearing-in ceremonies tested the limits of restricting freedom of religion to promote “Canadian values.” On Friday, a judge ruled the government went too far.
The ban, introduced in 2011, was “unlawful” because it interfered with a citizenship judge’s legal obligation to ensure the “greatest possible freedom” is provided to people who are taking the oath of citizenship, a court determined.
The government said face veils, like the niqab - which covers the entire face except the eyes and is worn by some Muslim women - prohibited judges from verifying that citizenship candidates were actually reciting the oath. Its statements suggested this policy was also an attempt to force new citizens to assimilate to Canadian norms and adopt Canadian values, as the government defined them.
The ban was challenged by Zunera Ishaq, who comes from Pakistan and wears a niqab. She declined to go through with the citizenship oath in January 2014, saying she would be forced to violate her religious beliefs by removing it.
“[The] policy required her to unveil in public when there was truly no need, simply because the niqab did not please the [former Citizenship and Immigration Minister Jason Kenney],” said Ms. Ishaq’s lawyer Naseem Mithoowani. “My client feels very strongly that this set a dangerous precedent and the Canadian government has no role in dictating to women what is, or is not, a morally acceptable dress code.”
The government rejected the possibility of holding separate ceremonies for niqab-donning women where they could unveil in front of a female judge only, saying this would promote inequality.
“Taking the oath of citizenship means embracing Canadian values and traditions while pledging allegiance to Canada,” the Citizenship and Immigration Ministry said in a statement. “While the government of Canada values the diversity that people of all origins bring to the country, it is reasonable to expect citizenship candidates attending a public civil ceremony to show their faces while reciting the oath.”.........