CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Calgary Flames
Profile
Posts: 33561
PostPosted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 10:20 am
 


It's not about disallowing them from wearing these things in public or at home, which to my knowledge no one has even mentioned. It's that the court is allowing a tribal custom from Pakistan and Afghanistan to trump ancient Western legal procedures (the accused being allowed to confront their accuser in an open court) and to derail other procedures (eg, drivers licenses, boarding of airplanes) where facial recognition is required. Just how much more of what our own culture has held important for centuries do these goddamn judges want us to throw out in order to please every whiny minority that comes along?

Too bad it was a troublemaker and lightning rod like Ezra who wrote this article. It needs to be taken more seriously.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 65472
PostPosted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 10:21 am
 


$1:
Shariah law has come to Canada.


God help you. :|


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 4235
PostPosted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 10:22 am
 


Really a very poorly written misinformed piece I wonder how it ever got cleared for publication ? I believe Ken and Bart here express their bigtory and islamophobia in a much more elequent fashion over here.

As for the ruling I also find it unbelievable aswell and just going a bit too far in my view.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 65472
PostPosted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 10:25 am
 


desertdude desertdude:
Really a very poorly written misinformed piece I wonder how it ever got cleared for publication ? I believe Ken and Bart here express their bigtory and islamophobia in a much more elequent fashion over here.

As for the ruling I also find it unbelievable aswell and just going a bit too far in my view.


Find someone else to troll, okay? It's gotten tiresome.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33492
PostPosted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 10:26 am
 


desertdude desertdude:
Really a very poorly written misinformed piece I wonder how it ever got cleared for publication ? I believe Ken and Bart here express their bigtory and islamophobia in a much more elequent fashion over here.

As for the ruling I also find it unbelievable aswell and just going a bit too far in my view.


So how does it work in UAE, DD?


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 4235
PostPosted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 10:32 am
 


Oh don't even ask, I keep trying to forget.


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 4235
PostPosted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 10:33 am
 


BartSimpson BartSimpson:
desertdude desertdude:
Really a very poorly written misinformed piece I wonder how it ever got cleared for publication ? I believe Ken and Bart here express their bigtory and islamophobia in a much more elequent fashion over here.

As for the ruling I also find it unbelievable aswell and just going a bit too far in my view.


Find someone else to troll, okay? It's gotten tiresome.



Awww....


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 65472
PostPosted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 10:34 am
 


andyt andyt:
desertdude desertdude:
Really a very poorly written misinformed piece I wonder how it ever got cleared for publication ? I believe Ken and Bart here express their bigtory and islamophobia in a much more elequent fashion over here.

As for the ruling I also find it unbelievable aswell and just going a bit too far in my view.


So how does it work in UAE, DD?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_t ... b_Emirates


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 21665
PostPosted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 10:34 am
 


andyt andyt:
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
But people should be able to wear what they feel like wearing.


Absolutely, unless required otherwise. For identification, and in court they should have to show their face. I agree with the idea that a person's face should be open to scrutiny during testimony. Otherwise, let everybody who wants to wear a bag over their head - makes it easier to lie. In fact don't they often ask witnesses to identify the accused? What if the accused is wearing the bag? (Of course then she probably would have been wearing it during the crime, so maybe that's not much of an example.)


I agree--for identification purposes. But this "face to face" thing that Levant grasps at does not exist. It's habeus corpus. Corpus means body not face.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33492
PostPosted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 10:36 am
 


Zipperfish Zipperfish:
andyt andyt:
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
But people should be able to wear what they feel like wearing.


Absolutely, unless required otherwise. For identification, and in court they should have to show their face. I agree with the idea that a person's face should be open to scrutiny during testimony. Otherwise, let everybody who wants to wear a bag over their head - makes it easier to lie. In fact don't they often ask witnesses to identify the accused? What if the accused is wearing the bag? (Of course then she probably would have been wearing it during the crime, so maybe that's not much of an example.)


I agree--for identification purposes. But this "face to face" thing that Levant grasps at does not exist. It's habeus corpus. Corpus means body not face.
Then, as I say, let anybody who wants to testify with a bag over their head do so - not just based on religious/cultural beliefs. This granting special rights to special groups has got to stop. If the right is a good one, extend it to all people. I'm sure a guy who sweats like Richard Nixon would also like to cover his face. In fact, witnesses have to identify themselves when they sit in the box - how do we know it's the right person if all we see is a bag?


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Montreal Canadiens
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33691
PostPosted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 10:39 am
 


What about a jurys' need to be able to check the credibility of a witness
by language, body and facial expressions during testimony ?


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 65472
PostPosted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 10:40 am
 


I agree with Andy. Part of testifying in court instead of merely making an affadavit is to allow the accused to see the responses of witnesses and accusers to questions.

If all you have for a response to a question is: "Yes, that's what happened." then you only have part of the story.

If what you have is seeing the person break out in a sweat, their skin pales, and their mouth twitches and then they say, "Yes, that's what happened." you can come away with a totally different impression as a juror or as an attorney or judge.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 21665
PostPosted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 10:45 am
 


Thanos Thanos:
It's not about disallowing them from wearing these things in public or at home, which to my knowledge no one has even mentioned. It's that the court is allowing a tribal custom from Pakistan and Afghanistan to trump ancient Western legal procedures (the accused being allowed to confront their accuser in an open court) and to derail other procedures (eg, drivers licenses, boarding of airplanes) where facial recognition is required. Just how much more of what our own culture has held important for centuries do these goddamn judges want us to throw out in order to please every whiny minority that comes along?

Too bad it was a troublemaker and lightning rod like Ezra who wrote this article. It needs to be taken more seriously.


No, I don't think it does. The first thing you have to know about Levant is that he is not a champion of free speech, as often portrayed. Job No 1 for Ezra is to go after the Muslims and whatever armor he can wear into that fray at the time is what he'll use--whether it be "free speech" (as with the Mohammaed cartoons), or acting "un-Canadian" (as he uses in this case). It's just the Jews and the Muslims going at it, yet again, as played out in Canada.

I'm not going to be baited by outrageous hyperbole.

The judge ruled:

$1:
"If, in the specific circumstances, the accused’s fair trial right can be honoured only by requiring the witness to remove the niqab, the niqab must be removed if the witness is to testify," the court said.


otherwise, it is implied, wear your religious parephenalia. That's freedom. Makes sense to me.


Last edited by Zipperfish on Tue Oct 19, 2010 10:54 am, edited 1 time in total.

Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 21665
PostPosted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 10:52 am
 


andyt andyt:
Then, as I say, let anybody who wants to testify with a bag over their head do so - not just based on religious/cultural beliefs. This granting special rights to special groups has got to stop. If the right is a good one, extend it to all people. I'm sure a guy who sweats like Richard Nixon would also like to cover his face. In fact, witnesses have to identify themselves when they sit in the box - how do we know it's the right person if all we see is a bag?


I agree--you should be able to wear a bag over your head, or a mask for that matter. Excfept for identification purposes or, as the judge ruled, where it interferes with a fair trial. But you know me, I'm big on freedom.

In this case it should be noted that a young woman was testifying against a cousin and uncle who repeatedly raped her as a child. I would imagine that this woman has spent a good deal of her life in burqa or whatever it's called. So now--at the most stressful time of her life--you're going to make her take it off? That would be the same--in our culture--as making a rape victim testify topless against the accused. And if the lady doesn't take off her veil or whatever, then the rapists walk? I don't think so.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 Edmonton Oilers
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 8533
PostPosted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 11:05 am
 


Zipperfish Zipperfish:
In this case it should be noted that a young woman was testifying against a cousin and uncle who repeatedly raped her as a child. I would imagine that this woman has spent a good deal of her life in burqa or whatever it's called. So now--at the most stressful time of her life--you're going to make her take it off? That would be the same--in our culture--as making a rape victim testify topless against the accused. And if the lady doesn't take off her veil or whatever, then the rapists walk? I don't think so.


Now, now, Zip, don't go trying to bring context into the argument - it'll only make them madder.


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 66 posts ]  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.