Sharia judge 'laughed at abuse victim as courts lock women into marriage'

Thank God Ontario had the good sense to not allow this sort of nonsense. I would support writing something into law that would ban any sort of religious based legal system in the country. And as I've said, take legal civic unions away from the churches too. Ie you want to be legally "married" under the law you go to civil court. You want to be "married" in the eyes of your religion, go to your religious institution, but that's not deemed a legal marriage. Get religion of any kind out of the state.

Given that Wynne kowtows to minorities I'm surprised she's not passed this

Yet you happily joined the chorus of lefties during the election campaign calling the Conservatives as bad as Nazis for wanting things like the niqab and burka prohibited at official government functions. What's next from you, junior? Bravely wanting immigration restricted because you get offended at Filipinos filling the jobs at fast food joints while at the same time you get to scream "racists!" at anyone who wants a Jamaican or Somali who shoots up a shopping mall in Toronto to be deported? And I'm the one around here that gets accused of being all over the map on certain things.

gotta march in lock step with your rightwing drivel, huh? Because the burqa woman had already sworn the oath with her face exposed when it actually counted, I don't care what she chooses to wear to the ceremony.

And despite your bullshit, I've always been supportive of deporting any non-citizen who commits a serious crime. As for restricting immigration, I want it based on what's best for Canada and any skills we many need to import (but I want our own people trained before we always trying to just take the easy way out and import skills). There wouldn't be that many people who get in from Jamaica or Somalia, since they are not known for training the types of people our economy needs.

All that means is you will go after low-hanging fruit, such as was going to be in the Quebec and France laws, like telling harmless Jews that they can't wear a yarmulke in public or that all crosses have to be removed from and atheist's line of site lest they cause them to have some kind of a spasm. You're just being two-faced on this if you're not willing to go after the harder target and tell fundamentalist Muslims to fuck right off with the medieval anti-women clothing they force their females to wear. Like Bill Maher keeps saying over and over again, liberals drop all pretense of standing up for secularism when it comes to what Muslims want. Everyone else is a target, of some of the dumbest and most insulting things some of these atheist groups think up to drive religious symbols out of sight, but Muslims will get a permanent hands-off. Nothing but two-faced fucking cowardice.

Just more of your spew.

Wear what you want as a private citizen. In fact, as long as your face is uncovered, wear what you want as a govt employee, as long as it's not against whatever dress code. But don't have crosses up in govt buildings, or other such bullshit.

But go ahead, let's see what you twist this into. You should probably spend more time looking for work instead of just building your hatred.

What a crock. The politics you have and the politicians you vote for go out of their way to ensure that nothing can be done about the niqab and burka, and if you get stuck at a government office dealing with someone wearing the damn thing then there's nothing you can do about it at all. That's because the system people like you have built will, without a seconds hesitation, turn you into the racist if you complain about it. But you probably wouldn't complain anyway. Just mumble "diversity if super!" to yourself over and over again until your brain releases some endorphins to you as a reward for being a good liberal doggie. Nice world you've created for the rest of us. I only hope that the moments you get burnt by what you've allowed to happen occur as frequently to you and yours from now on as it does for the rest of us.

Again the burqa is not a religious requirement but a cultural one. It therefore cannot be protected under freedom of religion.

Doesn't matter. There needs to be a good reason to ban it. Security and identification are good reasons, playing identity politics is not. The woman had to take her face covering off during the actual official swearing of the oath in front of a judge. The group swearing is just ceremonial, it counts for nothing, so who cares what she wears. Maybe you guys don't know that. I didn't at first and supported the ban, until I found out she had already sworn the oath that counts with face uncovered.

Why do you even post? You're just making shit up that you claim I believe and then puke about it. You could do that all by yourself. You're starting to turn Fox News crazy, raving on about liberals, making up shit what people believe. The edge is near, I fear.

The only edge is the one our society fell over when people like you gave us an immigration policy that turned out to be nothing but a civilization-wide suicide pact. The only thing left I want to see is the left get eaten up at the same time by what they let into our countries

Doesn't matter. There needs to be a good reason to ban it. Security and identification are good reasons, playing identity politics is not. The woman had to take her face covering off during the actual official swearing of the oath in front of a judge. The group swearing is just ceremonial, it counts for nothing, so who cares what she wears. Maybe you guys don't know that. I didn't at first and supported the ban, until I found out she had already sworn the oath that counts with face uncovered.
You make a thought provoking counter argument except your first sentence is incorrect. It does matter. It is not a religious object, therefore not protected as same. Can I enter a bank or a gas station wearing a balaclava or motorcycle helmet? Yes I can I never used to take my helmet off when filling my bike up and paying. Can these businesses forbid me entering? Yes they can, they have no way of knowing who I am or my intentions. In short they cannot identify me or read my intentions through facial indicators. Can they refuse a person wearing a burqa? Well they could try and we all know what will happen then What about the woman that was allowed to testify wearing a burqa denying the judge and jury proper examination of the evidence in her testimony?

the government is not a business. It needs a good reason to ban something. It's not a matter of security as the other examples you give. It's not about religion, just about civil liberties.

Did agree with the woman being allowed to testify with her face covered, in fact I thought in the end she was forced to take it off. She certainly should have been.

This is what a foamer like Thanos doesn't understand. It's not all black and white. If identification or security is the issue, ban whatever. If not, don't ban something just on a whim.

But will the government back the businesses if they refuse entry for security purposes? Of course they won't. rue we don't anywhere near the cctv cameras that they have in Britain but virtually every business and public space have cctv cams for that reason. I'd rather the government get in front of this issue. Anyhow we should return to the sharia kangaroo courts issue.