So who read the analysis piece entitled “The niqab debate, let's not forget, is about
individual rights. In the end, this is a country based on individual rights and the rule of law, not majority sentiment”, written by Neil McDonald of the CBC?
In part of the analyses piece he states:
Boswell then ruled that wearing a niqab does not interfere in any substantive way with taking the oath, and that the minister of immigration does not, in any event, have the authority to summarily forbid wearing one.
As you would expect from a judge at Boswell's level, his ruling was antiseptic, almost surgical.
He is uninterested in why Ishaq interprets her religion as an obligation to keep her face covered in public; it is enough that she does, in the same way that ultra-orthodox Jews feel obliged to wear black hats and side curls, or some Roman Catholics feel compelled to walk around with crosses daubed on their foreheads on Ash Wednesday.
To take this to the Nth degree then, what the CBC's Neil Macdonald is saying is that we should then be able to say, do, wear and behave any way we want because as he says, and I quote, "... the decision of a grown woman, like Zunera Ishaq, to cover her face at a public ceremony is, well, the decision of a grown woman."
This is a BS arguement twisting the facts to suit his (McDonald's) own bias. Just because you are 'grown up' means little other than you have reached the age of majority. Age of majority does not necessarily equate, or equal, being able to have enough smarts to determine if something is right, or should be done
We do not have the right to do, say, wear and behave any way we want because we are grown women / men.
Society will always impose restriction to those things based on the safety, security, and well-being of all. There IS a difference between our democratic rights, and doing and saying whatever we want.
No matter how you slice it, McDonald seems to have some serious issues he has yet to deal with, judging by everything he has written in this piece, especially when it comes to western religions, although all is fair when it comes to eastern ones.
Why do I say this? Because it appears Neil McDonald is fine with religious groups OTHER THAN Christians educating their children in the morals, background and history of their religious beliefs. He appears however, to think Christians are dumbed down dinosaurs.
Why do I say that? Well here's another quote from his so called analysis:
But then, indoctrinating children is how religions ensure their continuity. Society has accepted that religious parents have the right to impose religious practices on their children. The children have little say in the matter. (Bold font added by me)
Bottom line for me? This is little more than the rantings of a windbag who should be ignored!
I’m Alan Forseth in Kamloops … care to hare your thoughts on this?
In part of the analyses piece he states:
Boswell then ruled that wearing a niqab does not interfere in any substantive way with taking the oath, and that the minister of immigration does not, in any event, have the authority to summarily forbid wearing one.
As you would expect from a judge at Boswell's level, his ruling was antiseptic, almost surgical.
He is uninterested in why Ishaq interprets her religion as an obligation to keep her face covered in public; it is enough that she does, in the same way that ultra-orthodox Jews feel obliged to wear black hats and side curls, or some Roman Catholics feel compelled to walk around with crosses daubed on their foreheads on Ash Wednesday.
 |
| Zunera Ishaq following court ruling on Niqab |
To take this to the Nth degree then, what the CBC's Neil Macdonald is saying is that we should then be able to say, do, wear and behave any way we want because as he says, and I quote, "... the decision of a grown woman, like Zunera Ishaq, to cover her face at a public ceremony is, well, the decision of a grown woman."
This is a BS arguement twisting the facts to suit his (McDonald's) own bias. Just because you are 'grown up' means little other than you have reached the age of majority. Age of majority does not necessarily equate, or equal, being able to have enough smarts to determine if something is right, or should be done
We do not have the right to do, say, wear and behave any way we want because we are grown women / men.
Society will always impose restriction to those things based on the safety, security, and well-being of all. There IS a difference between our democratic rights, and doing and saying whatever we want.
No matter how you slice it, McDonald seems to have some serious issues he has yet to deal with, judging by everything he has written in this piece, especially when it comes to western religions, although all is fair when it comes to eastern ones.
Why do I say this? Because it appears Neil McDonald is fine with religious groups OTHER THAN Christians educating their children in the morals, background and history of their religious beliefs. He appears however, to think Christians are dumbed down dinosaurs.
Why do I say that? Well here's another quote from his so called analysis:
But then, indoctrinating children is how religions ensure their continuity. Society has accepted that religious parents have the right to impose religious practices on their children. The children have little say in the matter. (Bold font added by me)
Bottom line for me? This is little more than the rantings of a windbag who should be ignored!
I’m Alan Forseth in Kamloops … care to hare your thoughts on this?
Comments
Post a Comment