Support NeoGAF

[t-storm]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ed-case-unless-hijab-removed/article23229155/



So every party at every level of govt. is saying that the judge screwed up, and the supreme court supports the right of Canadians to wear religious garb in court. It's only the Que. courts supporting this judge.

It would be as if the judge started yelling at you to shave your side-burns. A Hijab is not a hat or sunglasses, it's not inappropriate dress for court.

First of all it's an election year for the federal government so no party is going to be silly enough to say they agree with the judge.

Secondly, the Quebec premier said he was a bit disturbed but also added, "I will be very careful because the judge is sovereign in her decisions, in her courtroom."

 

[Terra Firma]

Yeah, I see one picture where you can see a guy's neck, ears, sides of face, and another picture where all you can see is a nose eyes, mouth and chin, which you cannot even see from the sides because of the hood. Tell me more about how hajib's and turbans are identical.

What the heck is a "hajib"?

You really have zero clue.

 

[Htown]

Again, you are expected to be a Quebecker (french speaking, religion free), it's that simple.

Nobody said bigotry was complicated.

Let her wear her hat, I wouldnt take a teddy bear away from a special needs child. This is no different.

Ow the edge

 

[SRG01]

You're losing the subject. What was? That religious freedoms be protected. Because unless it's explicit that hijabs are allowed this is a case by case ruling. The precedence I was talking about is the ability for judges to pick out something that is not explicit and make a ruling on it. Thus setting a new precedent. There is a precedent in this process itself.

A little late on this, but yes, it's explicit that hijabs can be worn provided that the four-point test is used. The process is the precedent since no other process was in place or stated or explicit prior to this ruling.

Ultimately, that case was bounced back to the Ontario courts in order for them to apply the test.

I'm curious: do you know what the test is?

I posted on this earlier: m.thestar.com/#/article/news/canada/2012/12/20/supreme_court_niqab_ruling_veil_can_be_worn_to_testify_in_some_cases.html

Rather, judges should consider the veiled witness’s “sincerity of belief”; any risk to “trial fairness” (unlikely in cases where evidence is uncontested, and credibility or cross-examination are not at play, the ruling suggested); ways to “accommodate” the beliefs by using “reasonably available alternative measures” (courts sometimes allow evidence to be given behind a screen or via closed-circuit video); and whether the harm of veiled testimony in a particular case outweighs the benefit to society of encouraging victims to come forward.

First of all it's an election year for the federal government so no party is going to be silly enough to say they agree with the judge.

Secondly, the Quebec premier said he was a bit disturbed but also added, "I will be very careful because the judge is sovereign in her decisions, in her courtroom."

To be fair, politicians don't have jurisdiction within the courtroom; they only have power with respect to the laws they past and for the judges to interpret. The proper way to handle this is for it to move up the court system, which is not going to happen because this was before a hearing ever took place.

Unless the woman sued the court, of course, but I don't think that's even possible.

 

[Dr.Acula]

So this is Rania El-Allou from the story wearing her hijab. Not sure if it was the one she wore to court, but it was the one she wore when speaking to a reported so maybe? Anyway, it's how she wears her head covering.

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

That may be so oneils but Canadian public opinion on the streets, online, in Tim Hortons across the country, is arguably shifting towards what Shiggy said.

These Canadians are simply less tolerant and getting tired of people coming here and their culture being accommodated over Canadian culture and values.

Lol complete fabrications. It's the same rednecks complaining.

 

[HOMEBOY OVER HERE]

anybody that is against multiculturalism is a fucktard

last time I checked all these "countries" stole their land in the first place from actual natives that lived there for centuries. shit ass Quebec complaining about people not adhering to their cultural traditions is the same as american rednecks that complain about Mexican immigrants not speaking english.

fuck out of here.

 

[Frog-fu]

Yeah, I see one picture where you can see a guy's neck, ears, sides of face, and another picture where all you can see is a nose eyes, mouth and chin, which you cannot even see from the sides because of the hood. Tell me more about how hajib's and turbans are identical.

Edit: Man, the fact you had to change the picture does not look good for your argument. I mean c'mon, a black background?

We're talking about hijabs in the context of appearing in court, not standing in a fucking line up. I changed the picture because the second one was more traditional and representable.

That said, if you want to play that game.

Here is the original sikh turban picture I used.

[IMG]http://cdn.visualnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Amit-and-Maroop-Sikh-Portraits-5-600x400.jpg[/IMG]

Here is one of many styles in which the hijab can be worn.

[IMG]http://fashionsbizz.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Modren-Abaya-Hijab-Scarf-Jilbabs-Styles-2014-13.jpg[/IMG]

Still feel like making bullshit distinctions?

 

[ebullientprism]

Jeez. This thread is as obnoxious as r/atheism. And the judge was a total shitbag.

 

[Beaulieu]

That judge is almost assuredly a racist piece of shit. Let's not forget that you have to swear an oath on the bible in Quebec courtrooms.

what ? I was in court in quebec multiple times without having to swear on the bible.

 

[GSG Flash]

That may be so oneils but Canadian public opinion on the streets, online, in Tim Hortons across the country, is arguably shifting towards what Shiggy said.

These Canadians are simply less tolerant and getting tired of people coming here and their culture being accommodated over Canadian culture and values.

Total bullshit. I've lived in Canada almost all my life, I'm a red blooded Canadian who would put his life on the line for this country because it's the best country in the world, the hijab in no way, shape or form infringes on Canadian culture or value.

The tolerance for all the cultures of the world, as long as it's harmless, is what makes Canada the best country in the world. I know Harper has been trying to change that perception with Canadians, but it's been harder for him than he thought because Canadians(other than Quebec nationalists/purists and Albertan rednecks) generally don't put up with intolerance.

Yeah, I see one picture where you can see a guy's neck, ears, sides of face, and another picture where all you can see is a nose eyes, mouth and chin, which you cannot even see from the sides because of the hood. Tell me more about how hajib's and turbans are identical.

Edit: Man, the fact you had to change the picture does not look good for your argument. I mean c'mon, a black background?

Moving goalposts doesn't look good for your argument. If you can't tell one hijabi from another simply because of her hijab, you're a moron, simple as that.

edit:

what ? I was in court in quebec multiple times without having to swear on the bible.

Again, read my post from earlier: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=154054283&postcount=200

You're right that you don't have to swear by the bible but your only other option is a solemn affirmation. Doesn't sound secular to me, maybe this idiotic judge should fight against that first before picking a fight with someone who didn't mean any harm by wearing a headscarf.

 

[m_shortpants]

Let her wear her hat, I wouldnt take a teddy bear away from a special needs child. This is no different.

Really?

 

[Tertullian]

Disgusting. The government of Quebec doesn't have a serious or compelling reason to violate this woman's freedom of religion. It has barely any reason at all to do so. And yet here we find many people defending the judge.

It's disturbing the number of posters on NeoGAF who like to think of themselves as liberal, but who take a radically anti-liberal position on freedom of religion.

 

[Sibylus]

Your right to self-expression through appearance does not completely flow into a courtroom. It's nonsense.

I'll be sure to wear sandals and short-shorts into a courtroom next time and throw a fit when I'm kicked out. But I just want to represent warm weather judge! Why are you infringing on my beliefs?

It isn't absolute, no, as certain garb would indeed make it difficult, perhaps even impossible to deem that the given party is present in the courtroom. But a hijab isn't one such garment. The judge is overreaching.

$20,000 raised for single mom Rania El-Alloul who couldn't afford lawyer. You go girl! ^^

Fantastic

 

[Lamel]

Again, you are expected to be a Quebecker (french speaking, religion free), it's that simple.

Keep justifying bigotry, it's a great look.

 

[injurai]

A little late on this, but yes, it's explicit that hijabs can be worn provided that the four-point test is used. The process is the precedent since no other process was in place or stated or explicit prior to this ruling.

Ultimately, that case was bounced back to the Ontario courts in order for them to apply the test.

Ahh, thank you. Exactly the details I was needing.

 

[yogloo]

God people are so stupid.

 

[Fusebox]

God people are so stupid.

Deliberate omission of comma?

 

[Hyperactivity]

Mmh, let me guess, by keeping women subjugated and treating them like second-class citizens? By brainwashing them into being only caretakers because that's what women should aspire to? By forcing them to marry young out of familiar interests? By doing so, essentially create second-class citizens that remain so for very long because of early-age at which those kind of mass brainwashing acts are enforced?
Yeah, that sound scary, i guess some people haven't learned anything from centuries of fights for equality and secularism. And to think that those very people are actually against the very sistem that permit them to express their archaic beliefs, truly ironic. It wasn't even 40 years ago that honor killings were actually legal because of christianity mentality, i'm not missing those times.

Good thing that judge made sure she had to take off her hijab, all of that could've lost

Spoiler

nice straw man there

Well you see I agree but I'm pretty sure that there are women who like their Burqa and don't see it as oppression. Same as I think that even the Hijab is some kind of oppression.

If we argue that religion should be protected and Hijabs should be allowed we need to allow Burqas too. There's no way around it.

I'm sure you treat everything life in such an all-or-nothing manner

I'm assuming that if you do something, you always go to he extremes
You're either identify as radical right or left, no room in the middle

 

[Transhuman]

We're talking about hijabs in the context of appearing in court, not standing in a fucking line up.

It is a very similar situation though. Clearly you believe that standing in a line-up is somewhere where you forgo the right to obfuscate your appearance, I just believe that in a courtroom you have a similar obligation to have all of your facial features clearly viewable. Much more important when it's a criminal case, but it's not just some inane contrivance invented to throw a spanner into Muslin person freedom.

Moving goalposts doesn't look good for your argument. If you can't tell one hijabi from another simply because of her hijab, you're a moron, simple as that.

I guess I have to cop to being a moron then, because hair colour/ style, ears shape, head size, neck length/width help me tell people apart.

 

[lednerg]

If the court truly is a secular place, then it should make no demands on people regarding how they practice their religion.

 

[Rogue_Ledr]

And yarmulkes and turbans and visible crosses and any manner of visible religious garb.

I certainly hope there's consistency in the execution of such a demand to remove items that aren't suitable for court setting .

None of those things you mentioned covers the entire head and obscures the person's facial outline and features.

A Hijab is effectively a "hood". Hence, why you aren't supposed to wear one in legal proceedings.

It absolutely SHOULD be removed.

There doesn't need to be consistency with other religious items because those items aren't of the same class.

 

[Hyperactivity]

It is a very similar situation though. Clearly you believe that standing in a line-up is somewhere where you forgo the right to obfuscate your appearance, I just believe that in a courtroom you have a similar obligation to have all of your facial features clearly viewable. Much more important when it's a criminal case, but it's not just some inane contrivance invented to throw a spanner into Muslin person freedom.



I guess I have to cop to being a moron then, because hair colour/ style, ears shape, head size, neck length/width help me tell people apart.

Otherwise everyone just looks the same

 

[Hans Holo]

The high amount of stupid posts and intolerance in this thread is so sad.

You can clearly point out those aggressive atheists trying to bash religions.

 

[m_shortpants]

None of those things you mentioned covers the entire head and obscures the person's facial outline and features.

A Hijab is effectively a "hood". Hence, why you aren't supposed to wear one in legal proceedings.

It absolutely SHOULD be removed.

There doesn't need to be consistency with other religious items because those items aren't of the same class.

We're talking about hijabs in the context of appearing in court, not standing in a fucking line up. I changed the picture because the second one was more traditional and representable.

That said, if you want to play that game.

Here is the original sikh turban picture I used.

[IMG]http://cdn.visualnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Amit-and-Maroop-Sikh-Portraits-5-600x400.jpg[/IMG]

Here is one of many styles in which the hijab can be worn.

[IMG]http://fashionsbizz.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Modren-Abaya-Hijab-Scarf-Jilbabs-Styles-2014-13.jpg[/IMG]

Still feel like making bullshit distinctions?

Look at it covering her facial outline and features! Has the same effect as Clark Kent's glasses!

 

[Arrogant Bastard]

The high amount of stupid posts and intolerance in this thread is so sad.

You can clearly point out those aggressive atheists trying to bash religions.

No one is trying to bash religion, least I'm not. I just don't think religion should be granted special rules, sorry. By all means get rid of the entire 'rule', the no hat/headwear thing is just stupid anyways. Right? Lets, just get rid of it.

 

[Al-ibn Kermit]

The problem is that most countries that intend to be secular actually end up giving a lot of concessions to the religious. So what ends up happening is that the religious expect to be accommodated. For example, I had a college class that would allow students to take tests at different dates if they missed it due to a religious obligation. But if I broke my leg on my way to school and was hospitalized, that would not be a valid reason to reschedule the test.

Well injuries are rare and unpredictable. Religious holidays most likely affect multiple students though so rescheduling to a later date makes sense since then the teacher has to stay an extra hour administering the test to a few kids of X religion rather than 1 kid who had an accident. I think most of the schools I went to in California were like yours where health related incidents aren't grounds for rescheduling but you end up getting the same grade on the midterm as whatever you end up getting on your final.

 

[gutter_trash]

I think you misinterpreted my post. Edit: nothing in these charters means the hijab needs to be banned in a courtroom.

I was quoting you to back you up, not to argument against you

 

[gutter_trash]

the biggest problem with judges is that they are like airplane pilots. If they went someone to be ejected, they have that ultimate power.

the biggest flaw of of our judicial system is that the judge can eject anyone or refuse testimony. It's too much power in the hands of one person

 

[Morrigan Stark]

When it comes to the treatment of ethnic, racial, and religious minorities, in some ways, Quebec is the Alabama of Canada.

"Pure Laine"

S-Wind
Creepy Francophobe
(Today, 02:31 PM)

Beaten to it, haha.

I live in Quebec, and I hate every second of it. If it weren't for my wife wanting to live here, I'd gladly get the heck out of this province. I'm sorry, but being part of the "minority" myself, I disagree with the people saying that this province is welcoming. It's anything but. This article is just another example of extremes in Quebec. You can't wear the hijab, but you have to swear on the bible. And isn't it weird that we never heard anything related to other religious groups feeling ostracized by being told to remove their kippa, etc. ? This one lone woman is the first one to ever speak out against something like this ? Right.

Clearly it has nothing to do with the current wave of Islamophobia being rampant in today's society.

End of rant.

You hate "every second" and "feel unwelcome" because some old law books have some archaic stuff in them? Give me a fucking break. Not to mention, the Bible thing is untrue.

Quebec doesn't just hate all religions, it also hates basic human rights:

Oh lawd.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montre...lker-1.2975010

What a bunch of horseshit. One asshole STM driver = Québec hates basic human rights? Do you not realize how asinine your argument is? No one is going to side with that driver to begin with.

Take a look at my post here: http://m.neogaf.com/showpost.php?p=154054283

You can either make a solemn affirmation or take an oath on the bible in Quebec, nothing else.

And what is the problem with making a "solemn affirmation", exactly? It's just swearing an oath without the religious nonsense.

You want to talk about a stupid oath, I'd talk about the one swearing allegiance to the Queen for elected officials being sworn in, instead. Now that is archaic, shitty and should be abolished.

Not surprised it's in Quebec, the most racist part of canada.

FFS....

Again, read my post from earlier: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost...&postcount=200

You're right that you don't have to swear by the bible but your only other option is a solemn affirmation. Doesn't sound secular to me

LOL, how is it not? A solemn affirmation is exactly that, a secular option!

Définition : Affirmation solennelle, orale ou écrite, par laquelle une personne atteste, en invoquant ou non un objet sacré, la véracité d'une déclaration ou s'engage à se comporter d'une certaine manière.

They even point out that they prefer "affirmation" over "oath" because oath has religious connotations and "affirmation" is secular. Jesus christ*, you don't even know what it is you're criticising. xD But don't let that get in the way of your Québec bashing, I suppose.

* no pun intended

 

[Sai-kun]

None of those things you mentioned covers the entire head and obscures the person's facial outline and features.

A Hijab is effectively a "hood". Hence, why you aren't supposed to wear one in legal proceedings.

It absolutely SHOULD be removed.

There doesn't need to be consistency with other religious items because those items aren't of the same class.

neither does a hijab?

 

[MC Safety]

Why are hats and sunglasses not allowed? I wonder what are the origins for these kinds of rules. I also don't like when people have to rise because a judge is entering. Seems pompous.

The idea is we are a society of laws. You show respect for the law by rising when the judge comes in, by not talking during court, and by removing your hat, sunglasses, etc.

 

[gutter_trash]

In Quebec
The Godless Nationalist Left does not want to piss off the Traditional Nationalist Right,
The Godless Left wants absolute secularism while the Traditional Right wants to cling onto symbols of Heritage which it includes Catholic buildings, church, statues, symbols, the flag.

But both to not want to accommodate "outsider" religions

which creates hypocrisy when it comes to Quebec secularism. The State and institutions are absolutely secular except for symbols of their Heritage

both Nationalists on the Left and the Right join together in one agreement: anti-multiculturalism and anti-immigrants.

identity politics sucks ass ball in Quebec; reason why ethnic minorities vote NO and vote stubbornly for the Liberals.

Quebec politics sucks

 

[Morrigan Stark]

Quebec politics suck

Fixed

 

[RustyNails]

Yeah, I see one picture where you can see a guy's neck, ears, sides of face, and another picture where all you can see is a nose eyes, mouth and chin, which you cannot even see from the sides because of the hood. Tell me more about how hajib's and turbans are identical.

Edit: Man, the fact you had to change the picture does not look good for your argument. I mean c'mon, a black background?

You're stretching bro. You cant even spell hijab.

 

[Jenenser]

everyone stating "racism!" should learn what the definition is...
this word gets used to fast.

in court we are all the same. no one should have special rights granted. if the judge is butthurt about your headwear, take it of. if he/she has no problem with it, leave it on.

even if the judges reasoning is just "me/the court is beeing disrespected"

special treatment of any kind would infringe equality.

how to make a mountain out of a molehill...

 

[gutter_trash]

Fixed

no, really Quebec politics sucks more

You can't vote Left, you can't vote Right because both are tainted with Separation or ubber-Natioanlism

so what choice do you have to vote for if you are not a Separatist and not an ubber-Nationalist?

Only one party left to chose from: The Quebec Liberals, lol

The Liberals don't win because they are loved, they win because everyone fears the OTHER insane parties.


http://www.journaldemontreal.com/20...cheter-une-voiture-a-rania-el-alloul#livefyre

Buy a Car for Rania El-Alloul : More than $20000 have been donated under one day

Crowd sourcing to buy this woman a new car has reached over $20000 (the reason why she was before a judge was to collect her impounded car driven by her son who drove with an invalid license)

*protip, don't read the comments section, they are really mean

here is a Huffingtonpost Quebec bonus. The comments section here are as mean as the ones from the JdM

http://quebec.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/02/28/interdiction-du-hidjab-en_n_6776280.html

 

[GSG Flash]

And what is the problem with making a "solemn affirmation", exactly? It's just swearing an oath without the religious nonsense.

You want to talk about a stupid oath, I'd talk about the one swearing allegiance to the Queen for elected officials being sworn in, instead. Now that is archaic, shitty and should be abolished.


FFS....


LOL, how is it not? A solemn affirmation is exactly that, a secular option!

Définition : Affirmation solennelle, orale ou écrite, par laquelle une personne atteste, en invoquant ou non un objet sacré, la véracité d'une déclaration ou s'engage à se comporter d'une certaine manière.

They even point out that they prefer "affirmation" over "oath" because oath has religious connotations and "affirmation" is secular. Jesus christ*, you don't even know what it is you're criticising. xD But don't let that get in the way of your Québec bashing, I suppose.

* no pun intended

Sorry friend, it's you who doesn't know what you're criticizing(nor what I'm criticizing). No one's criticizing one's right to swear under a solemn affirmation. The problem is that the only other option in Quebec is swearing under the bible, which goes against the secular principles that Quebec is apparently championing through this judge picking on that woman. Solemn affirmation should be the only option.

But if you want to pretend it's Quebec bashing, go right ahead, it only makes you look like a fool.

 

[Transhuman]

What the heck is a "hajib"?

You really have zero clue.

You're stretching bro. You cant even spell hijab.

Yeah, who cares about what's being said, it's how it's spelt that's important.

 

[SRG01]

no, really Quebec politics sucks more

You can't vote Left, you can't vote Right because both are tainted with Separation or ubber-Natioanlism

so what choice do you have to vote for if you are not a Separatist and not an ubber-Nationalist?

Only one party left to chose from: The Quebec Liberals, lol

The Liberals don't win because they are loved, they win because everyone fears the OTHER insane parties.

To be completely fair, one of my Quebecois friends says that the Bloc is (was) extremely useful on the national stage as it was the only party who could convincingly press for provincial interests. But that's more federal politics than Quebec politics.

 

[gutter_trash]

Yeah, who cares about what's being said, it's how it's spelt that's important.

Quebec actually has a language police..................... no joke

To be completely fair, one of my Quebecois friends says that the Bloc is (was) extremely useful on the national stage as it was the only party who could convincingly press for provincial interests. But that's more federal politics than Quebec politics.

your friend is a total moron, how can a forth place party have any weight in a majority goverment? (Federal)

The Bloc uses slogans like "for the interest of Quebec"" and garbage like that. You know what is the real interest of Quebec? having a useufll opposition MP or having an MP who is part of the government and even better hold a cabinet position.

Some of the best Canadian Prime Ministers are from Quebec (and this will piss off your Bloc head friend) from THE LIBERAL PARTY OF CANADA not the stupid ass Bloc.

Mario Beaulieu (the present leader of the Bloc) is insane. The progressiveness of Gilles Duceppe is non-existent in the present day Bloc. The Bloc has jumped the shark with Mario Beaulieu

 

[RustyNails]

Yeah, who cares about what's being said, it's how it's spelt that's important.

"i have some strong feelings about hajib guys"

 

[Speevy]

I am Hajib. Can I help you?

 

[speculawyer]

So this is Rania El-Allou from the story wearing her hijab. Not sure if it was the one she wore to court, but it was the one she wore when speaking to a reported so maybe? Anyway, it's how she wears her head covering.

Its not a good look. But that is me being a fashionista which I am terrible at.

 

[gutter_trash]

the altered campaign signs were gold in 2014
here is one of auntie Pauline

 

[RustyNails]

I am Hajib. Can I help you?

Transhuman thinks you are too obstructive in a courtroom. Pls.

 

[Fusebox]

Yeah, who cares about what's being said, it's how it's spelt that's important.

Too late, you've already caused a mistrial with your spelling error. You're probably an atheist too so there's another automatic strike against your argument.

 

[SRG01]

your friend is a total moron, how can a forth place party have any weight in a majority goverment? (Federal)

The Bloc uses slogans like "for the interest of Quebec"" and garbage like that. You know what is the real interest of Quebec? having a useufll opposition MP or having an MP who is part of the government and even better hold a cabinet position.

Some of the best Canadian Prime Ministers are from Quebec (and this will piss off your Bloc head friend) from THE LIBERAL PARTY OF CANADA not the stupid ass Bloc.

Mario Beaulieu (the present leader of the Bloc) is insane. The progressiveness of Gilles Duceppe is non-existent in the present day Bloc. The Bloc has jumped the shark with Mario Beaulieu

That's why I said "was" They were more effective back when they were the official opposition...

 

[Nesotenso]

Yeah, who cares about what's being said, it's how it's spelt that's important.

doesn't really matter when what is being said is garbage.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

no, really Quebec politics sucks more

Really? Have you ever paid attention to American politics? lol

http://www.journaldemontreal.com/201...lloul#livefyre
Crowd sourcing to buy this woman a new car has reached over $20000

But that can't be right. Québec is a monolithic racist entity.

*protip, don't read the comments section, they are really mean

One should never read the comments section anywhere ever.

Sorry friend, it's you who doesn't know what you're criticizing(nor what I'm criticizing). No one's criticizing one's right to swear under a solemn affirmation. The problem is that the only other option in Quebec is swearing under the bible, which goes against the secular principles that Quebec is apparently championing through this judge picking on that woman. Solemn affirmation should be the only option.

But if you want to pretend it's Quebec bashing, go right ahead, it only makes you look like a fool.

Wait what? You first bitch that "solemn affirmation doesn't sound so secular", but now you're angry that one has both the secular and the biblical option? This doesn't make any sense. Not to mention, that the Bible option is still there is just a relic of the past (and actually it's no longer the case for civil court and an Ottawa professor said the federal courts should follow suit... so much for Québec being so terrible), it doesn't impact your quality of life or your civil rights in any way.