Day 47 of the Campaign

What on earth was that word Stephen Harper slipped in to the Globe debate last night?  “Old stock Canadians”?  It became a theme on the campaign trail today.  Knocking on doors, people asked me if I had heard it and what I thought it meant. 

The incredible thing is how Harper has evaded what should be significant anger over his insistence on appealing the niqab decision. Traditional Conservatives should be outraged that our outgoing Prime Minister is using public funds to ask the Supreme Court of Canada to allow an appeal. The ill-considered, politically motivated decision to challenge a woman’s right to wear a niqab to her citizenship ceremony is untenable because the citizenship act specifically says new Canadians can wear cultural costumes of their land of birth and does not give a Minister of Citizenship and Immigration the right to issue orders. This appeal has not a snow ball’s chance in hell.

Politics of division. Let it end October 19.   


Showing 3 reactions

Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.
  • William Baker
    commented 2015-09-24 13:00:34 -0700
    I heard similar arguments and evasions from Miss May and from my local green party candidate{btw, I disagree with them on the issue, but will likely still vote Green since it’s not an establishment party, and is a more directly democratic ground up movement} and here was my response to that candidate, I share it with you:
    //"Thank you for your response_______. I appreciate it.

    I’d say every party and those of all parties[citizens included] are using this and various other issues to push partisan ideology, comes with the package. Unless one is an objective free-thinker and going on objective logic and evidences.
    No offense, but neither you nor May give good reasons why this decisionshould’nt be over-turned and why allowing these face coverings in official contexts like that or say into a bank or business or store..when no one else is allowed to cover their faces/identities in such contexts, how can you not seer this demanding a special entitlement for people based on appeal to religion? Especially given the fact that the Niqab is NOT some integral part of the religion, it’s not directly commanded in the Quran, it’s not a basic tenant/doctrine of the faith, rather it is something was is a piece of and remnant of PATRIARCHAL CULT-URE{not religion, appealing to freedom of religion is missing the point and deceptive}…and most women who say they are “choosing” to wear it for their religion, are really only doing it because they were brainwashed from youth to think that they need to be ashamed of their bodies{even their faces and even their wrists and their ankles, you name it, except for the eyes} and fearful of all males and their sexuality.

    No offense but neither you nor miss May have actually adressed these variables and the logic of them. The positins you’re both taking on the issue are similar to the P.C. ones of the NDP/social democrats, just being P.C. about it for the sake of being P.C. about it. And granting them special entitlements..not out of respect as claimed..but out of fear of the consequenses and reatlliations that will come and always come when muslims do not get special entitlements in lands they immigrate to. The right to be “not offended” and to demand the right to sharia law within their own xenophobic closed communities and families- a self-imposed micro-patriarchy/theocracy and self-segregationism in the lands that are not Islamic lands, and to demand other special privelages other people are not allowed{for sound logical reasons}- such as wearing a face covering at official contexts and in public buildings,etc, which no one else can do and then saying it’s ’freedom of religion"- when these things sucha s the face covering have nothing to do with any core doctrines of the religion..but are purely part of patriarchal cult-ures.

    //" I would add to her words that the courts already have the ability to call anyone hiding their face into a private space to assure the world that the person is who he or she claims. This is not an issue for me."?/

    I could diplomatically agree to that. Though then does that extend to other contexts in which they wear them..covering their faces/identities when they go into banks, stores, etc; because no one is allowed to..why should they get this special entitlement/privelage then because they’re muslims on the basis of ’freedom of religion"- when the niqab/face covering is NOT even a core doctrine of the religion..but is purely cult-ure; patriarchal cult-ure?

    Thank you, again for your response. I hope you and also Miss May can provide more nuanced and satisfactory, non-partisan inspired answers to the issue.

    Fact is; dissalowing it is advancing female humans rights to females that come from those orwellian, religio-fascist theocratic patriarchies they come from. Many progresive types and social activists and feminists and so on seem to think they’re defending womens rights by bending voer bakcwards on this issue….but in reality..they are harming womens rights."//
  • Ann Eastman
    commented 2015-09-22 19:58:59 -0700
    From Elizabeth May, September 22, 2015:

    There are no barriers to wearing any local or traditional costume for any group. Anyone can wear a mask. It is not preferential treatment for Islamic women who choose to wear a niqab. There is a requirement that prospective citizens confirm their identity in advance. No benefit is conferred on anyone other than the citizen if a fraudulent applicant attends a ceremony (although that hypothetical has never occurred).. So it is a huge non-issue.

    I hate to see taxpayers dollars squandered on a no-win case. The minister of immigration lost the case – not due to Charter rights arguments – but because he issued a directive that had no grounding in law. He had no authority to dictate clothing choices in the act. In fact, the Citizenship Act specifically encourages people to wear significant ethnic or personally significant costumes.

    Of course, I agree with much of what you said. I hope this assists in understanding my position.
  • William Baker
    commented 2015-09-22 14:46:45 -0700
    Miss May, you do not get it.
    If others cannot wear masks to citizenship ceremonies then it is undemocratic to give special entitelments to one group based on appeal to religion and accusing anyone who disagrees of “phobia” and racist bigotry{Islam is not a race, it’s a religion}. If Christian fundamentalists or any other religious group wanted this same’d be all over them and attacking them for it and calling them patrairchs, and you know it.

    The oddest thing is that the Niqab or burqa or “face covering”{and full body covering} attire is NOT part of the religion of Islam, it’s not Quranic, it’s not an intgreal command or doctrine of the religion. It is rather something that is cult-ural, a manifestation of a patriarchal cult-ure.
    Your not defending womens rights by defending this, you’re going against their rights. Millions of women are forced to wear these things in their brutally patriarchal and theocratic cultures acrossed the world[and even to some in the west}

    This is not a left versus rights issue. It’s both a human rights issue{for muslim women} and a issue of not granting special entitlements too…especially the right to conceal ones facial identity at Official citizenship ceremonies or voting polls or in banks and grocery stores,etc, one group because they appeal to “religion/religious rights”{when this overtly misogynistic patriarchal attire isn’t even a central doctrine in the religion in the first place] and call anyone that disagrees ‘phobic’ and bigoted and ‘racist",etc{which is the exact nature of these Islamic theocracies and patriarchaies btw, that you are bending voer backwards for and asking others,…nay demanding others also bend over backwards for}- it’s truly frightening and bizarre to watch. You think you’re ebing progresive and multi-culrutal and defending ‘womens rights"- but you’re dooing and asking everyone else to do the eexact opposite by bending over backwards for these demands from some fundy muslims…especialy when it’s not even a core doctrine of the faith..but merely a manifestation of patriarchal cult-ure. And demanding everyone apply double standards to everyone other than muslims, it’s ridiculous and you know it.

    I suspect you only put forth this opinion because you want to disagree with and go against Harper and the conservatives, in other’s moral relativism born out of partisanship, and not a reasonaed, thoughtful, factual opinion based on evidence and logic or even concern for others basic human rights{it’s not anyones basic human right to be manipualtively repressed by thinking they have to cover their faces because of their gender}. That’s the problem..none of the parties..including your own do anything other than try to be opposite other parties, partisan bullshit and ignoring of facts and reason in partisan rhetoric and attacks or partisan policies and ideas, rather than have actual integrity and moral backbone, all 4 establishment parties are like this..and your turning the Green Party into a similar establishment party which relies on partisan b.s. and denial and ignoring of reality and facts just to be against the other parties.

    I was leaning towards voting for the Green Party and you. But I’m rethinking that given this post and your parties view on this issue. A “useful idiot” P.C.,overly morally relative, hypocritical, blatant ignoring of reality position. A deluded and naive one.
    So, I’m not so sure anymore if I’m voting for ya’s.