Mark, the issue implicit in your argument, is not one of identification. We live in a liberal, individualist society. The issue is about what KINDS of hindrances to identification are acceptable in this post-9/11 world. As fear of Islam and disdain for religion in general rises, people just want to remove all forms of blatant religious expression from the streets. The issue is not about being able to look at my face, because trust me: if I was a white male and I said it was my constitutional right to cover my face, NO ONE, and I mean NO ONE, would object. They would think it was weird, yes, but they would hardly make it such a political drama.

And no, identity does not mean "everything" in courts and voting. If it did, you wouldn't be allowed to vote by mail, as the article clearly points out. As I recall from grade 10 civics, it is the CONSTITUTION that matters in these political institutions.

Many Canadians often tend to claim that Muslims are bringing backwards policies into the country. It always intrigues me that these same Muslims tend to have a better understanding of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the country's laws than those who feel they inherited the land from their forefathers.

no i disagree. if a white male walked into a bank with a ski mask on, he would be arrested before he had the chance to say oh its my constitutional right to wear this. and the way the judicial system in canada works it is no doubt that muslims have a better understanding of the charter of rights because it can be exploited and influenced by the "race card" the judicial system is a peace of shit because in an attempt to create equality there is an incredible over compensation for "minorities". like its one thing to have equality which is what we should be striving for but to try to "even things out" since the white male as u so quickly pointed out is so high and mighty there is a tilt to the law when it comes to dealing with anything to do with religion, race, or gender.
for example there was a huge debate about a women rape victim taking the stands in court wearing a burka because the judge felt that the emotion of a testimony can not seen hidden behind a cloth so it was ordered she take the stand without it. she turned it into a huge religion/racial debate. Now could u imagine if a white male tried to testify with a ski mask on..

- many canadians feel this way about muslims (backwards policies) because thing that were fought so hard for in the past such as equal rights and equity are completely against the muslim ways. Women's rights is the perfect example. you cant say that womens rights are as advance in the muslim culture/countries as it is in north America so when that is implemented in Canada it is BACKWARDS.

Mark, you're absolutely correct about the importance of identity in voting and court rooms.

I think Anila just rested her case. *gavel*

"E-mail: MuslimCanadianCongress@rogers.com"

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA... why email these people... their email address further proves it is 5 people and a website...

-President of the World

That was so awesome!!
Good job Anila.
Did i ever tell you, your my hero?!?
well yes u are. =D

your going to make an amazing lawyer one day, Inshallah. <3
=D

Wow, what a fan club you have going here. You guys all sit together at the lunch table? Bahaha!

Anila, give it up already. When you're not changing what you yourself initially say, you're misinterpreting what I say and then arguing against it (hellooo strawman!). You said the "onus" is on the Crown to show: "a) that I have a right to be wearing my scarf b) that my right has INDEED been violated and c) that the Canadian government is JUSTIFIED in violating my right." I answered by pointing out that the Crown does not have an onus to follow that line of argument, but instead could simply argue that there is no violation whatsoever. Then, you answer me by confusing my pointed answer towards your assertion with my brief mention of the Oakes test. Huh?

Although I'm glad that you brushed up on R v. Oakes using Wikipedia, I think you're falsely assuming that, since the Oakes test is derived from a case involving legislation, thus all cases involving Sec. 1 analysis necessarily include the government. This is not true. Hence, the Oakes test cannot put the onus the Crown to argue something when there is no Crown!

Moreover, no, I will not concede what I have already granted is my opinion. I will continue to hold the view that niqabis have a distorted view of Islam. You haven't convinced me otherwise. Also, I wasn't aware that one had to be an Islamic scholar to be able to determine what is and isn't Islamic? Then all Muslims must be Islamic scholars, yes? What, no? Then how do they determine what they should and shouldn't do? What a conundrum.

And if the rules of Islam are "generally agreed upon" then why aren't the majority of Muslim women niqabis? Moreover, why aren't all hijabis niqabis? Seems odd that these rules are agreed upon "generally" but only adopted by a small minority. Is it because their reasons for wearing it are regional or contingent upon which group the women identified with, e.g., reasons that are not religious in nature? That's what you seem to be suggesting.

Moreover, it doesn't matter what race you are. The fact still remains that you said that a "white man" would (or does) receive better treatment in Canada than a Muslim woman, because of the variation in treatment concerning veiling the face. That, my dear, is called the "race card." You would've been better off saying that a "person of a different religion" would be treated better if you wanted to highlight the unequal treatment of religions. But instead you threw race in there. Own up to it and move on.

Finally, I came here to have an interesting discussion. But you took the liberty of drawing conclusions that I've not stated anywhere in my posts. If that's your attempt at being a Doctor, I'd consider not becoming one. Nowhere did I pretend to know more than others about "democracy" -- I don't think I even mentioned it once in my posts before -- but I did clarify what you represented in your posts about the Charter and rights. So, yes, I clarified YOUR (I don't know about anyone else) misconceptions about the Charter and Charter litigation in Canada.

I also *love* how you went on a diatribe about democracy. Theoretically, democracy would work against you if what you say in your posts holds any truth. If Canadians are truly scared of Muslims post-9/11 (mullahs, hijabis and Mohammeds, oh my!) then they -- the majority -- could vote to ban the niqab in Canada. They could hold THEIR MPs accountable and have them pass a legislation imposing such a law on the small minority of Canadian Muslims. Ah sweet democracy! This example should illustrate the difference between individual rights and the Charter (what we were discussing), and Canadian democracy (what I never even mentioned).

I've already given my point of view. In case you missed it, I wouldn't agree with a ban either, nor do I deem it even a remote possibility. When you mentioned the Charter and rights, I simply contended some of your assertions. I do commend you for putting up with it all.

Night night.

Anila- beyond amazing I must say:) Mashallah.
My inspiration to work harder to I can pursue a career in law. Honestly.
=]

its funny the people who show up and right nothing but little comments to tr to 'cheer' someone on as they have nothing intelligent to say about the matter and are only doing so in an attempt to make her seem correct.

i completely agree with lawyer when it comes to the extremes that the canadian rights are trying to be taken. its just exploiting the laws and pushing the limits beyond what the idea of multiculturalism society where everyone lives together and get along but has their on dash of heritage.

"If a white male (a perceived “normal Canadian”) decided to cover his face in a non-threatening way, it would be seen as weird and nothing more. It wouldn’t have the intense political ramifications that this does. If you think this has anything to do with women rights (by suggesting that it’s supposed to protect people who are forced) you are only kidding yourself." its incredible how u managed to take this and throw in white male, normal canadian and turn it into a full blown race issue. thats exactly how it works.. turn it into a race issue and everyone goes OH NO OH NO we better not press the issue in the event someone cries out racist.. absolutely astonishing how often this happens

the niqab is not part of islam,
imam ghazali(one of the greatest scholars of islam) once said "the niqab is a habit not worship" the arabic translation isnt very clear but he meant to say that it isnt part of islam and was passed on as a habit. I dont think muslim women should wear it because it just makes their life harder without making them any more religious than girls not wearing it.I also note that imam hanafi, shafi3i and maliki have the same opinion as imam ghazali.