As a self-ordained Priestess in the Fundamentalist Church of Cafe Racers, I say the moment has arrived to fight for the right to testify in full face helmet.
She worships an 7th century head-chopping, misogynist pedophile – I worship a 20th century organ-donating motorcycle. I think I can make a case for the religious high ground.
Wow you literally cannot make this stuff up. You’d think masked accusers was a thing of the past, but aparently not in multikulti Kanada. More reason for an elected judiciary.
Merry Christmas and Allah Akhbar!
…among other factors, the strength of a person’s religious belief…
Good luck with that one. Isn’t there some test involving snake pits?
A bunch of white liberal males decided to allow a symbol of gender hatred, inequality and misogyny in the court room. Makes me sick to see those men force Sharia Law and the burka on our judicial system.
You go girl, Just let me know when you ride that bundle of vintage horsepower into the courthouse.
Slippery slope slide started!
The Supreme Court of Canada acknowledges the validity of an extreme interpretation of the Koran.
Sharia, step one achieved.
The members of the Great Church of Masked Bank Robbers just got a very lucky break.
I don’t object to female witnesses of that faith hiding their faces in open court while testifying.
As long as they present themselves at court in good time to have their identity verified in private by two sworn police officers who then keep them under guard and escort them into the court room and vouch for their identity. And they pay for the police time.
Great idea Kate another plus to the cause is the helmet is (politically correct)GENDER NEUTRAL.
K! You’re a ‘Yama-hama-mama’! Right on!
Best bikes ever from coast to coast and -20C to +40C. Especially the YICS engine.
And as a card carrying member of the Church of The Flying Spaghetti Monster, I reserve the right to wear my visage obscuring pasta strainer in court.
So her religion says she can’t show her face. I wonder if she’s willing to go with the other part of her religion and accept that her testimony is practically worthless?
You’re also a Pope.
Question.Just how do the muzzies convince the women to be 7th century whores,and only worth a 1/4 of a man? There must be a serial disconnect in the water.Oh.And just where is Rubik and the rest of the cows on this?
Hey Great, Sharia Law, Premier Liar McSquinty will be beside himself.
I don’t care about them testifying in court; I want to know if I get a pass for running one down in the street because they are well-nigh invisible? I came THIS close to running over one of the scrunts in full Ninja drag, in a Calgary intersection, a couple of weeks ago. I was waiting to turn right, on a stale green, and this burqua broad dashed into the intersection, against a “don’t walk” light, just as I commenced to move, I only saw her because she briefly eclipsed the lights of a car in the cross-street. It was an ill-lit intersection, and it was chinooking, so the pavement black and wet, a pretty good match for her black bag.
I was so shocked by the sudden apparition, that I didn’t even lay on the horn, which I surely should have done.
gordinkneehill,
Somewhat of a similar situation but in broad daylight and “this one” was driving a mini-van. I’m proceeding on the green and “this one” stops at the red light before proceeding to make a right turn in front of me as I was about to enter the intersection. Brakes and FULL horn arrested her forward motion and as I slowly drove past her with the horn still activated we glued eyeballs. She wasn’t wearing the “split screen face mask” but she had a child sun protector on her driver’s side window giving her about 10 degrees of visibility (5 on either side of the screen)and more than enough to block her view completely.
If I say I’m a Jedi do I get to keep the lightsaber?
Its a real church. I should get a lightsaber, damnit. And a cloak like Obiwan.
So, in the Church of Cafe Racers, are three gear power wheelies considered devotional? ‘Cause if so, I’m Saved for sure.
A few years ago here in Calgary, there was a case where a school bus driver drove off of Crowchild Tr. (kinda a major road here) and into a parked emergency vehicle, she said she was troubled in her personal life. Nobody seemed to be too bothered by her recent conversion to islam, and her starting to wear a hijab.
Some, in coffee shops, thought maybe her head gear played a part in this, whether it had slipped and partially blocked her view… anyways, a couple of kids were killed. But nobody questioned her right to wear this head gear while driving.
Beverly “just make the law up as you go along” McLachlin… I see this as a nail in the coffin of freedom within Canada.
http://www.thetelegram.com/Arts—Life/Technologies/2010-03-30/article-1447362/Driver-in-fatal-Calgary-school-bus-crash-says-her-personal-life-was-in-turmoil/1
“…Makes me sick to see those men force Sharia Law and the burka on our judicial system.”
Posted by: Rose at December 20, 2012 11:10 AM
“”An extreme approach that would always require the witness to remove her veil while testifying, or one that would never do so, is untenable,” McLachlin wrote.” – That would be Chief Justice “Beverly” McLachlin, and;
“Nathalie Des Rosiers, with the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, said it’s a balanced attempt to reconcile the competing rights.”
It isn’t only liberal “men” who are in dhimmitude to and or perversely aligned with the most retrograde force on the planet. Islam, or the multi-culti nihilism which invites it, obviously trumps feminism.
1 child, not “a couple of kids”.
“An extreme approach that would always require the witness to remove her veil while testifying, or one that would never do so, is untenable,” McLachlin wrote.”
She should have been a politician. Oh wait, she is making policy…she certainly isn’t applying the law.
A law that, simultaneously, says you both can and can’t, do something, isn’t a law.
Num 15:16 One law and one ordinance shall be for you, and for the stranger that sojourneth with you.
What about wearing a K.K.K pointy head with eye-ports in court, what’s the difference?
Who has murdered more people for their personal beliefs either past or present, the K.K.K or Islam?
Takiya….
Seems to me, a devout muslim is logically/automatically ineligable to give credible testimony…because Takiya is a tenant of their faith.
Then of course there is the math involved in weighing the 1/4 worth of a female…..
The face-covering is okay sometimes, but not “…if the liberty of the accused is at stake, the witness’s evidence is central to the case and her credibility vital, the possibility of a wrongful conviction must weigh heavily in the balance, favouring the removal of the niqab,” wrote Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin.
So I guess some court cases aren’t really important enough that we need to bother about establishing the identity of the witness. Thank you, Chief Justice.
Anyway, I demand that a niqab-ed/burqa-ed/whatever-ed-up woman’s testimony be counted for only 1/2 that of either a man, or of a woman dressed like a human.
Al the Fish way up top is right. Our brilliant and learned jurists have acceded to the most extreme branch of islam. Most islamic women world wide do not wear the burka or niqab in public. The b and l jurists were told that.
Our b and l jurists came up with a test that is supposed to determine “sincerity” of belief and to somehow determine if supporting that belief will unreasonably prejudice the rights of the other side. It should be obvious that people who wear or who require their women to wear full face covering are “sincere”. Any woman found to be insincere likely will face some kind of retribution from her coreligionists. Not to mention that many of the decisions, either way, will cause an immediate legal challenge. More money for the lawyers.
I’d like to ask Ms. Desrosiers of the CCLA how she feels about Kathryn’s point above that if you’re “sincere” in your religion and you get to keep your face covered, then you agree that your testimony is only worth half that of a man.
Does our system not assign the responsibility for compromising, negotiating and weighing competing arguments in lawmaking to our legislatures? With courts, especially the Supreme Court, as the final arbiter, interpreter and decision maker when that becomes necessary? A rhetorical question I know.
The consensus group: McLaughlin, Deschamps, Fish, Cromwell.
Trying to do their job, at least on this one: LeBel, Rothstein, Abella, even if Abella disagrees with the other two.
We need a good Conservative political satire cartoonist.
The cartoon:
“Liberal Canadian Justice”
Woman in full burka eyeballs in slit accusingly staring from prosecutors table,
Jury of 12 fully dressed in full K.K.K regalia turned to the witness box,
A skinny little Jewish man with Star of David on his breast, sitting in the witness box with a look of WTF on his face.
Thanks for the clarification John, now apparently liberal female judges are happy to enforce medieval Sharia Law in our legal system.
Knight99 – absolutely perfect image. I wish a newspaper or other political cartoonist would take up that image. Perfect. Thanks.
By the way, the veil is not a religious requirement; it’s purely cultural and therefore, not ‘dictated by god’ but by man.
ET >
Thanks.
“…the veil is not a religious requirement; it’s purely cultural” – ET
Exactly, regardless maybe more Christians can now understand that “Separation of Church & State” was never meant to ostracize, it was meant to protect.
It’s not about keeping “your religion” out of the Justice system; it’s about keeping everyone else’s religion out of the justice system and in turn keeping the justice system out of your religion.
SHRIA LAW ???
Exactly, regardless maybe more Christians can now understand that “Separation of Church & State” was never meant to ostracize, it was meant to protect.
Separation of church and state isn’t written in the US constitution. Government is not to prohibit the free exercise thereof…wherever, and whenever. That includes in government. The only restriction is an official religion is not to be established in law.
The Ten Commandments are written in stone at the Supreme Court, fer gawd’s sake…
Stradivarious >
“The Ten Commandments are written in stone at the Supreme Court, fer gawd’s sake…”
Meh, words of wisdom laid out by Judeo Christian founder’s trouble me not, nor would Buddhist or Confucius words of wisdom trouble me in front of an Asian judicial building.
The separation of Church & State that I speak of has nothing to do with Liberal Left frothing that would gladly replace our own Judeo Christian base of values with Sharia Law.
If anyone is permitted to cover their face in public, what’s to prevent a robber, murderer, or terrorist from wearing one of these outfits as a disguise?
I do not interact with anyone who hides their face, unless it’s a medical situation where surgical masks are required.
Of course there are legitimate exceptions in public such as riding a motorcycle, or police, firefighters, and other workers doing a job that requires a face covering for safety.
If I were to see one of these muzzie queens in full drag, I would be very tempted to wave and say “Happy Halloween”
In Canadian culture full facial recognition is an important way that we assess a person’s honesty. There is nowhere this is more important than in a court of law.
In cases of rape the court should be cleared of everyone except court officials, the legal councilors for prosecution and defense, the alleged victim, and the jury if appropriate. Nobody in the court should have their face covered.
The alleged perps would be visible to the court by video screen, showing their faces in true size, but they would not be able to see the victim’s face.
No image recording devices would be allowed in court.
Those people who need to see the victim’s face could, and everyone else would not.
This respects the victim’s privacy and dignity while allowing the court to do it’s job of determining guilt or innocence.
K99’s cartoon idea is great. I would make the Jewish guy black and wearing a rainbow sweater with the star of David, just to offend everyone.
………..in a wheelchair with a puppy 🙂
There’s a double standard at work here.
Courts have deemed that wearing a mask even while adjacent to a riot or civil disturbance is a crime in and of itself.
What or who is to say that the woman wearing a burqa may not herself potentially engage in the crime of perjury?
Any experienced lawyer knows that facial expression and body language is critical to testimony.
IMO this was a terrible decision.
Bit by bit multi-culturism is making destructive inroads into our traditions.