17 vacant seats in the senate,what for?

[MarceauBletard]

Whether or not someone wears a niqab during their oath ceremony says absolutely nothing about their commitment to Canadian citizenship. The prospective citizen has not only signed the oath (making it legally binding), but also has verbally sworn the oath in front of a female officer in private. Preventing her from becoming a citizen just because she does not want to go [face] naked in public seems purely spiteful.

In a free country, people should be free to wear whatever they choose, whether they wear it for religious, national or fashion purposes is immaterial. If we are worried about women being subjugated by the clothes they wear, our societies should work harder to integrate the adults of that society into our social and economic fabric (something most European countries have failed to do). This is something we do quite well in Canada. Women who wear niqabs and hijabs may do so out of a sense of cultural requirement when they move here, but their children will do so out of choice, if at all. We should not oppress and discriminate against them for this practice, but allow them to express themselves without judging them. (This is, after all, one of the values we expect them to adopt when they move here, isn't it?)

I disagree and I really don't want to debate Niqab on this forum.
Niqabs are a recent invention from patriarch fundamentalists and conservatives from the middle-east to oppress women which I disagree with.
Niqabs are strongly criticized by progressists from Maghgreb and many many women who feel oppressed with this barbaric patriarch practice.
If by law, you're allowed, then be my guest and do it.
But if I'm asked my opinion during a poll, like most Canadians (+/- 75% of Canadians and +/- 90% of Québécois), I'm against it.

At home, my wife and I are exact equals, and I cook clean and do the laundry as often as she does with no shame.
My wife and I are feminists (like JT) and strongly against patriarchy.
Is it not part of what being a Canadian is?

Now please, let's agree to disagree and go back to Bill C-6.

 

[Natan]

I disagree and I really don't want to debate Niqab on this forum.
Niqabs are a recent invention from patriarch fundamentalists and conservatives from the middle-east to oppress women which I disagree with.
Niqabs are strongly criticized by progressists from Maghgreb and many many women who feel oppressed with this barbaric patriarch practice.
If by law, you're allowed, then be my guest and do it.
But if I'm asked my opinion during a poll, like most Canadians (+/- 75% of Canadians and +/- 90% of Québécois), I'm against it.

At home, my wife and I are exact equals, and I cook clean and do the laundry as often as she does with no shame.
My wife and I are feminists (like JT) and strongly against patriarchy.
Is it not part of what being a Canadian is?

Now please, let's agree to disagree and go back to Bill C-6.

While it does seem that you are against niqab for all the right reasons, it's important to realize that part of living in a free society means allowing people to freely express themselves, even in the clothes they wear. Should we discriminate against persons wearing niqab, or make their lives difficult because we believe that the wearing of niqab is a patriarchal, oppressive symbol; we have simply become guilty of the same thing those who enforced women to wear the niqab are guilty of. It is patriarchal even when feminists treat women as though they are not adult enough to make decisions for themselves. It is patriarchal when the state, even for the best of reasons, shoves its ideology down the throats of these women.

If you believe these women are capable adults then they deserve to make decisions for themselves, even if we don't agree with those decisions. They deserve the right to discover the facts for themselves, or ignore those facts, if they so choose. Replacing religiously driven patriarchy with feminist patriarchy is still patriarchy.

 

[MarceauBletard]

While it does seem that you are against niqab for all the right reasons, it's important to realize that part of living in a free society means allowing people to freely express themselves, even in the clothes they wear. Should we discriminate against persons wearing niqab, or make their lives difficult because we believe that the wearing of niqab is a patriarchal, oppressive symbol; we have simply become guilty of the same thing those who enforced women to wear the niqab are guilty of. It is patriarchal even when feminists treat women as though they are not adult enough to make decisions for themselves. It is patriarchal when the state, even for the best of reasons, shoves its ideology down the throats of these women.

If you believe these women are capable adults then they deserve to make decisions for themselves, even if we don't agree with those decisions. They deserve the right to discover the facts for themselves, or ignore those facts, if they so choose. Replacing religiously driven patriarchy with feminist patriarchy is still patriarchy.

I respectfully disagree and we could go on for hours.
I'm glad we have discussed this politely (some people can't discuss this calmly).
If we ever meet, we'll have a beer and talk about it some more.

But for now, let's go back to C-6 and what's going on in the Senate if that's okay

 

[Natan]

I respectfully disagree and we could go on for hours.
I'm glad we have discussed this politely (some people can't discuss this calmly).
If we ever meet, we'll have a beer and talk about it some more.

I'm sure we can find better things to talk about if we ever meet for a beer, like how much I love Montreal. (I'm partial to hefeweisens, particularly the Weissbier variety, btw.)

But for now, let's go back to C-6 and what's going on in the Senate if that's okay

Not much to discuss in that regard -- we're still waiting... and waiting... and waiting. The good thing is that senators do not stand for re-election, so there's less need for them to grandstand for their constituencies. But on the other hand, immigrants are always an easy target and anti-immigrant sentiment is usually popular with large segments of voters; so senators could score a few points for conservative House members by holding up this bill and pontificating on keeping Canada safe, the value of Canadian citizenship, and all the other empty platitudes that are trotted out from time to time.

 

[Natan]

I've been giving it some thought of late -- how should our citizenship laws be fixed. I have had some ideas and I'm wondering what you guys think.

What if we were to completely replace all Canada's citizenship laws with a new one, that made the following stipulations:

1. All persons born in Canada are Canadian.
2. All foreign born persons with at least one Canadian grandparent (regardless of how that ancestor obtained citizenship) are entitled to Canadian citizenship upon application.
3. All persons who have ever held a valid Canadian passport, or were at one time Canadians, or should have been Canadians, may be granted citizenship with an expedited application.
4. PRs can become citizens after living in the country for three years with absences not totaling more than half of each year (instead of counting days).
5. Expedited citizenship processing (taking no more than six months from application to oath; massively reducing RQs).
6. Five year statute of limitations on fraudulent citizenship claims, creating the required infrastructure to properly investigate claims in a timely fashion.
7. Once a citizen, always a citizen.
8. Remove references of the monarch from the oath.
9. Bring back the wallet sized citizenship card.

 

[screech339]

I've been giving it some thought of late -- how should our citizenship laws be fixed. I have had some ideas and I'm wondering what you guys think.

What if we were to completely replace all Canada's citizenship laws with a new one, that made the following stipulations:

1. All persons born in Canada are Canadian.
2. All foreign born persons with at least one Canadian grandparent (regardless of how that ancestor obtained citizenship) are entitled to Canadian citizenship upon application.
3. All persons who have ever held a valid Canadian passport, or were at one time Canadians, or should have been Canadians, may be granted citizenship with an expedited application.
4. PRs can become citizens after living in the country for three years with absences not totaling more than half of each year (instead of counting days).
5. Expedited citizenship processing (taking no more than six months from application to oath; massively reducing RQs).
6. Five year statute of limitations on fraudulent citizenship claims, creating the required infrastructure to properly investigate claims in a timely fashion.
7. Once a citizen, always a citizen.
8. Remove references of the monarch from the oath.
9. Bring back the wallet sized citizenship card.

1. Agree except those born to at least one diplomatic parent in Canada. (In other words, the same as law now)
2. This would allow unlimited passing of citizenship for generations. Something that I am against.
3. This would allow criminals who obtained citizenship through fraud to get it back.
4. So you want PR to qualify for citizenship based on 547 days minimum over 3 years? That’s laughable.
5. It may reduce RQ but it will definitely create a huge backlog of applications since everyone will be applying for expedited citizenship instead.
6. 5 years limit? Trust me, criminals have no problem waiting out 5 years to keep citizenship. In fact, this would encourage them. I rather them worry about losing citizenship for rest of their life if they obtained it by fraud. Remember Nazi criminals?
7. Including those convicted of spying and citizenship fraud and those who failed to retain citizenship?
8. I completely neutral on this matter. This would require a bill to change it.
9. I agree. However, there is a hassle in having to renew your card to reflect latest picture. I am sure a lot of people still have a wallet size card with “a baby picture” on it.

 

[MarceauBletard]

But on the other hand, immigrants are always an easy target and anti-immigrant sentiment is usually popular with large segments of voters;

Yes, but they harden the rules because of criminals and those people wearing Niqabs during the oath (who give a bad image of immigrants in the public opinion and therefore turning some voters Conservative) or using their Canadian Citizenship to facilitate acts of terrorism at home and abroad.
When in Rome, do as the Romans do. Not everyone remembers that saying.

1. Agree except those born to at least one diplomatic parent in Canada. (In other words, the same as law now)
2. This would allow unlimited passing of citizenship for generations. Something that I am against.
3. This would allow criminals who obtained citizenship through fraud to get it back.
4. So you want PR to qualify for citizenship based on 547 days minimum over 3 years? That’s laughable.
5. It may reduce RQ but it will definitely create a huge backlog of applications since everyone will be applying for expedited citizenship instead.
6. 5 years limit? Trust me, criminals have no problem waiting out 5 years to keep citizenship. In fact, this would encourage them. I rather them worry about losing citizenship for rest of their life if they obtained it by fraud. Remember Nazi criminals?
7. Including those convicted of spying and citizenship fraud and those who failed to retain citizenship?
8. I completely neutral on this matter. This would require a bill to change it.
9. I agree. However, there is a hassle in having to renew your card to reflect latest picture. I am sure a lot of people still have a wallet size card with “a baby picture” on it.

I completely agree with screech339 on each item.
If everyone was nice and meant for the best, we wouldn't need any rules.
But we have to be realistic, there are criminals and radicals who have bad intentions.
I wouldn't want Canada to become like the insecure hellhole that I left behind me (Belgium.)

 

[747-captain]

You clearly missed that whole election last year that featured lively debate on the future of the Senate. Trudeau won't appoint new Senators unless they're selected by a non-partisan committee. He doesn't want a bunch of old party hacks getting a free lunch for life. There should be NO RUSH to fill those seats, my friend. As a soon-to-be-Canadian you should be paying attention to things like this.

Respectfully but strongly disagree with you! As they say "it takes 2 to tango". The bipartisanship works only when all sides respect and adhere to that ethic. You can't have one side appoint "fair and neutral" people, while the other side appoints partisan hacks! In that situation you have a complete imbalance of power.

A very similar thing happened here in the US. Obama was hell bent on doing things in a bipartisan and transparent manner. However the Republican scum took his "kindness" for weakness and trampled all over him with their fiercely partisan obstructionist tactics! So they got everything they wanted and democrats got nothing accomplished.