Philosophy of Constitutional Law

[RW]

The burqha is by its very definition an article of disguise.



There is NO reasonable justification for its use. It serves no purpose other than to conceal the identity of its wearer.



It is unlawful.

What's the purpose of a disguise?  Why would people disguise themselves?



Do people have the right to not show their faces in public if they choose?

[Bricktop]

There is a crime on the statutes here, and I am sure there is in Canada to wear an article of disguise in public.



That is what a burqha is.



Why do you think other countries banned it?

[RW]

There is a crime on the statutes here, and I am sure there is in Canada to wear an article of disguise in public.



That is what a burqha is.



Why do you think other countries banned it?

The purpose of a burqa is concealment for purpose of virtue not to hide one's identity.

[Bricktop]

The purpose of being disguised does not exclude the fact that you are disguised.

[RW]

What's the legal definition of disguise?

[Anonymous]

The purpose of being disguised does not exclude the fact that you are disguised.

No, it does not.

What's the legal definition of disguise?

I think Bricktop covered this.  I'd paraphrase his comment to say that the REASON for disguise does not make the disguise something other than a disguise.



And then I'd say that a disguise is a way of presenting oneself so as not to be recognized...or, so that one's identity cannot readily be discerned.

[RW]

The purpose of being disguised does not exclude the fact that you are disguised.

No, it does not.

What's the legal definition of disguise?

I think Bricktop covered this.  I'd paraphrase his comment to say that the REASON for disguise does not make the disguise something other than a disguise.



And then I'd say that a disguise is a way of presenting oneself so as not to be recognized...or, so that one's identity cannot readily be discerned.

You could say that about a ball cap, a wedding veil, a scarf, sunglasses, etc though.  Where do you draw the line or is it the reason that matters the most?

[Anonymous]

many of us see the Islamic religious garment the burka as an unacceptable covering of women and a sign of oppression.  

We are in the twenty first century. How could anyone not see it for the oppressive prison garment it is.



A woman wearing a burkha is as offensive as this.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/nintchdbpict000290051905.jpg?strip=all&w=960">

[RW]

Are we allowed to offend others?

[Anonymous]

Are we allowed to offend others?

Obviously yes, the burkha is allowed.

[Anonymous]

You could say that about a ball cap, a wedding veil, a scarf, sunglasses, etc though.  Where do you draw the line or is it the reason that matters the most?

I think the intent is what matters.  OTOH, if I go into my bank lobby instead of using the drive thru lane, there will be a sign telling me to remove my hat and sunglasses.  The purpose of that bank rule is obvious, they want the cameras to see who the hell I am.

[Anonymous]

I don't care what anyone wears, but I hope they would choose not to wear something like this in public.

https://cdn.shutterstock.com/shutterstock/videos/11857829/thumb/1.jpg">

[Renee]

Are we allowed to offend others?

I am, and there ain't nothin you can do about it bitch.... ac_biggrin

[Renee]

It never ceases to amaze me that whilst the world around us changes, becomes more dangerous, more turbulent and less peaceful, humankind, especially the variety that lives in free and open democracies, believe that a "constitution" or "charter" is so sacrosanct that to change it would be akin to making an alteration to E= MC2.



These charters were drawn up in different times, in a different world, and for different reasons.



The world is at war, and your enemy wears a garment that conceals them from identification as they walk amongst us.



Other countries have banned the burqha, without concern over anachronistic bullshit motherhood statements. So should ours. And yours.

Our Charter was written in 1982. That's hardly "a different world".  It's also designed, as shown in our first Charter right, to have our rights, including freedom of religion, limited as DEMONSTRABLY JUSTIFIED in a free and democratic society.  That doesn't mean we do what other countries do.  That means we have to satisfy our society when it comes to impositions on our people.



So what's the justification?

1982.



35 years ago.



In the interim, we have witnessed 2 wars in Iraq, the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the rise of China as the dominant economy, the invention of the smart phone, internet, and drones. We have experienced terrorism under the banner of islam at an unprecedented rate, and the rise of islamic extremism to levels where its practitioners occupy entire countries.



But no...let's stick to our "kumbaya" charters that have no relevance to the modern world.



Islam in its many forms has declared war on the west. The West has a responsibility to protect its citizens, not some fanciful piece of warm and fuzzy ideology enshrined in a worthless piece of paper.



Tell me, would you stroll the streets of Tehran, Kabul, Damascus or Baghdad in your shorts and tank top?

Sorry, my point was that our Charter is designed to stay relevant. That's what Section 1 does.  It affords us that flexibility.



Okay, we need to protect citizens.  How does not allowing women in Canada to wear the burka accomplish that?

The burqha is by its very definition an article of disguise.



There is NO reasonable justification for its use. It serves no purpose other than to conceal the identity of its wearer.



It is unlawful.

If I might...let's explore this " article of disguise" and it's unlawfulness.



Do you think anything that disguises the identity of the wearer should be considered "unlawful"?



If so, what about the wearing of a Halloween costume? Should that be considered "unlawful"? Does it not disguise the identify of the wearer?

[Anonymous]

It never ceases to amaze me that whilst the world around us changes, becomes more dangerous, more turbulent and less peaceful, humankind, especially the variety that lives in free and open democracies, believe that a "constitution" or "charter" is so sacrosanct that to change it would be akin to making an alteration to E= MC2.



These charters were drawn up in different times, in a different world, and for different reasons.



The world is at war, and your enemy wears a garment that conceals them from identification as they walk amongst us.



Other countries have banned the burqha, without concern over anachronistic bullshit motherhood statements. So should ours. And yours.

Our Charter was written in 1982. That's hardly "a different world".  It's also designed, as shown in our first Charter right, to have our rights, including freedom of religion, limited as DEMONSTRABLY JUSTIFIED in a free and democratic society.  That doesn't mean we do what other countries do.  That means we have to satisfy our society when it comes to impositions on our people.



So what's the justification?

1982.



35 years ago.



In the interim, we have witnessed 2 wars in Iraq, the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the rise of China as the dominant economy, the invention of the smart phone, internet, and drones. We have experienced terrorism under the banner of islam at an unprecedented rate, and the rise of islamic extremism to levels where its practitioners occupy entire countries.



But no...let's stick to our "kumbaya" charters that have no relevance to the modern world.



Islam in its many forms has declared war on the west. The West has a responsibility to protect its citizens, not some fanciful piece of warm and fuzzy ideology enshrined in a worthless piece of paper.



Tell me, would you stroll the streets of Tehran, Kabul, Damascus or Baghdad in your shorts and tank top?

Sorry, my point was that our Charter is designed to stay relevant. That's what Section 1 does.  It affords us that flexibility.



Okay, we need to protect citizens.  How does not allowing women in Canada to wear the burka accomplish that?

The burqha is by its very definition an article of disguise.



There is NO reasonable justification for its use. It serves no purpose other than to conceal the identity of its wearer.



It is unlawful.

If I might...let's explore this " article of disguise" and it's unlawfulness.



Do you think anything that disguises the identity of the wearer should be considered "unlawful"?



If so, what about the wearing of a Halloween costume? Should that be considered "unlawful"? Does it not disguise the identify of the wearer?

I don't know if that's a good analogy..



Children going door to door on a set day each year asking for candy is different than walking into a bank in April wearing a disguise.