http://ift.tt/1KD8tRW
So this has been an issue in the Canadian election with a court case making its way through the system timed with an extraordinarily long election of nearly two whole months in duration!
This one had largely passed me by until my social media feed had a few long threads develop on friend's pages. I suppose I just find it really hard to care so much like the Conservative party and some of their supporters do. Like really. Citizenship applicants have already gone through a private backroom identification check the day of the ceremony. The ceremony itself is meant to officially welcome the applicant to Canada...
The ceremony is actually just that - a ceremony. A ritual. The meaningful bit in terms of identification and legalities is in the paperwork and not part of the ceremony. So its bemusing to me that some react to a woman wanting to wear her niqab as if it is a sign of concealed intent, instead of personal sign of devotion in a meaningful ceremony to that person.
Like for me - I'd love to NOT have ANY religious items be a part of my ceremony. Don't make me swear on a bible please. If I was an observant jew I'm sure I'd want to wear a yamakah.
So I really have a hard time caring that this woman wears a niqab. All the power to her I can't get in between her and her privately held beliefs and religion - just as I dont want anyone caring about my lack of religious faith.
So online I've read some "slippery slope" arguments. People were asking "where does this end? Will sikhs be allowed to bring their ceremonial daggers?"
And my first reaction was - well maybe we can draw the line, yknow, at weapons...
And then I thought well, wait a minute. Is the concern that a new citizen, a new Sikh citizen marking one of the most important moments of their life - is just going to take their ceremonial dagger and start stabbing people? Really?
How often has that happened?
I find the idea so ludicrous, I have to think the infitessimal chance of it happening is not worth barring it. So why not let the Sikhs have their daggers?
If someone really wanted to crash a citizenship ceremony - and I'm open to people sharing examples of this happening anywhere in the world - wouldn't one pick a better method than a single dagger in a room full of people who would overwhelm them quickly and decisively??
So why not let the Sikhs have their daggers?? Why should I be scared of this slippery slope??
So this has been an issue in the Canadian election with a court case making its way through the system timed with an extraordinarily long election of nearly two whole months in duration!
This one had largely passed me by until my social media feed had a few long threads develop on friend's pages. I suppose I just find it really hard to care so much like the Conservative party and some of their supporters do. Like really. Citizenship applicants have already gone through a private backroom identification check the day of the ceremony. The ceremony itself is meant to officially welcome the applicant to Canada...
The ceremony is actually just that - a ceremony. A ritual. The meaningful bit in terms of identification and legalities is in the paperwork and not part of the ceremony. So its bemusing to me that some react to a woman wanting to wear her niqab as if it is a sign of concealed intent, instead of personal sign of devotion in a meaningful ceremony to that person.
Like for me - I'd love to NOT have ANY religious items be a part of my ceremony. Don't make me swear on a bible please. If I was an observant jew I'm sure I'd want to wear a yamakah.
So I really have a hard time caring that this woman wears a niqab. All the power to her I can't get in between her and her privately held beliefs and religion - just as I dont want anyone caring about my lack of religious faith.
So online I've read some "slippery slope" arguments. People were asking "where does this end? Will sikhs be allowed to bring their ceremonial daggers?"
And my first reaction was - well maybe we can draw the line, yknow, at weapons...
And then I thought well, wait a minute. Is the concern that a new citizen, a new Sikh citizen marking one of the most important moments of their life - is just going to take their ceremonial dagger and start stabbing people? Really?
How often has that happened?
I find the idea so ludicrous, I have to think the infitessimal chance of it happening is not worth barring it. So why not let the Sikhs have their daggers?
If someone really wanted to crash a citizenship ceremony - and I'm open to people sharing examples of this happening anywhere in the world - wouldn't one pick a better method than a single dagger in a room full of people who would overwhelm them quickly and decisively??
So why not let the Sikhs have their daggers?? Why should I be scared of this slippery slope??
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire