New Updates

Media

Campaigns

Newsletters

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This email newsletter was sent to you in graphical HTML format.
If you're seeing this version, your email program prefers plain text emails.
You can read the original version online:
http://ymlp256.net/zG8HoB
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Complaining Nigerian Albino & Niqabs in Court: Time To Select
Immigrants for Cultural Compatibility

Hardly a week goes by without another bizarre reminder of the folly of
Canada's "diversity" doctrine, so beloved of our political and media
class and the collapsing credibility of our attachment to the
absurdity of multiculturalism

Exhibit One reads like the script of one of those zany 1970s comedies
directed by John Cleese. It is the case of the Nig9erian albino
complaining to the British Columbia Human Rights Commission and
demanding that the restaurant chain Earls drop the name "Albino
Rhino", beer it markets as the name is offensive to albinos.
Apparently, the rhinos don't have a spokesman to state whether the
name bothers them. Perhaps, they are more thick skinned.d media class
and the collapsing credibility of our attachment to the absurdity of
multiculturalism

Exhibit One reads like the script of one of those zany 1970s comedies
directed by John Cleese. It is the case of the Nig9erian albino
complaining to the British Columbia Human Rights Commission and
demanding that the restaurant chain Earls drop the name "Albino
Rhino", beer it markets as the name is offensive to albinos.
Apparently, the rhinos don't have a spokesman to state whether the
name bothers them. Perhaps, they are more thick skinned.

Toronto Star (Dec 19, 2012) reports: "A British Columbia woman who
suffers from albinism wants the name Albino Rhino beer removed from 24
Earls Restaurants in B.C. And the province’s Human Rights Tribunal
has agreed to hear her case.

The complaint was filed by Ikponwosa Ero, a 31-year-old immigrant from
Nigeria, who argues it is offensive to brand a product after a
disability or medical condition. Ero was born with albinism. ... Ero
is a researcher with Under the Same Sun, a charity dedicated to
helping those with the condition.

The basis for the complaint is that albinos are persecuted in Africa
and albinos are stigmatized in other parts of the world. In some
African countries, there have been reports that albinos are murdered
and their body parts used in potions sold by witch doctors.

Ero told the Star that she first saw the Albino Rhino beer when she
was served water at an Earls with the name of the beer on the glass.
She hid the glass from her university friends out of embarrassment.

''I did not want them to notice it,' she explained. 'I knew that they
would associate the brand with me because I have albinism.' The human
rights complaint was launched a few months after Earls introduced a
promotion for chicken wings which was marked as Albino Wing Wednesdays
on April 27, 2011. ... Ero is not seeking a penny in compensation. The
human rights case is only about changing a brand that is considered
offensive.

Mark Barry, vice-president of human resources at Earls, released a
statement on Monday, defending the use of the name Albino Rhino, which
is marketed using a white rhinoceros. They have been selling this pale
ale brand of beer for 25 years. 'It did not occur to us that the name
would be associated with Albinism, nor did it occur to us it would
offend, and in the 25 years we have been serving this beer we have
never had a complaint about the name, until now,' Barry said. Earls
also stated that the name was made in fun only."

Where to begin? Well, first of all, just what is it the
hyper-sensitive Ikponwosa Ero brings to Canada. What skill does she
possess that no Canadian does? Apparently, she works for an albino
lobby group. Does Canada have no albinos to do this job?

One throws up one's hands at the frivolousness of this complaint,
which, will nonetheless cost Earls a bundle to defend. Albino Rhino is
not mocking human albinos. If anyone has a beef, it's rhinos. Canada
and Earls do not discriminate against albinos. Earls didn't deny the
high maintenance Ero service. In fact, Canada protects the unusual,
apparently, a reality Ero admits when she indicates that, in some
African countries, albinos are feared and killed and their body parts
used in witchcraft mumbo jumbo.

So, how does Ero thank Canada for its tolerance? By trying to dictate
what products a restaurant no one forces her to patronize may market.

EXHIBIT TWO: This is the case of thee witness in a niqab who refuses
to show her face. Some nameless Moslem woman -- of course, in secrecy
obsessed Canada her identity is hidden --has filed a sexual assault
complaint against a cousin and uncle for activities that date back to
her childhood. [The case already reeks of a culture foreign to us. In
many Moslem lands marriage to first cousins in endemic.] Anyway,the
complainant refused to take off her niqab when called to testify.
Defence counsel objected saying that facial expressions and demeanour
were key to assessing the credibility of the witness. The challenge --
the actual charge has not yet been heard -- went all the way to the
Supreme Court. In a December ruling, the Court provided a blueprint
for confusion.

The National Post (December 22, 2012) commented: "If it’s your job
to clean the room, you shouldn’t leave a bigger mess than you
started with. But that alas is exactly what the Supreme Court of
Canada has done with its decision in the niqab case, more formally
known as R. v. N.S.

The reason to have a Supreme Court is to lay down rules of law that
lower courts can follow. When the high court answers a yes-or-no
question as, “you go figure it out,” it abdicates its
responsibility and wastes everybody’s time.

In the niqab case, the Supreme Court faced a painful problem. How
should courts reconcile the following three conflicting principles?
1.The Canadian legal tradition requires an accuser to face the accused
in open court. The word “face” is literal. Courts are often called
upon to assess credibility. Human beings determine the credibility,
not only by the words said, but the body language and facial
expressions that accompany those words.
2.Canada also accords wide leeway to religious belief. Some versions
of Islam prescribe that women are required to cover their faces in
public places, including court rooms. While other Islamic authorities
dispute this belief, it is not the business of the courts of Canada to
decide what is and what is not appropriately Islamic.
3.Canadians are generally mistrustful of rules that subordinate or
demean women. Most of us would agree that veiling does just that.
Veiling takes for granted that women are sexual objects first and
foremost, and assigns to women all the onus and burden of preventing
sexual misconduct.

Tough problems. So what’s the answer?

The answer from the court amounts to an order to lower courts to …
keep guessing. The high court will tell them when they are getting
warmer, and when they are getting colder. Sometimes niqab in court
will be OK. Sometimes niqab will not be OK. Which is which will depend
on the answers to a series of intricate and even unanswerable
questions:
1.Is the witness who is requesting to be niqabbed sincere in her
religious belief?
2.Will the niqab create a serious risk to trial fairness?
3.Might the conflict between trial fairness and religious belief be
resolved some other way than by niqab removal?

And then — my favourite — Question 4: “Do the salutary effects
of requiring the witness to remove the niqab outweigh the deleterious
effects of doing so?”

When the high court answers a yes-or-no question as, “you go figure
it out,” it abdicates its responsibility and wastes everybody’s
time

I like question 4 because it turns out to contain within itself an
additional series of a half-dozen questions, each of them as murky and
ultimately unknowable as the first three listed above."

So nutty was the Supreme Court decision that in niqab cases, the trial
judge must decide the sincerity of the woman's religious beliefs. In
this case, where the woman makes practical exceptions to wearing the
complete veil, that is not enough to decide the beliefs are insincere:
"The pretrial judge in the original case said that the woman’s
belief in the original case was not sufficiently strong, because she
was willing to remove it in other circumstances (e.g., driver’s
license photo, security screening). Chief Justice McLauchlin found
that the strength of a belief was not the relevant test, but rather
judges should consider the sincerity of the belief." But aren't
strength and sincerity the same thing?

The Globe and Mail (December 20, 2012) noted editorially of the very
divided court decision 4-2-1: "The Supreme Court of Canada should have
said unequivocally that, when a fair trial is at serious risk and no
accommodation is possible, a Muslim witness may not wear a niqab (face
veil) in the courtroom."

Only two judges argued for upholding our legal tradition of requiring
a witness to testify opening, without a veil, mask or bag over the
face: "In separate reasons, Mr. Justice Louis LeBel and Mr. Justice
Marshall Rothstein took the ... position that witnesses should never
be allowed to wear the niqab in the witness box.They said that the
rights of an accused person to fully cross-examine a witness -
including assessing her facial expressions during questioning - is
paramount. 'Since cross-examination is a necessary tool for the
exercise of the right to make full answer and defence, the
consequences of restrictions on that right weigh more heavily on the
accused, and the balancing process must work in his or her favour,'
they said. " (Globe and Mail, December 20, 2012)

A Globe and Mail poll taken in the wake of the decision found
Canadians overwhelmingly opposed to special privileges for unusual
foreigners. Asked "Do you think a woman should be allowed to wear a
niqab while testifying in court?" a resounding 89$ said no!

Grassroots common sense suggests that, in screening potential
immigrants, a key question ought to be cultural compatibility. Right
now with 7.3% unemployment -- the real figures are far higher -- we
don't need any immigrants at all. However, should we again need
immigrants, we must ask just what a potential newcomer offers Canada.
Yes, of course, a needed skill in an area where there are jobs is
important. However, cultural compatibility is also important. The
potential immigrant should be questioned and the answers recorded and
kept. They should be quizzed as to whether their beliefs will cause
them to make disruptive demands of our system. Will they insist on
packing a dagger (kirpan) even in areas where weapons are not allowed?
Will they insist on wearing veils or niqabs in courts or in public
places? Will they insist that their female children not attend mixed
swimming or music classes (as some Moslems have). They should be held
to their answers and backsliding on these assurances should be grounds
for revoking their admission.

Canada is twisting itself into a pretzel trying to accommodate the
weird, zany and unassimilable from the four corners of the globe. We
should be screening people who can comfortably fit in, not be a never
ending source of demands for us to change our society. They hail from
failed cultures. Why should we permit them to tamper will a successful
culture they chose to come to?

Paul Fromm

Director

CANADA FIRST IMMIGRATION REFORM COMMITTEESee More

(
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=126859120813670&set=pcb.126859640813618&type=1&relevant_count=2
)

Like ( http://www.facebook.com/frederick.fromm.3?ref=tn_tnmn&__req=k
) · · Share (
http://www.facebook.com/ajax/sharer/?s=22&appid=25554907596&p%5B0%5D=100004687473766&p%5B1%5D=126859640813618
)

Toronto Star (Dec 19, 2012) reports: "A British Columbia woman who
suffers from albinism wants the name Albino Rhino beer removed from 24
Earls Restaurants in B.C. And the province’s Human Rights Tribunal
has agreed to hear her case.

The complaint was filed by Ikponwosa Ero, a 31-year-old immigrant from
Nigeria, who argues it is offensive to brand a product after a
disability or medical condition. Ero was born with albinism. ... Ero
is a researcher with Under the Same Sun (
http://www.underthesamesun.com/ ), a charity dedicated to helping
those with the condition.
The basis for the complaint is that albinos are persecuted in Africa
and albinos are stigmatized in other parts of the world. In some
African countries, there have been reports that albinos are murdered
and their body parts used in potions sold by witch doctors.
Ero told the Star that she first saw the Albino Rhino beer when she
was served water at an Earls with the name of the beer on the glass.
She hid the glass from her university friends out of embarrassment.
''I did not want them to notice it,' she explained. 'I knew that they
would associate the brand with me because I have albinism.' The human
rights complaint was launched a few months after Earls introduced a
promotion for chicken wings which was marked as Albino Wing Wednesdays
on April 27, 2011. ... Ero is not seeking a penny in compensation. The
human rights case is only about changing a brand that is considered
offensive.
Mark Barry, vice-president of human resources at Earls, released a
statement on Monday, defending the use of the name Albino Rhino, which
is marketed using a white rhinoceros. They have been selling this pale
ale brand of beer for 25 years. 'It did not occur to us that the name
would be associated with Albinism, nor did it occur to us it would
offend, and in the 25 years we have been serving this beer we have
never had a complaint about the name, until now,' Barry said. Earls
also stated that the name was made in fun only."

Where to begin? Well, first of all, just what is it the
hyper-sensitive Ikponwosa Ero brings to Canada. What skill does she
possess that no Canadian does? Apparently, she works for an albino
lobby group. Does Canada have no albinos to do this job?

One throws up one's hands at the frivolousness of this complaint,
which, will nonetheless cost Earls a bundle to defend. Albino Rhino is
not mocking human albinos. If anyone has a beef, it's rhinos. Canada
and Earls do not discriminate against albinos. Earls didn't deny the
high maintenance Ero service. In fact, Canada protects the unusual,
apparently, a reality Ero admits when she indicates that, in some
African countries, albinos are feared and killed and their body parts
used in witchcraft mumbo jumbo.

So, how does Ero thank Canada for its tolerance? By trying to dictate
what products a restaurant no one forces her to patronize may market.

EXHIBIT TWO: This is the case of thee witness in a niqab who refuses
to show her face. Some nameless Moslem woman -- of course, in secrecy
obsessed Canada her identity is hidden --has filed a sexual assault
complaint against a cousin and uncle for activities that date back to
her childhood. [The case already reeks of a culture foreign to us. In
many Moslem lands marriage to first cousins in endemic.] Anyway,the
complainant refused to take off her niqab when called to testify.
Defence counsel objected saying that facial expressions and demeanour
were key to assessing the credibility of the witness. The challenge --
the actual charge has not yet been heard -- went all the way to the
Supreme Court. In a December ruling, the Court provided a blueprint
for confusion.

The National Post (December 22, 2012) commented: "If it’s your job
to clean the room, you shouldn’t leave a bigger mess than you
started with. But that alas is exactly what the Supreme Court of
Canada has done with its decision in the niqab case, more formally
known as R. v. N.S.

_____________________________
Unsubscribe / Change Profile: http://ymlp256.net/ugmjhqsqgsgbbqgwemgguewwmw
Powered by YourMailingListProvider

Europeans Fed Up With Third World Invasion -- Time for Ccanada to Regain Control of I

Written by Paul Fromm

Monday, 14 January 2013 02:43

<< Start < Prev 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 Next > End >>

Page 112 of 454

Media

Campaigns

Newsletters

Most Read