April 21, 2017

Special Gun Rights for Muslims?!

Faith GoldyArchive
 

When I applied for my Canadian firearms licence after passing my federally mandated PAL and RPAL courses, the RCMP got all of my information. They asked for everything from medical history, relationship history, familial structures, and a photograph. 

However, when I recently logged online to renew my license, I noticed something peculiar:

An exception to the usual regulation requiring a photograph, citing religious exemption!

So, I contacted the RCMP, and you won't believe what happens next.

While I'm no fan of tighter gun control measures, shouldn't all law-abiding gun-owners be treated equally in Canada?

Why are special rights being granted to members of certain religious sects while other Canadians are held to a different standard?

Comments
You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2017-06-01 16:54:36 -0400
Gun registry for you and a blank photo ID for multiple users for them. Treasonous turdo
commented 2017-05-17 16:24:32 -0400
Easy answer to the two questions posed.

Short answer… because that is the supreme law in Canada. More detail follows.

Q: “While I’m no fan of tighter gun control measures, shouldn’t all law-abiding gun-owners be treated equally in Canada?”

A: As the Charter makes clear equality is not an absolute. Section 15(2) of the Charter entrenches affirmative action in our Constitution for example.

’Equality Rights

Equality before and under law and equal protection and benefit of law

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

Affirmative action programs

(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.’

Canada does not follow the US law enshrining formal equality (as established in the SCOTUS case of Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978) ) but rather the Charter mandates substantive equality. The concept of employment equity is another example. Per the Employment Equity Act (S.C. 1995, c. 44):

’Purpose of Act

2 The purpose of this Act is to achieve equality in the workplace so that no person shall be denied employment opportunities or benefits for reasons unrelated to ability and, in the fulfilment of that goal, to correct the conditions of disadvantage in employment experienced by women, aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities and members of visible minorities by giving effect to the principle that employment equity means more than treating persons in the same way but also requires special measures and the accommodation of differences.’

This rejection of formal equality in favour of substantive equality was a deliberate decision by the feds and 9 of the 10 provinces when the Charter was passed into law in 1982.

Q: “Why are special rights being granted to members of certain religious sects while other Canadians are held to a different standard?”

Because sometimes individual rights conflict with one another or a particular law of general application and then the concept of reasonable accommodation comes into play. This concept is applied both federally and provincially.

In Canada equality rights, as set out in provincial and federal anti-discrimination laws and in section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, require that accommodation be made to various minorities. The origin of the term “reasonable accommodation” in Canadian law is found in its labour law jurisprudence, specifically O’Malley and Ontario Human Rights Commission v. Simpsons-Sears, 1985 2 S.C.R. 536.

Now you know the supreme law in Canada.
commented 2017-04-29 14:05:36 -0400
My, my, my what a can of worms this issue has opened. I posted my thoughts on this a few days ago. Looking over the postings since then, I must say I found most of them interesting and well thought out. However there are some out there who still think that if they swear and insult enough they will be taken seriously,(sorry Alpha 754293). When I express my opinion on this, other sites or in public, I don’t hide behind some fake name to hide my identity. I respect someones right to an opinion, but not when they hide who they are. If anyone won’t repeat what they say on this site, to a room full of strangers, then your opinion does not get far. Any injustice has to have a voice. Keeping your opinion to yourself or only sharing it at home, does not help the cause. For those that do speak up, I salute you. For those that don’t (yet), come out of the shadows, you are after all, not alone, for we are all rebels.
commented 2017-04-25 15:57:29 -0400
I am so ……………
Thats it, I an my wife are converting. I will declare myself a religious leader. Let the stock pile and give away begin. Thanks Canada. I will enjoy your paper tiger response. Please use lots of big words and lots of paper armor.
commented 2017-04-25 12:55:06 -0400
Non-religious applicants are being discriminated against based on religion, in direct contradiction to the Canadian Bill of Rights:
QUOTE
PART I
BILL OF RIGHTS

Recognition and declaration of rights and freedoms

1. It is hereby recognized and declared that in Canada there have existed and shall continue to exist without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex, the following human rights and fundamental freedoms, namely…
UNQUOTE

If your religion does not require covering the face, you must show your face, but if your religion requires covering, you must not show your face. Correct me if I’m wrong, but that is discrimination, by any definition, and it is against the Law of Canada.
commented 2017-04-25 10:56:12 -0400
Another thought – why does the RCMP think they can trust the word of the religious leader who is signing for the applicant? Are they signing that the person must cover their face, or that that a gun is safe in the hands of the applicant? If the religious leader is approached by an individual having their face completely covered and all he/she sees is dark brown eyes and a lot of heavy eye makeup, how can they be sure of who they are talking to and signing for? And, given some of the sermons we have heard by these religious leaders in Canada, why would the RCMP trust those who may be inciting violence toward others?
commented 2017-04-25 10:36:56 -0400
Actually, regarding the religion in question, there is no requirement for people to cover their faces. I have heard or read this statement by several people who follow this religion, including Imams. My understanding is that the requirement is only an aspect of Sharia Law, not the religion – they are 2 different sets of rules. So it seems the RCMP exception is incorrect in its’ premise, in addition to putting public safety at risk.
commented 2017-04-24 13:48:52 -0400
Here’s an interesting fact, when I searched 754293 there is a patent holder by the name of Stephen F Chadwick listed (country unknown)
Alpha, is that you?
commented 2017-04-24 13:19:59 -0400
Good grief Alpha, Faith never said otherwise. You are the one who is jumping to conclusions. There is nothing factually false.

If you want to apply for an exemption under a religious premise, YOU CAN NOT DO IT ONLINE. We are all in agreement on that.

However the fact still remains that a veiled woman can go apply and if accepted (and why wouldn’t she be, as they are already doing it with voting cards and drivers licence’s and the RCMP has already said a veiled person can apply no problem) will be able to purchase a gun without showing her face.

I do not understand what is so hard for you to grasp. Person who covers their identity by veiling their face has the potential of walking around with a firearm. Now we can argue whether or not you think that is an okay or not so okay idea, but you cannot argue that this loophole makes it possible to obtain a firearm without showing your face. Most people are a little uncomfortable with that prospect.

Have you read the act? Have you listened to the conversation Faith had with the RCMP firearms licensing department?
I suggest you take Tammie’s advice.
commented 2017-04-24 11:26:58 -0400
ALPHA 754293, Faith’s report does spell this out, go to 36 seconds into the video and listen once again; then really listen to the rest of the report. Thanks.
commented 2017-04-24 09:32:05 -0400
Why would she do that? Because she’s literally biased as fuck as are the people who are commenting of that page, in agreement.

No one bothers to check their shit anymore and ask the question “is this true?” and then go looking it up in the ACTUAL law to find out whether it’s actually true or not.

So without auditing or checking it, people just assume it to be true (when it’s not), and then either due to laziness, stupidity, incompetence, or some combination thereof; they then take what they read as fact and don’t care that it is FACTUALLY false because it supports their confirmation bias of aligning with their already predetermined world views.

And THAT is pure, unmitigated bullshit.

Faith Goldy, the author, knows that. And she’s capitalising, basically, on people’s stupidity/laziness/incompetence.
commented 2017-04-24 09:24:06 -0400
Oh by the fucking way…

The RCMP website LITERALLY says:

“You CANNOT renew your firearms licence online if any of the following conditions apply to you: You are requesting a religious exemption from providing a photograph with your licence You already have a licence renewal application in progress Your licence has expired or is otherwise no longer valid Your licence is a Minor’s licence

"

I repeat. You CANNOT renew your firearms license online if you are requestion a religious exemption from providing a photograph with your license.

But that’s where bringing up the Firearms Act is important – something that SHE didn’t bother fucking doing.

LITERALLY – the ONLY sites that are saying this are sites like yours. NOWHERE in the ENTIRE FUCKING FIREARMS ACT does the word “religious” exist or appear which also means that if you want to request a religious exemption for the photograph requirement for the firearms license – THEY CAN DENY YOUR FUCKING APPLICATION – all salient points that you fucking left out. On purpose. Because you’re the Canadian Kellyanne Conway with your fucking bullshit “alternative facts”.
commented 2017-04-23 23:59:07 -0400
LIZA ROSIE & ATOKENCONSERVATIVE, Well said!
commented 2017-04-23 22:11:20 -0400
Sherri-Anne: you seem to be connecting the fact that Faith didn’t prove that anyone had actually taken advantage of this loophole yet with the ethical standards of journalism somehow. I don’t agree. There’s no factual errors in her story, it was just her pulling on a thread and sharing with us what she found at the end of it. It’s the same as when Menzies dressed a kid up in a burka and sent him into a liquor store to buy vodka. The point that she made, successfully, is that it’s possible for a someone who identifies as a “fully veiled woman” can obtain whatever documentation required by everyone concerned to buy firearms without ever showing her face. She’s uncovered a potential public security breach, which is exactly what an ethical journalist should do, given the thread she found. The fact that nobody’s actually done that yet, maybe, isn’t relevant to the question of if it’s an ethical report or not. It would be unethical for Faith to NOT report this, and in this manner as it proves conclusively that the security breach exists. Another example; I can’t remember who’s done it but I’m sure I’ve heard of reporters sneaking potential weapons on board international flights just to see if they can. They didn’t prove that anyone had actually done that, but it’s sure good to know that at least someone’s making an effort to keep us safe. You say it’s leading the audience to believe something that’s not factually true, but she never says it’s ever happened, only that she has proven that it could, and could have.
Now, your argument regarding family members et al. I agree, but it’s not really relevant. Yes, if it ever came in front of a judge, it’s possible he or she could rule that a woman who has had photographs taken of her by family loses her exemption to this requirement. But do you really think that could ever happen? First you’d need someone from within the system challenging it, and I’d put good money on there not being anyone brave enough to fight their own employers, the entire left wing, and all of political correctness combined to even start the process that would lead to this coming up on any judge’s docket. So, it aint happening. But – let’s say it does. Then that intrepid litigator would have to somehow prove that said personal family photographs even exist, which would likely entail finding one somewhere, which would likely entail finding a family member willing to go against their family, their culture, their religion and their imam to co-operate with the prosecution’s goal of disallowing someone’s documentation on those grounds. Still with me? See why that argument is pretty much meaningless?
This was good reporting Sherri-Anne. Better than a lot of stuff on this site, and even better than a lot of stuff I’ve seen on most sites. It’s good journalism, and important news for all Canadians to know about.
commented 2017-04-23 16:59:53 -0400
…but you have obfuscated.

The only religions in Canada to which any exemptions might apply would be Islam and the Anabaptist’s sects I mentioned below, consisting of Hutterites, Mennonites and Amish…but for different reasons.

One uses the stipulation in their religion to not be photographed at all. The other, Islam, would be able to use the stipulation that the more fundamentalist sects of Islam have a valid reason for exemption for a veiled woman as the RCMP confirmed. Only one of those ‘religions’ hides their face. That ‘religion’ is Islam which in actuality makes it the FIRST theocracy to be eligible for an exemption.

This was a quick vid on a new find(which was that the ‘RCMP firearms licencing department’ told Faith she could apply as a veiled woman for an exemption.) You seem to be ignoring the words your ears must have heard from the person on the other end of the phone. I await the rest of the story as I am sure if you are aware of any of Faith’s other in depth reports will be forthcoming.

This introduction to a flaw in one of our laws points directly to those who would be able to make use of the flaw. Given Islam’s history of peace, compared to the Anabaptists, I would lean to being more concerned with Islamic misuse of the law.

Has it happened , we will see. If anyone who could get an Imam to sign off for them had the intentions of the female portion of the San Bernadino attackers for example, a firearm could be purchased without visual confirmation by any woman wearing a veil, not even necessarily the original licence holder.

There are no other groups applicable to the conversation.

I would fight for your right to your opinion with my life, Sherri Anne Wills.
commented 2017-04-23 16:12:29 -0400
Liza I do understand what you are saying and I do comprehend what this Faith is saying but if one looks at the Five Principles of Journalism for ethical standards one would see that this lacks both fairness and Impartiality as well as Humanity as when one looks at other discussion that are going transpiring on other forms based on this story one would see that the lack of information and investigation is lead people to believe things that are not factually true. So saying there was lack of research is not either obfuscate nor shifting responsibility in my opinion. It is also good to check the fact or situation that you are trying to portray is actually possible. Just because they can apply does not mean they will be accepted.

By the letter of this Act (law) and the Spirit of it, I would say that it is more probably then not that a veiled women would be turned down for the exemption as they are allowed to have their photos taken by family members in private and the male members of this religion can have their photos take so there is no religious reason that prohibit them from being photographed.

The Act (law) does not state anywhere about women who can not show their faces in public.

Thus why I stated that more investigation need to be done before one could jump to that conclusion. I understand your point of view and you are entitled to is just as I am of mine. Just because I see things from a different angle does not make me in denial. It makes me a critical thinker as one who does her own research and refuses to jump to conclusions. Thank you for this conversation and I hope you have a wonderful evening.

By the way here is the exemption section of this law for reference to wording please notice the last part of (b) (2) An application that is made by an individual who, for religious reasons, cannot be photographed must be accompanied by

(a) a declaration, signed by the applicant, stating that the applicant cannot, for religious reasons, be photographed; and

(b) a declaration, signed by an individual who is of the same religion as the applicant and who is authorized under the laws of a province to solemnize marriages, stating that that religion prohibits the taking of photographs of its members and that the applicant is a member of that religion.

Source: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-98-199/page-2.html#h-10
commented 2017-04-23 14:30:06 -0400
Mike Dunbar says, “You’ve painted this as a muslim-favoring law, but anybody with the power to perform a marriage in ANY RELIGION can sign off for the exemption.”

Mike that is a false statement. Not any religion can get an exemption.

Someone who has the power to perform a marriage in a religion which claims either it is against their religious doctrine to have their picture taken at all, or a religion which claims it is against their religious doctrine to have their women show their faces in public is eligible for the exemption.

Islam(Muslims) and Protestant reformists known as Anabaptists (Hutterites, Mennonites and the Amish) are only eligible for the exemption, as no other religion has any written doctrine which contradicts showing their identity or having photo’s taken.

Who’s basic Mike.
commented 2017-04-23 13:21:40 -0400
To suggest a lack of research on Faith’s part, comes off as obfuscatory, shifting responsibility for a refusal/inability to comprehend the simple reality of this article back onto the author. In a nutshell, people who own guns should be visibly identifiable. The only group of people in Canada who cover their faces are those of the Islamic faith.

Loop holes in our laws need to be closed so that they are not used in a manner not intended by the law makers.
commented 2017-04-23 13:20:16 -0400
It does not matter Sheri Anne Wills ,if not even one Muslim has ever applied or applied and been rejected. That is a common tactic of someone in denial. Danger is danger, and the law, as it is written regardless of when it was written or who it was written for, is ripe for abuse from anyone who can under the rules claim a religious exemption. It poses a danger to Canada. Now, if you want to say this is maybe ‘profiling’ Muslims you may be right. What other group of people hide their faces? I would also say that it would be a perfectly normal and prudent expectation that Muslims could and or would attempt to use this law to their advantage, as they have used many of our other laws against us, in the name of furthering Islamic dominance in Canada. Islam’s agenda is clearly stated in the Koran, and ask any Muslim and they will either tell you outright or tell you taqiyya style, that we will all be happier if we embrace Islam, they mean, it is better/wiser to submit. (if you did the research you would know this).

Not all Muslims you say? Absolutely correct I say. Just the ones who insinuate themselves into our governing and legal institutions and the ones who insist on accommodation instead of assimilation, such as the right to hide their identity in a western society.

Not only is Islam actually the only theocratic religion to ever apply for any religious exemptions( driver licence, passport, voting ID, etc) they are the only ‘religion’ to cover their faces. That is problematic in the west and makes those who do it a target for ‘that extra check’, which is normal,rational and reasonable behavior.

“When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, ‘tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.”
- Benjamin Franklin, in a letter to Richard Price. October 9, 1790.
commented 2017-04-23 12:06:56 -0400
Liza Rosie. My point is if you are reporting on something then find out all the facts. Do we know for a fact that Muslims are using this exemption and/or they are being accepted or rejected. How many people from any religion actually applies fir the exemption and how many exemptions are granted. This section may need to be amended but true journalism does not jump to conclusions it follows all leads and facts to a conclusion. Only one question was answered with no follow up. Thus leave people to believe that this exemption is being abused by one religion. Also allow one to think it was enacted recently.
Now if Faith was not aware of this when she first applied (it was enacted in 2004), then who isto say that Muslim or any other religion was aware of this other then those that petitioned for it without investigating further. Now that it has been reported this way the doors may have been open for it to be abused if it is not amended.
commented 2017-04-23 11:21:08 -0400
LIZA ROSIE, well said.
commented 2017-04-23 10:40:10 -0400
It would be highly unprofessional procedure for the ‘RCMP firearms licencing department’ which is where Faith placed her call, to not give out the correct information. The woman who answered the phone was knowledgeable and answered all of Faiths questions, furthermore she sounded as though she had heard the question before. In addition, Faith was instructed to call the firearms office in her province if she had any trouble with the exemption form required and was given an ext. number.

No one said this clause was written FOR Muslims, but it is ripe for abuse by people who hide their identity under the ‘religious exemption’ clause, which in my opinion should not exist in the first place. Since it does exist on the books, it should be of concern to everyone who isn’t an apologist for those who hide their identity, in a country where it is OUR tradition to walk the streets unmasked. This Hutterite/Amish exemption floors me, but at least they don’t walk around with a face obscuring veil. You are able to see the face of the person who holds the gun licence(and gun). Veiled women, no picture and no identity exposure necessary for purchase of a gun. In what world does this seem like a good idea? Is this not the point, Mike Dunbar and Sherri-Anne Wills ?
commented 2017-04-23 09:16:04 -0400
You basic-ass bitch. This is NOT a muslim-favoring law. Who do you even think you are? Call yourself a nerd, but your grasp of the facts is alarming. How dare you even call yourself a Canadian?

Ever heard of Menonites, or the the Amish? This law has favored them for longer than you’ve been alive, you millennial knob. I’m actually skeptical that you’ve ever hunted for anything other than a Pumpkin Spice Latte in your life. I’m actually confident that your production team did all your research but I digress.

You’ve painted this as a muslim-favoring law, but anybody with the power to perform a marriage in ANY RELIGION can sign off for the exemption. It’s unfortunate that you probably care more about having your photo taken than the card it’s printed on, but here we are. Maybe if you were actually smart enough to do your own research, you’d apply the exemption to yourself? I suppose that doesn’t support your narrative? Hopefully you get put in your place like that idiot Tomy Lahren, but I doubt it because you’re on literally nobody’s radar.

You’re basic. Enjoy your Starbucks.
commented 2017-04-23 07:54:18 -0400
After doing a bit more research and before I can jump to any conclusions that veil women are applying for this exemption and actual being accepted, I have a question. Faith did you call the client representatives number? If so then basically you called a call centre which would only be able to answer basic questions as that is all they are set up to do. I believe this to be the case since there was a pause for her to ask/seek for the answer.

Calling the client representatives number is like calling the 800 number on the back of you bank card and asking them questions about interest rates on a loan. They will give you basic information on it and even tell you, you could apply for a 1% interest loan. Yet when you apply in person at the bank you find out that you do not qualify for that rate.

If one is doing a full investigation on this they should have contacted the Chief Firearms Office as to how the process works. Asking if veiled women apply and are these applications accepted also the number of application with this exception apply are accepted or declined. As well as other follow up questions like. How long has this exception been in the act and why was it enacted.

The more I read and research, a declaration and an application for this exemption is not automatically accepted.

One must remember sensationalizing something to feed an emotional response is not good journalism nor investigative reporting. If one is trying to combat MSM then one must not follow in their way of reporting as well.

Thank you Faith for taking the time to read my comments. (I am assuming you are)
commented 2017-04-23 02:11:42 -0400
Can’t remember having to worry about Hutterites screaming allahu crap shoot recently. Watch out for exploding chickens.
commented 2017-04-23 02:07:16 -0400
I agree Cathy, Under no circumstances is something like this okay. Why wouldn’t Muslims take a stupid Canadian law and use it to their advantage? They are masters at looking for them. What this does is shine a light on a law which must absolutely be changed as it was never meant to be used this way at this time. Call it what you want. It is still undeniably stupid to allow ‘veiled’ women an exemption from having their photo on a firearms license for any reason.

Also religious exceptions have got to stop, across the board when it comes to Canadian law.
commented 2017-04-22 19:59:15 -0400
Shawn. One problem with your solution according to the exemption is that a member of the church who is able to officiate marriages in your Provence must arrive in person with you at the office to apply for the exemption. Also just because someone fills out the declaration for exemption does not automatically get accepted.
commented 2017-04-22 19:07:26 -0400
Maura, get real, does it really matter when or why people are exempt from having a photo for a GUN LICENSE? Under no circumstances is something like this okay. By the way, Hutterites are not waging a global war against the west, but islam is. Looks like your BS was debunked by Drew Wakariuk anyway.
commented 2017-04-22 18:23:54 -0400
Maura a picture requires face uncovered , a woman FORCED to wear a face covering would have to remove it. Maybe do some research before you present half truths and accuse others of doing so.
By the way it was fun eating you alive with reality.