|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 6, 2010 9:25:53 GMT -5
A well-written opinion by Peter Worthington.
================================================================
Quebec’s burqa ban is not racist
It’s neither ‘scary’ nor ‘threatening’ to expect people to adapt to the cultural mores of their new homeland
By Peter Worthington, QMI Agency
Once again, Quebec is showing leadership to the rest of Canada.
Unlike “English” Canada, Quebec has never doubted its own identity, and has led the rest of the country in culture, music, the arts, even politics (where it can be a real nuisance).
By banning the niqab and burqa (the veil with eye slits and the full head covering with latticed mask) for any provincial employee, and anyone dealing with government services, Quebec is setting an example for the rest of the country.
A majority of Canadians likely endorse Quebec’s decision (Bill 94). Some will call it racist, unfair and even unCanadian to ban face coverings for women and feel it should be a matter of individual choice.
While worthy of debate and discussion, what the new Quebec law is not, is racist. Rather, it is an effort to promote or enhance racial and gender equality.
That so few Muslim women in Quebec wear the niqab or burqa — we are told only a couple of dozen go along with the custom — makes the new law even more appropriate. It will cause no widespread disarray or discomfort.
Put bluntly, having to do business with someone who refuses to have their face seen, is offensive and demeaning — to both parties. Ours is a society that prides itself on face-to-face dealings, where both parties can size one another up, establish a rapport or, in some cases, a disconnect.
New home
A greater issue, implied in the Quebec ban, is newcomers to Canada identifying with the culture of their new home and adapting to it.
Most immigrants realize this and go out of their way to learn and adjust to our customs. They gravitate to cheering for the local hockey team, bellyaching about high taxes and the weather and becoming Canadians like the rest of us.
Haroon Siddiqui, editor emeritus at the Toronto Star, disagrees. He finds it “scarier when majorities in democracies feel threatened by a (tiny) minority.”
It’s neither “scary” nor “threatening” to expect people to adapt to the cultural mores of their new homeland.
The niqab and burqa inhibit adaptation. They are a constant reminder that these sartorial customs (which have nothing to do with religion) distinguish the wearer as one who is regarded as second-class and oppressed — whether they realize it or not.
Hijab excluded
It should be noted that the hijab is excluded from the ban — the scarf that covers the head but not the face and which, ironically, can emphasize and enhance a woman’s looks.
The Muslim Canadian Congress wants the niqab and burqa banned for all the right reasons — symbols of oppression, inequality, subservience, etc. — and that they “marginalize women.” Excluded was the hijab. (a changing sign of the times perhaps?)
For what it’s worth, the origins of the niqab are unclear — probably dating back to pre-Islam Persia, and adapted mostly by Bedouin. Tunisia has banned the niqab, as has Turkey in government offices and schools. Saudi Arabia enforces it only in the holy cities of Mecca and Medina.
In Dubai, an ambassador had his marriage annulled when he discovered his bride, who wore a burqa, was cross-eyed and had facial hair.
In Florida, one Sultaana Freeman who was born Sandra Keller and converted to Islam, wanted her driver’s licence photo in a veil, but compromised if a woman took a barefaced photo of her in a closed room.
Bizarre.
Hail Quebec!
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 6, 2010 11:58:59 GMT -5
While I applaud the move, I am concerned. We have toi make sure the slippery slope has planty of sand on it so it's not that easy to slide down.
|
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Apr 7, 2010 1:46:12 GMT -5
Do people realize that "government services" includes emergency medical care? That this law would permit (require?) ambulance technicians to not attend to a woman wearing a veil as long as her life is not in danger? At least that's what I read in the paper.
I've yet to hear anyone even attempt to explain how this law will benefit any woman who wears a veil (and they will not give up wearing a veil because of this law, after all, it only effects them when getting government services). Given the obvious potential for harm to these women (if it results in them not taking advantage of government services, or in needing a man to speak for them, or suffering because they are refused medical care), how can anyone claim to support this law on the basis of a belief in gender equality without having such an explanation?
|
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Apr 7, 2010 5:55:25 GMT -5
I doubt very much that any ambulance technician would refuse to treat a burqa-clad woman because she was wearing a veil, any more than they would refuse to tear open a nun's habit to expose her chest to CPR chest compressions. I also doubt they would be prosecuted for doing so.
Tell me, would you support any "religion" that insists that the men walk their women around on dog leashes? In public? Perhaps sitting beside them as these women teach young school girls? How about beating them for grins and giggles, because "that's my religion?" The slippery slope goes both ways, and right now the slope leans towards genital mutiliation, child brides, honor killings and marital rape. We're a lot closer to that edge of the slope than we are to ambulance technicians being sent to jail for refusing to attend to a dying Muslim woman because she is wearing a veil. The former have happened and continue to happen, even in Canada. The latter is mere prattle in the politically correct press.
We, as a society, deplore the effects advertising has on women, and especially young girls, citing the lower self-esteem, eating disorders and confidence issues that come with it. And yet we would support the covering of women from head to toe, prevent them from being "in the line of site of men", subjugate them to inferiority status and all the abuse and connotations that come with that? "Women should not be seen or heard... go back to your house and make babies?"
Not the Canada I want to live in.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 7, 2010 6:28:15 GMT -5
I've yet to hear anyone even attempt to explain how this law will benefit any woman who wears a veil (and they will not give up wearing a veil because of this law, after all, it only effects them when getting government services). Given the obvious potential for harm to these women (if it results in them not taking advantage of government services, or in needing a man to speak for them, or suffering because they are refused medical care), how can anyone claim to support this law on the basis of a belief in gender equality without having such an explanation? The law is suppose to protect both parties. When I conduct business as a government official, I have the right to know who I am dealing with. The law is protecting her by attempting to eliminate false accusations against her (and what-not), by being able to easily identify her. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Apr 7, 2010 6:45:03 GMT -5
Tell me, would you support any "religion" that insists that the men walk their women around on dog leashes? In public? Perhaps sitting beside them as these women teach young school girls? How about beating them for grins and giggles, because "that's my religion?" The slippery slope goes both ways, and right now the slope leans towards genital mutiliation, child brides, honor killings and marital rape. We're a lot closer to that edge of the slope than we are to ambulance technicians being sent to jail for refusing to attend to a dying Muslim woman because she is wearing a veil. The former have happened and continue to happen, even in Canada. The latter is mere prattle in the politically correct press. We, as a society, deplore the effects advertising has on women, and especially young girls, citing the lower self-esteem, eating disorders and confidence issues that come with it. And yet we would support the covering of women from head to toe, prevent them from being "in the line of site of men", subjugate them to inferiority status and all the abuse and connotations that come with that? "Women should not be seen or heard... go back to your house and make babies?" Not the Canada I want to live in. Perhaps, perhaps not. Bear with me now, because this is - for a moment or three anyways - going to sound a little out of character for me. But I'll get to where I'm going in just a second. We look at the Muslim world through western-coloured glasses. And while that's fine (I'm not a fan of cultural relativism anyway), when dealing with other cultures we still must remember that - well, we're dealing with other cultures. When you talk about women being subjugated and the emotional abuse (not the physical abuse - I'll come to that in just a moment) that comes along with it, you have to remember that both the men and the women of this culture do not see it that way. Are our views right about it? Yes - but that doesn't mean we force everyone else to see things our way. So long as it's self-inflicted, so long as it's a desired state, who am I to judge them? Now - there are many situations where it is not a free choice made by the women in question. And I think, perhaps, that our legislative efforts should be directed down that route, rather than forcing our cultural mores down their throats. When they want to get out, when they want to join the modern world, we should, as Canadians, give them every opportunity. As for the violence - well, we're not a hell of a lot better in the end. It seems our society has its own share of problems that we can not get rid of so easily. There are bad muslims who abuse their power just as there are bad westerners who abuse theirs. Child brides, genital mutilation, martial rape and all those reprehensible crimes you mention do not occur here in Canada any more often than Catholic priests abusing little boys or girls. They do not occur any more than some heartless "mother" leaves her child alone for 24+ hours while she goes out clubbing. It's really just selection bias. We see people like Graham James, Robert Pickton and Paul Berardo and we think "he's horrible". We see a Muslim do something and we think "he's a Muslim and he's horrible". |
|
|
|
Post by Polarice on Apr 7, 2010 7:11:36 GMT -5
Imagine there's no countries, It isn't hard to do, Nothing to kill or die for, And no religion too, Imagine all the people, Living life in peace.  |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 7, 2010 7:30:48 GMT -5
I doubt very much that any ambulance technician would refuse to treat a burqa-clad woman because she was wearing a veil, any more than they would refuse to tear open a nun's habit to expose her chest to CPR chest compressions. I also doubt they would be prosecuted for doing so. I think they'd be liable and prosecuted for not doing everything they could. More so if their patient dies because they didn't use all methods at their disposal. All of this depends on the level of 'religion' practiced by the husband. At least this is what some of the Muslim men I've talked to have said. What if it's the husband saying, "you will not touch my wife in this manner ..." the husband even threatens the paramedics with physical violence, the medics back off and the wife dies because of it. Honestly, we have the laws in place that would make the husband accountable, but at the same time this whole hypothetical situation could have been avoided, yes? I wholeheartedly agree, BC. Well said. One thing I'll add, only as an aside, is that while we deplore abuse of women, we, as a society, still have a ways to go in promoting equality between the genders. That's another discussion all together though. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 7, 2010 7:49:07 GMT -5
While I applaud the move, I am concerned. We have toi make sure the slippery slope has planty of sand on it so it's not that easy to slide down. I don't know if we really have to worry about that or not, HA. Quebec and Quebecers have been protecting their culture and their identity quite well for years now. I can see this being no different here. However, I found the following quote to be an education for me: The Muslim Canadian Congress wants the niqab and burqa banned for all the right reasons — symbols of oppression, inequality, subservience, etc. — and that they “marginalize women.” Excluded was the hijab. This is a revelation to me. Having been in the Middle East several times totaling almost a year in length, I've seen varying degrees of religious garb. In Damascus, I've seen Muslim women dressed in everything from designer jeans to full-length burqas. But, as I was saying to BC, the standard of a woman's dress depended on the level of religion practiced by the husband. To me, the Muslim Canadian Congress' opinion is a revelation for two reasons: a. It shows a sincere desire to adapt to Canadian society and it's laws, and b. It also clearly shows a desire to bring Islam to a new level where the rights of women aren't the same as those given to, oh I don't know ... cattle? I might be reading it wrong, but this is the way I see the MCC's comments. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 7, 2010 8:30:58 GMT -5
Imagine there's no countries, It isn't hard to do, Actually, it is hard to do. Of course, I find it interesting that some people who sing this song as a mantra rail against globalization as the most heinous of crimes of [to?] humanity. I guess no borders is OK as long as capitalism isn't involved. There is always religion, I'm afraid to say. The cult of Lenin/Stalin. The anti-religion communism. The new religion earth-worship. The new idolatry of hero-worship, whether it be sports or entertainment figures. Further, religion is often also just an excuse to perpetuate borders, beliefs, and lifestyle [look: I know that there is much within organized religion that just plain wrong; far too often it is used an excuse for personal promotion, but that's another matter]. Ireland: Catholic/Protestant, or British/Irish? Middle East: Jewish/Muslim, or Israel/Arab? The Great Satan: Christian/Muslim, or Western Values/Arab Values? My God says is just a convenient way of saying I want my way to hold sway. Having said that, my [can I use the word here?] prayer is for peace. We remember that the burqa and the niqab were not original to Islam, but were imported from earlier Arab days . . . |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Apr 7, 2010 8:50:44 GMT -5
But this is the whole debate, this is the whole issue. At what point do we say “you know what, I don’t care what your culture says you can or cannot do, or what you think is right or wrong, this is the way it is here in our Western culture.
The English Canadian media had a good time laughing at the “reasonable accommodation” circus that rolled through Quebec a couple of years ago, usually by singling out the wing-nuts complaining about Kosher bagels in their grocery store or something, but to me they missed the point. As an aside, am I the only one who sees the irony in calling Quebec racist and prejudiced? Isn’t that the very definition of racism and prejudice? Attributing a certain characteristic, usually negative, to an entire group of people? But I digress. The reasonable accommodation debate is a necessary one; when is enough, enough? One of the triggers for this issue coming to the forefront in Quebec right now is the case of woman who was taking government sponsored French classes, while wearing a niqab. She refused to show her mouth to allow her teacher to see her lips, at one point refused to speak in front of men, and insisted that no man be seated in her line of sight. They eventually kicked her out of class, as she was ruining it for everyone else. In true Canadian fashion she is taking everyone to the Quebec Human Rights Commission. But what was the alternative? Remove all men from the class so that they can’t be in her line of sight? If removed, would those men have a case before the Human Rights Commission? Should she have had her own, private classes, at taxpayer expense? Where is the accommodation on her part?
Many of these cultures allow dog-fighting. Would we allow that here? Of course not, and no amount of “it’s in my culture” will change our minds on that. Ask Michael Vick. Many of these cultures allow underage wives. Should we allow that here as well? Actually we do; if you are a landed immigrant here you can sponsor your “wife” and if she is legally your wife in whatever country you come from, then her age cannot be considered. Want a 14 year old bride? Go marry one in Yemen and then bring her here. Should we accommodate that?
So how do you know where it’s self-inflicted, and really a free choice? When one lives with the threat of an honor killing – or at the very least a good old fashioned beating – one tends to say anything that will prevent those things from happening. May even come to believe them to be necessary, or “deserved”. Not just a Muslim thing, happens to every abused woman. How many of them “fall down the stairs” all the time? How many of them stay with their abusive husbands, until death literally does them part?
What is a modern, Canadian world? If you can’t even define it, how can they can join it? Where is the line?
I don’t think that’s the issue. That there are violent, bad people in Western society is beyond a doubt. The difference is we don’t “accommodate” them. We send Michael Vick to jail, we don’t say “well you know, in poor, southern, mainly black culture dog-fighting is rather common” (and it is). Because dog-fighting is not something we think OUR culture should support. I ask again, would we be happy with a burqa-clad woman teaching a classroom full of 10 year olds? What message are we sending to them? It’s either “woman should not be seen and should be ashamed of their bodies” or it’s “men can’t control themselves around women and if they see any part of one they may go crazy with lust and rape and kill them.”
Neither message is something I want kids to be presented with.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 7, 2010 9:52:38 GMT -5
We remember that the burqa and the niqab were not original to Islam, but were imported from earlier Arab days . . . Thanks Franko. I've spent time in the Middle East but when we start discussions like this I always end up learning a little more. I think you may have made this point before in a similar discussion and l can't remember if I actually looked up some supporting info. But, I did a few moments ago and now I remember this point you're making. I ask again, would we be happy with a burqa-clad woman teaching a classroom full of 10 year olds? What message are we sending to them? It’s either “woman should not be seen and should be ashamed of their bodies” or it’s “men can’t control themselves around women and if they see any part of one they may go crazy with lust and rape and kill them.” Neither message is something I want kids to be presented with. I go back to the comments made by the Muslim Canadian Congress and I'll add this from Wikipedia. Sheikh Muhammad Sayyid Tantawy, dean of Al-Azhar University, called full-face veiling a custom that has nothing to do with the Islamic faith. “The niqab is a cultural tradition and has nothing to do with Islam.” [26] The decision came from an incident involving a a school girl to remove her niqab during a visit to an Al-Azhar school, when Tantawi reportedly said that he would call for an official ban for the face veil in Islamic schools. Tantawi's decision stem from his views that more younger muslims have lost touch with traditional Islamic scholarship and have come under the influence of extremist imams who have little or no formal training in Islamic scholarship. link (if the link doesn't want to work Google "history of the niqab and access the first URL) If there are Islamic countries expressing these opinions, then why in the hell would we entertain the notion here in Canada that it would be an infringement on the rights of others? Again, this is an education for me. Neither the burqa nor the niqab (or the hijab for that matter) have anything to do with religious obligations whatsoever. They are tools implemented by men, insecure men who are too insecure in themselves, to allow women to be themselves. Or, is it something simpler? Is it merely a control tool devised by men to keep women where they feel the should be ... and where they, as men, should be? Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Apr 7, 2010 10:02:41 GMT -5
But this is the whole debate, this is the whole issue. At what point do we say “you know what, I don’t care what your culture says you can or cannot do, or what you think is right or wrong, this is the way it is here in our Western culture. ...a bunch of other stuff snipped for space...I don’t think that’s the issue. That there are violent, bad people in Western society is beyond a doubt. The difference is we don’t “accommodate” them. We send Michael Vick to jail, we don’t say “well you know, in poor, southern, mainly black culture dog-fighting is rather common” (and it is). Because dog-fighting is not something we think OUR culture should support. I ask again, would we be happy with a burqa-clad woman teaching a classroom full of 10 year olds? What message are we sending to them? It’s either “woman should not be seen and should be ashamed of their bodies” or it’s “men can’t control themselves around women and if they see any part of one they may go crazy with lust and rape and kill them.” Neither message is something I want kids to be presented with. Where did I say we should tolerate violence against women? Where did I say we should tolerate the general silliness that is the HRC in Canada? Or dog fighting. Or child brides? I said they should be allowed to wear whatever head dress they choose (so long as it does not threaten the well being of the public - a hat made of plastic explosive is not acceptable). Lets go back to one of the root problems that you mention (and I snipped away). The nibaq clad french pupil. You make much about how foolish her demands are but her demands are not what's being legislated away here. It is her right to cover her face and keep her religious beliefs. Other than the instructor wanting to see her lips (to what end I do not know - help with ennunciation I suppose) there's absolutely nothing there about her nibaq. Her nibaq hurts only her, hindering her ability to learn the French language. It hurts no one else. That's not to say her general attitude is not wrong (it is) and that her demands for a female only class room should be met. It's saying that the head covering she wears has no impact on the fact that she seems to be a grade "a" ass. As for the "how do we know it's self inflicted" question - well, we don't. But who here thinks that making them deal with people in public with uncovered faces is going to be conducive to getting them (them being the non-choice Muslim women) in contact with the people that could get them out of the bad situation that they are in. Anyone? Bueller? Sorry - this just throws another road block up in front of these women. It makes it harder for them to deal. You want to grant exemptions for certain public servants - emergency workers, people involved in the law and that kind of thing - sure, but don't make these people do something that's anthetical to their religious beliefs to get access to help. It'll never work. Would I like a burqa-clad woman teching a classroom of 10 year olds. Sure. So long as she taught them what our society believes to be true (and specifically not what you are implying). If she chooses to wear the clothing out of piety, and she is able to teach all the same, then there's nothing wrong with it. I rather think the message would be "you and I might not dress the same or look the same, but we are all Canadians and believe in the freedom to do as one pleases." And that's a good message. Far better than "My religion is better than yours." |
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Apr 7, 2010 10:56:16 GMT -5
What makes this country and culture interesting to immigrants is what we made of it. Within your borders it has to be protected, sometimes sternly. Not only are the values carried by these religious signs unfit for our society, but beyond that, being able to identify someone is a minimum, at the very least, when you're dealing or working for government services. Why should we bend our own set of values? We're not capturing them in their country to bring them over here and impose our set of values. We're not making them inferior citizens because of who they are. They freely come to us. It's a wide, wide world, I'm sure people can find a place that fits their way of life better if ours doesn't fit. Refusing to be imposed upon in your own house and protecting it is not intolerance or racism.
A year ago, one of Quebec's largest Sugar Shack, decided to change their traditional menu and adapt it to be "religion friendly". Many people found it pretty stupid, I mean if you want to go to a Quebec Sugar Shack, you do it for the traditional angle right? But hey, it's the owner's choice to do what he wants with his place so this particular "accomodation" doesn't hurt anyone. At that point it's a matter of personnal choice.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 7, 2010 11:12:00 GMT -5
Refusing to be imposed upon in your own house and protecting it is not intolerance or racism. Well said, thanks Doc. I've worked very hard all my life to provide a home for me and my family. We have a set of rules in our house, pretty flexible rules, but there's a limit. And I reserve the right to set my own limits thank you very much. Cheers la |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 7, 2010 12:09:25 GMT -5
But this is the whole debate, this is the whole issue. At what point do we say “you know what, I don’t care what your culture says you can or cannot do, or what you think is right or wrong, this is the way it is here in our Western culture. ...a bunch of other stuff snipped for space...I don’t think that’s the issue. That there are violent, bad people in Western society is beyond a doubt. The difference is we don’t “accommodate” them. We send Michael Vick to jail, we don’t say “well you know, in poor, southern, mainly black culture dog-fighting is rather common” (and it is). Because dog-fighting is not something we think OUR culture should support. I ask again, would we be happy with a burqa-clad woman teaching a classroom full of 10 year olds? What message are we sending to them? It’s either “woman should not be seen and should be ashamed of their bodies” or it’s “men can’t control themselves around women and if they see any part of one they may go crazy with lust and rape and kill them.” Neither message is something I want kids to be presented with. Where did I say we should tolerate violence against women? Where did I say we should tolerate the general silliness that is the HRC in Canada? Or dog fighting. Or child brides? I said they should be allowed to wear whatever head dress they choose (so long as it does not threaten the well being of the public - a hat made of plastic explosive is not acceptable). Lets go back to one of the root problems that you mention (and I snipped away). The nibaq clad french pupil. You make much about how foolish her demands are but her demands are not what's being legislated away here. It is her right to cover her face and keep her religious beliefs. Other than the instructor wanting to see her lips (to what end I do not know - help with ennunciation I suppose) there's absolutely nothing there about her nibaq. Her nibaq hurts only her, hindering her ability to learn the French language. It hurts no one else. That's not to say her general attitude is not wrong (it is) and that her demands for a female only class room should be met. It's saying that the head covering she wears has no impact on the fact that she seems to be a grade "a" ass. As for the "how do we know it's self inflicted" question - well, we don't. But who here thinks that making them deal with people in public with uncovered faces is going to be conducive to getting them (them being the non-choice Muslim women) in contact with the people that could get them out of the bad situation that they are in. Anyone? Bueller? Sorry - this just throws another road block up in front of these women. It makes it harder for them to deal. You want to grant exemptions for certain public servants - emergency workers, people involved in the law and that kind of thing - sure, but don't make these people do something that's anthetical to their religious beliefs to get access to help. It'll never work. Would I like a burqa-clad woman teching a classroom of 10 year olds. Sure. So long as she taught them what our society believes to be true (and specifically not what you are implying). If she chooses to wear the clothing out of piety, and she is able to teach all the same, then there's nothing wrong with it. I rather think the message would be "you and I might not dress the same or look the same, but we are all Canadians and believe in the freedom to do as one pleases." And that's a good message. Far better than "My religion is better than yours." These burqas have nothing to do with religion ... they are a cultural tradition. But that being said we still have a freedom of belief in Canada ....
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.
However, when dealing with government offices, it is imperative that you can be identified. You, know, the ol, two pieces of identification one has to have a picture routine we all go through ... |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Apr 7, 2010 12:09:32 GMT -5
I'll ask the ludicrous question then;
How many of the "tolerant" amongst us would allow an African Tribesman to walk naked down our streets, sit next to us on the bus, or <gasp> teach our 10 year old girls elementary school?
How about wearing a Nazi or Ku Klux Klan uniform, providing of course that they don't try to push their ideals on anyone? "Just wearing the clothes, not hurting anybody."
Would we still say you and I might not dress the same or look the same, but we are all Canadians and believe in the freedom to do as one pleases?
We reject clothing (or lack thereof) all the time because of it's connotations, history, inference what have you. The outrage against banning the burqa sounds more like political correctness to me, then any sense of real moral outrage.
|
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Apr 7, 2010 12:38:25 GMT -5
These burqas have nothing to do with religion ... they are a cultural tradition. But that being said we still have a freedom of belief in Canada ....
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.
However, when dealing with government offices, it is imperative that you can be identified. You, know, the ol, two pieces of identification one has to have a picture routine we all go through ... I'd argue that point, saying that while it might not have roots in the muslim religion specifically, their particular flavour of Islam does lean towards the wearing of such things. Six of one, half dozen of the other though - in the end, as you point out, they should be free to do as they please. Also, depending on what you're doing at the government office you don't always have to show your face and two pieces of ID. For the purposes for identifying oneself I am, again, all for making these women expose their faces. But if they don't need to identify themselves, if they are looking for information (or help) then why make them violate their own cultural mores? |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Apr 7, 2010 12:53:02 GMT -5
I'll ask the ludicrous question then; How many of the "tolerant" amongst us would allow an African Tribesman to walk naked down our streets, sit next to us on the bus, or <gasp> teach our 10 year old girls elementary school? How about wearing a Nazi or Ku Klux Klan uniform, providing of course that they don't try to push their ideals on anyone? "Just wearing the clothes, not hurting anybody." Would we still say you and I might not dress the same or look the same, but we are all Canadians and believe in the freedom to do as one pleases?We reject clothing (or lack thereof) all the time because of it's connotations, history, inference what have you. The outrage against banning the burqa sounds more like political correctness to me, then any sense of real moral outrage. Nazi and KKK symbols are tied tightly and directly to a message of hatred and harm to other human beings. As a person, you are free to wear what you please. Within a school it would/should probably be disallowed (similar to almost any non-professional clothing would be). Not the same as a niqba or burqa at all. The naked tribesman - well, rightly or wrongly nudity is percieved to be harmful to young people by most of society. So no, absolutely not. |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Apr 7, 2010 13:00:04 GMT -5
Nazi and KKK symbols are tied tightly and directly to a message of hatred and harm to other human beings. As a person, you are free to wear what you please. Within a school it would/should probably be disallowed (similar to almost any non-professional clothing would be). Not the same as a niqba or burqa at all. And I would argue that wearing the burqa, rightly or wrongly, is tightly associated with the Taliban, and directly to a message of hatred and harm to other human beings. Few, in Canada anyways, had any idea what a burqa was until the Taliban introduced us to their vision of society. The naked tribesman - well, rightly or wrongly nudity is percieved to be harmful to young people by most of society. So no, absolutely not. By most of society? Or most of our society? Are we tolerant of other cultures or not? Is the naked tribesman free to express his cultural/religious values in Canada or not? Why is HIS cultural unacceptable, but somebody else's is? |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 7, 2010 13:03:35 GMT -5
TNG . . . it's specifically because we live in Canada that they should not have to violate their cultural mores. Even though I am "anti-head-dress", we are a multi-cultural society and so within reason* allow [and even encourage at times] heritage actions. In the States it wouldn't fly because they are a melting pot: become an American is the cry -- and there is a defined identity of "American". There is not defined identity of what a Canadian is [unless you are white male -- then your identity is shame]. *within reason, of course, changes depending on what our courts and HRTs decide. If a woman can walk down the street topless, why can't an African Tribesman walk down the street bottomless if that is his cultural identity and heritage [other than he'll freeze his ***** off in the winter in Winnipeg]. The outrage against banning the burqa sounds more like political correctness to me, then any sense of real moral outrage. I think so . . . I think not . . . I vacillate. I want to be able to see the person I'm talking and think others want the same of me. No burqa, no ski mask, no motorcycle helmet for a face-to-face conversation, svp. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 7, 2010 13:27:15 GMT -5
In the States it wouldn't fly because they are a melting pot: become an American is the cry -- and there is a defined identity of "American". I know you're not saying so, but is there really anything wrong with that? According to Worthington, this is where Quebec have become national leaders. And I agree with him. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 7, 2010 13:34:50 GMT -5
Also, depending on what you're doing at the government office you don't always have to show your face and two pieces of ID. For the purposes for identifying oneself I am, again, all for making these women expose their faces. But if they don't need to identify themselves, if they are looking for information (or help) then why make them violate their own cultural mores? More often then not, government policies are created throughout government, and not department specific. Take scent free policies, you may not have a person with allergies in your department, but you still have to follow the policy. Alot of government departments deal with money. It becomes essential then to track and identify where that money goes. So a policy is made to show your face (for instance), but the policy is government wide ... As well, if she so happens to commit a crime (either of her own volition, or unknown to her), it is a crime in Canada to commit a crime while your face is covered.... so if she receives money from government , that she wasn't entitled to ... probably a bad example, but still shows that policy are in place in certain departments for a reason, and other departments usually follow policies already created instead of re-inventing the wheel. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 7, 2010 13:41:55 GMT -5
In the States it wouldn't fly because they are a melting pot: become an American is the cry -- and there is a defined identity of "American". I know you're not saying so, but is there really anything wrong with that? According to Worthington, this is where Quebec have become national leaders. And I agree with him. Cheers. Actually, I think it's funny [an not ha-ha funny]: we welcome people to Canada and tell them they can retain their cultural identity, but to landed Europeans with deep ties to Canada we say "you're cultural identity is invalid". We are becoming tribal . . . [edit: I'm going to have to explain what I mean by tribal, aren't I? I mean . . . instead of being one country with many people, we are becoming many peoples who just happen to live in one country extended land mass]. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Apr 7, 2010 13:42:16 GMT -5
And I would argue that wearing the burqa, rightly or wrongly, is tightly associated with the Taliban, and directly to a message of hatred and harm to other human beings. Few, in Canada anyways, had any idea what a burqa was until the Taliban introduced us to their vision of society. I'd debate that, but it's obviously a point that would be better discussed in specific situations. I personally don't. You do. If the school has a eacher who wishes to wear a nibaq while teaching (frankly, if I understand my cultures correctly, you won't have to worry about it anyway because a wman who wears a nibaq is probably not going to be working/teaching) then we take a poll of parents in the class and decide as a group. By most of society? Or most of our society? Are we tolerant of other cultures or not? Is the naked tribesman free to express his cultural/religious values in Canada or not? Why is HIS cultural unacceptable, but somebody else's is? Because his culture harms others. Think about it this way. Our (western/Canadian) culture should have primacy in Canada. The burqa wearing woman, once again, hurts no one but herself. It does not hurt me. It does not hurt you. It does not hurt my family or my children or your family or your children. It hurts her and her alone. The nude tribesman hurts people, specifically children, who are exposed to him. Simple isn't it? |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Apr 7, 2010 14:00:13 GMT -5
I'd debate that, but it's obviously a point that would be better discussed in specific situations. I personally don't. You do. If the school has a eacher who wishes to wear a nibaq while teaching (frankly, if I understand my cultures correctly, you won't have to worry about it anyway because a wman who wears a nibaq is probably not going to be working/teaching) then we take a poll of parents in the class and decide as a group. What if these group of parents get together and decide that girls should not be allowed in school, period? Where is the line? By most of society? Or most of our society? Are we tolerant of other cultures or not? Is the naked tribesman free to express his cultural/religious values in Canada or not? Why is HIS cultural unacceptable, but somebody else's is? Because his culture harms others. Think about it this way. Our (western/Canadian) culture should have primacy in Canada. The burqa wearing woman, once again, hurts no one but herself. It does not hurt me. It does not hurt you. It does not hurt my family or my children or your family or your children. It hurts her and her alone. The nude tribesman hurts people, specifically children, who are exposed to him. Simple isn't it?[/quote] No, it's not simple. Because you're still ignoring the message that is implied by the burqa, to whoever sees it, including children. Women must be covered up. Ever been around a 6 year old? Every second word out of their mouths is "why?" How do you explain to them that women must be covered up?? If advertising is as damaging to young girls as they say it is, then isn't the burqa a living, breathing advertisement? And to what? You say the burqa woman is hurting nobody but herself. What about her kids? Her kid's friends? Anybody who happens to see her, on the bus, in the street, walking 5 paces behind her husband? Surely they are being hurt just as much as anybody exposed to a naked man? |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 7, 2010 14:04:22 GMT -5
Think about it this way. Our (western/Canadian) culture should have primacy in Canada. The burqa wearing woman, once again, hurts no one but herself. It does not hurt me. It does not hurt you. It does not hurt my family or my children or your family or your children. It hurts her and her alone. The nude tribesman hurts people, specifically children, who are exposed to him. Simple isn't it? Isn't she hurting everyone she calls rascist? |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 7, 2010 14:09:51 GMT -5
[edit: I'm going to have to explain what I mean by tribal, aren't I? I mean . . . instead of being one country with many people, we are becoming many peoples who just happen to live in one country extended land mass]. This is what I applaud Quebecers for actually. I remember Doc's "house" reference from somewhere else, possibly from one of Doc's earlier posts ... not sure. You're a guest in my house and I'll be as hospitable as I can. But, I'll no doubt ask you to remove your dirty shoes, not go into my fridge without asking and to respect any pictures or items I may have on the wall. I may even ask you to remove your hat if you're staying for supper. However, I was brought up that any of these actions are considered good manners. If, I'm a guest in someone's house, why wouldn't I use those good manners? I'm going to have to figure out how I can access posts we made several years ago. I remember saying something along the same lines in that I liked the way Quebec wants to protect their identity. That was quite a while back though. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Apr 7, 2010 16:04:11 GMT -5
Think about it this way. Our (western/Canadian) culture should have primacy in Canada. The burqa wearing woman, once again, hurts no one but herself. It does not hurt me. It does not hurt you. It does not hurt my family or my children or your family or your children. It hurts her and her alone. The nude tribesman hurts people, specifically children, who are exposed to him. Simple isn't it? Isn't she hurting everyone she calls rascist? Yup. But we're not talking about her other actions here, just her burqa wearing habit |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Apr 7, 2010 17:21:57 GMT -5
In a related story, MLSE is mandating that Leafs' fans stop wearing paper bags over their heads.
It's called the Brian Burqa ban.
======================================================
|
|
