|
|
Post by MC Habber on Apr 11, 2010 14:13:58 GMT -5
I'd say their answer is "we're making sure there is no precedent" . . . 'cause after all, once you let one Muslim woman wear a burqa, they'll all want to wear one. Pointing out the obvious here (x2) but, people already can and do wear burqa's, and people will still wear them - we're not talking about banning them (yet), which would at least have some internal consistency, we're only talking about discriminating against those who wear them. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 11, 2010 15:25:57 GMT -5
just moving on to the next illogical conclusion. once the burqa can't be worn in a government setting someone will use the same argument for a non-government setting.
I must say that I find the "protecting the cultural identity" argument far from compelling. culture and identity are always in flux -- for example, Quebec has moved from Catholic to secular in a matter of a few generations.
and I will give Quebec this: at least they [have an identity to try to keep. TROC not so much [yes, I know . . . a generalization].
|
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Apr 12, 2010 0:29:26 GMT -5
just moving on to the next illogical conclusion. once the burqa can't be worn in a government setting someone will use the same argument for a non-government setting. I must say that I find the "protecting the cultural identity" argument far from compelling. culture and identity are always in flux -- for example, Quebec has moved from Catholic to secular in a matter of a few generations. and I will give Quebec this: at least they [have an identity to try to keep. TROC not so much [yes, I know . . . a generalization]. Muslim women can wear a burka as long as they wear a French beret that is as large and equally prominent.  |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 12, 2010 18:08:31 GMT -5
We can each pick out examples that will be to the exteme MC .... for instance, what about a person with bandages on his face claiming to be a burn victim with unseen explosives strapped to his chest? To be honest, I am not sure of the policy for that scenario (but I'm sure there would have to be some means of identification provided), or the liklihood of that scenario. I do know of a burn victim that works in a government office, with burns to the face, but he obviously doesn't wear bandages. Obviously I meant a recent burn victim who has to wear bandages, and I was talking about cases where there is no need for photo ID, which you previously suggested should be covered by this law. But if you want a less extreme example, let's say you work behind a desk in a government building, it's winter, and someone comes in wearing a winter scarf and hat (or ski mask), and you can't see their face. Let's say they just want to pick up a form. Do you refuse to serve them without seeing their face? Do you even pause to be offended by the fact that you can't see their face? My claim is that for most people, this law has nothing to do with being able to see people's faces - it's the particular religious symbol itself that offends, and I think we should be honest about that, rather than pretending this is just some "clarification" of existing laws about showing your face. The law in question itself actually says it should be applied when the veil "impairs communication," to which I say, what about blind people? If you've ever tried to give directions to a blind person, you know it's not easy - much harder than talking to someone whose face is covered. Or, what about someone with a lisp, or a heavy accent, or a low voice? Why are we picking on this specific case where communication is much less impaired than any of the above? Excuse me ... I am in no way, shape or form, offended or have a particular bias (or what have you) against Muslims or the burqua. I have friends of all religions and creeds... but if you want to believe others feel that way ... Now, as I said before. If you want a form. Yes, here you go, take the form. I may even question you on why you came into the building, got by security, got on the elevator, and waited for me to get you a form and didnt remove your ski-mask ..... but you would get your form. Now if you pass it back to me, ..."ID please, and can I see your face ... Oh, this isn't for you, well could the person this is for please return it to me" I have had occasions involving your heavy accent example. My friend was actually denied alcohol in Houston because the waitress couldnt understand his accent and thought him drunk. A stewardess in Cinncinnati made me late for my connection to Montreal because she couldnt understand me ... but I digress The issue to me isnt "communication" .... it's "identification and security" (and your examples are all easily identified, save the ski-mask and burn victim examples). Let's say a government employee approves monies for a face-covering person. The information on the form is filled in incorrectly (maybe even on purpose ...gasp). Now how is a government employee suppose to make a positive ID on this person that he gave the form to? or processed it? How are the security cameras? "Officer that isn't me, how do you know, that person's face it covered" |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Apr 13, 2010 0:20:30 GMT -5
Excuse me ... I am in no way, shape or form, offended or have a particular bias (or what have you) against Muslims or the burqua. I have friends of all religions and creeds... but if you want to believe others feel that way ... Others, probably even in this thread, have said that they feel that way (by which I mean they are offended by the burqa). The issue to me isnt "communication" .... it's "identification and security" (and your examples are all easily identified, save the ski-mask and burn victim examples). As has been repeatedly pointed out, this law is not about situations where photo identification is required, it's about any interaction. And as I said, the law itself uses impairment of communication as a rationale. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 13, 2010 6:03:34 GMT -5
MC: not sure that the offense is with the burqa as much as with what it represents [or seems to represent]: subjugation of women by men [even though some who are interviewed say they choose to wear one], and an unwillingness to leave one's [not sure: cultural tradition? cultural mores? culture?] behind when moving to a new country.
As to the whole interaction thing, imo the burqua is a strong deterent to personal interaction and communication -- it is not just a curtain, it is a wall. I'm just guessing here, but I imagine it is worn inside the house as well as outside when there are non-family males present as with the hijab . . . again hindering communication.
I understand that part of the idea of the covering has to do with modesty and not enticing males [another matter altogether -- shouldn't men take responsibility for their own lustful thoughts?] but the burqa seems to go to an extreme [and the opposite -- not allowing the wearing of the burqa -- also goes to an extreme].
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 13, 2010 7:15:22 GMT -5
Niqab gets 2nd Quebec student expelled
Monday, April 12, 2010
CBC News
For the second time in the space of a few months, a Quebec woman has been thrown out of a French-language course after she refused to remove her Muslim veil.
The woman, who wants media to refer to her only as Aisha, is a 25-year-old permanent resident from India. She was enrolled at the Centre d'intégration multi-services de l’Ouest de l’Île in the Montreal suburb of Pointe-Claire, which works with the province to integrate new immigrants.
She says it has been about a month since officials from the provincial Ministry of Immigration and Cultural Communities approached her one Friday morning and told her to make a decision: agree to stop wearing the niqab in class or stop attending the class.
The niqab, worn by some Muslim women, is a veil that leaves only the eyes exposed.
Aisha says the government should have been fully aware she was wearing the niqab before she started the intensive language course.
"If they had such a problem with it, they would not have given me admission," she says.
Course organizers had little warning about meeting
Centre co-ordinator Joannie Lavoie says Immigration Ministry officials only informed the centre they intended to meet with Aisha on the same morning that they met with her.
Lavoie says they told the student she could either take her niqab off or leave.
Aisha was completing the fifth week of the course when she was called into what she describes as an emotionally difficult and "ridiculous" meeting with two government officials.
"Everything was going smoothly in the school," she told CBC News. "Everyone has been very good to me. It was a really heartbreaking experience for me because I really loved my school, and I think it's my civil right to go there, to learn."
Aisha's case is similar to that of another woman, Naima Atef Amed, who was expelled twice — in November 2009 and then again last month — from government-sponsored French-language courses in Montreal for refusing to remove her religious face covering.
Amed, who is of Egyptian origin, has since launched a human rights complaint against the province.
Both Aisha and the centre's director, Mustapha Kachani, say the ministry told them the veil is an obstacle to learning a language.
The provincial government currently has a bill in the works that would require anyone who wears face coverings in Quebec to remove them if they want to work in the public sector, do business with government officials or receive government services.
Aisha says she's aware of the legislation and hopes Bill 94 never passes, "because it's going way too far."
The bill will go through commission hearings and could be adopted by the end of the spring.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 13, 2010 7:25:36 GMT -5
I don't think this has been mentioned, but it is another interesting angle for debate ...
Canadian women have to wear an abaya when they choose to live or travel to Saudi Arabia AND it is greatly encouraged, especially if you have blonde hair, to wear a head scarf.
|
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Apr 13, 2010 7:35:41 GMT -5
I don't think this has been mentioned, but it is another interesting angle for debate ... Canadian women have to wear an abaya when they choose to live or travel to Saudi Arabia AND it is greatly encouraged, especially if you have blonde hair, to wear a head scarf. Are you suggesting that we lower ourselves to the Saudi Arabian standard of "freedom"? Or perhaps that we should ban burqa's in revenge for forcing our women to wear an abaya? |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 13, 2010 8:01:23 GMT -5
I don't think this has been mentioned, but it is another interesting angle for debate ... Canadian women have to wear an abaya when they choose to live or travel to Saudi Arabia AND it is greatly encouraged, especially if you have blonde hair, to wear a head scarf. Are you suggesting that we lower ourselves to the Saudi Arabian standard of "freedom"? Or perhaps that we should ban burqa's in revenge for forcing our women to wear an abaya? I didnt suggest anything .... I merely pointed out that other countries also have laws in place that require visitors/immigrants to adapt to their society. We'd be foolhardy to think Saudi Arabia is the only other country, it was just an example... For instance, it is against the law to wear a mask in Denmark. Are they archaic? |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 13, 2010 8:12:27 GMT -5
MC: not sure that the offense is with the burqa as much as with what it represents [or seems to represent]: subjugation of women by men [even though some who are interviewed say they choose to wear one], and an unwillingness to leave one's [not sure: cultural tradition? cultural mores? culture?] behind when moving to a new country. This is interesting, Franko. I'm sure there are some women who honestly feel they, themselves, are making the choice to wear it or not. But, here's a cut and paste I found interesting too: All of the young women interviewed agreed that the advantages of wearing the hijab are many. According to Rema Zawi, 16, "You feel modest...and you feel like you're covered up. You have more self-respect. You have more confidence in yourself that you don't need to care about (how) you look."
Syed emphasizes that a major plus is that people actually evaluate her on who she is and not on her beauty or clothing. "It keeps me protected from the fashion industry. The hijab liberates you from the media, brainwashing you into, Buy this, buy that, you're supposed to look like this," she says. "It allows me to be who I am. I don't have to worry about being popular through buying things that are 'cool'."www.islamfortoday.com/hijabcanada4.htm (link) Worthington points out that the hijab can sometimes enhance a woman's look. Mrs Dis works with a Muslim lady who wears a hijab. She always greets those she knows with a huge smile that lights up her face. In this case it's her smile, her personality and the wearing of the hijab all combined that make her a more attractive lady. This probably wasn't what Muslim men had in mind, but in many cases it works this very way. This is what Worthington bases his article on. However, here's what Mariam Hussein, 18, has to say: ... Some people may think that the more a woman covers, the less freedom she has. But, according to Muslim tradition, it is actually the opposite. The less she wears, the more she is degraded and the more she is put in the line of fire of male criticism. Kind of hard to argue this point when there are so many women involved in porn, no? Of course the contradiction here is that, many in our society feel porn to be degredation and humiliation of women; however, in fact many of these women feel no humility at all. Some regard their efforts as a platform for stardom, granted, but many more feel it comes down to freedom of choice. IMHO, here's where further conflct arises. One side feels this industry to be prime substantiation for the niqab and/or burqa. However, it serves the other side's argument for freedom of choice. Depends on your perspective, yes? Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 13, 2010 8:33:05 GMT -5
Niqab gets 2nd Quebec student expelled
Monday, April 12, 2010 CBC News For the second time in the space of a few months, a Quebec woman has been thrown out of a French-language course after she refused to remove her Muslim veil.
The woman, who wants media to refer to her only as Aisha, is a 25-year-old permanent resident from India. She was enrolled at the Centre d'intégration multi-services de l’Ouest de l’Île in the Montreal suburb of Pointe-Claire, which works with the province to integrate new immigrants.
She says it has been about a month since officials from the provincial Ministry of Immigration and Cultural Communities approached her one Friday morning and told her to make a decision: agree to stop wearing the niqab in class or stop attending the class.
The niqab, worn by some Muslim women, is a veil that leaves only the eyes exposed.
Aisha says the government should have been fully aware she was wearing the niqab before she started the intensive language course.
"If they had such a problem with it, they would not have given me admission," she says.
Course organizers had little warning about meeting
Centre co-ordinator Joannie Lavoie says Immigration Ministry officials only informed the centre they intended to meet with Aisha on the same morning that they met with her.
Lavoie says they told the student she could either take her niqab off or leave.
Aisha was completing the fifth week of the course when she was called into what she describes as an emotionally difficult and "ridiculous" meeting with two government officials.
"Everything was going smoothly in the school," she told CBC News. "Everyone has been very good to me. It was a really heartbreaking experience for me because I really loved my school, and I think it's my civil right to go there, to learn."
Aisha's case is similar to that of another woman, Naima Atef Amed, who was expelled twice — in November 2009 and then again last month — from government-sponsored French-language courses in Montreal for refusing to remove her religious face covering.
Amed, who is of Egyptian origin, has since launched a human rights complaint against the province.
Both Aisha and the centre's director, Mustapha Kachani, say the ministry told them the veil is an obstacle to learning a language.
The provincial government currently has a bill in the works that would require anyone who wears face coverings in Quebec to remove them if they want to work in the public sector, do business with government officials or receive government services.
Aisha says she's aware of the legislation and hopes Bill 94 never passes, "because it's going way too far."
The bill will go through commission hearings and could be adopted by the end of the spring. A good read, thanks Skilly. As Worthington opins: It’s neither ‘scary’ nor ‘threatening’ to expect people to adapt to the cultural mores of their new homeland ...
... A greater issue, implied in the Quebec ban, is newcomers to Canada identifying with the culture of their new home and adapting to it.It's an interesting situation because the Bill 94 hasn't been passed, yet the article points out that two precedences have already been established. To me, anyway, this has more to do with cultural preservation than it does a viel hindering learning. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 13, 2010 8:35:50 GMT -5
Niqab and hijab are two different things.
Niqab covers all but the eyes; hijab is a head covering [also may refer to the "dress"].
The interesting thing about the hijab is that it is ultimately a protection against the leers of men. And it is. But a person can just dress modestly to avoid such leers. Our culture has gone from sexual freedom to sexual promiscuity -- but that's another matter altogether.
The issue here is "how much covering is too much?". And should we expect immigrants to leave their cultural and religious backgrounds behind and become "like us" [however "us" is defined today -- remember, culture is always in flux] or do we allow them to retain their identity within an immigrant Canada.
And [let's stir the pot] should Sikh's be allowed to wear turbans -- especially if they are government employees? That's a symbol and an identity. Should Rastas cut off their dreads? Should overweight people really have to be accommodated by Air Canada and be given 2 seasts for the price of 1 . . . and why can't I eat peanuts on a plane? Or have a hamburger in a vegetarian restaurant?
How much accommodation is too much? Is that the heart of the question?
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 13, 2010 9:03:06 GMT -5
How much accommodation is too much? Is that the heart of the question? I asked this a few pages ago. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Apr 13, 2010 9:07:23 GMT -5
I didnt suggest anything .... I merely pointed out that other countries also have laws in place that require visitors/immigrants to adapt to their society. We'd be foolhardy to think Saudi Arabia is the only other country, it was just an example... For instance, it is against the law to wear a mask in Denmark. Are they archaic? To be terribly blunt - who cares? This is Canada. Not Denmark. Not Saudi Arabia. Not Afghanistan. To me, it is the pinnacle of human civilization, the greatest nation on earth and, by and large, the holder of universal moral truths. In most cases there are two things other countries can do - emulate us, or fall short of our standards. Which is why I despise this law so much - it falls short of our national standards. It falls short of the freedoms we have as a birthright - freedoms which were hard won by our forebearers. Forcing people to do something - to abandon their beliefs - without so much a smidge of necessity to back it up (I like the line about the teacher saying she can not learn the language properly wearing a head covering - first, that's utter and complete male bovine excrement and second, why don't we let her try and see if she succeeds or fails rather than assuming she will fail and expelling her) is anthetical to our national identity. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 13, 2010 9:19:53 GMT -5
we have national standards? we have a national identity?
other than that . . . I'm with you.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 13, 2010 9:20:19 GMT -5
How much accommodation is too much? Is that the heart of the question? I asked this a few pages ago. Cheers. sure . . . make me think ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 13, 2010 9:25:31 GMT -5
And [let's stir the pot] should Sikh's be allowed to wear turbans -- especially if they are government employees? That's a symbol and an identity. Removal of head gear of any type is a policy that all military messes and legions have adhered to for years. It's a policy to remove your head garb, of any kind, where there is a visable photo of the monarchy. This was a tough thing for some Sikh's to do, because they too have veterans who served in the world wars. However, many have been refused entry into the mess and/or legions because the refused to remove their traditional head garb. "If it's good enough for us, then it's good enough for you" kind of deal. However, here is a related article to what Worthington cites: Take off your turban, Sikh man told
Passport office rejects photograph, demands proof of religious affiliation
Kelly Egan
The Ottawa Citizen
Wednesday, June 11, 2003
Kundip Singh has a complaint about the passport office. He is a Sikh, and had to take off his turban in order to get his passport picture past the authorities.
A Gatineau man is upset he had to remove his turban -- offending the tenets of his Sikh religion -- to speed up his passport application and arrive in India in time for his mother's funeral ...
... "It's just a visible minority they're trying to hassle."
He also added that he's wearing his turban on photographs on his health card and driver's licence. link================================================================ If we're going to protect our culture, it has to be consistent across the board and not on a province-by-province decision process, or we get the reaction we have in this example. [stir the pot smiley]Ohhhhh ... decentralization!![/stir the pot smiley] As I mentioned earlier, when is enough, enough? Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 13, 2010 9:26:19 GMT -5
we have national standards? we have a national identity? other than that . . . I'm with you. Geeze, you guys are fast (see above). Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 13, 2010 9:48:40 GMT -5
In most cases there are two things other countries can do - emulate us, or fall short of our standards. Isn't this exactly what Quebec is asking .... emulate us or fall short of their standards. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Apr 13, 2010 10:42:14 GMT -5
Isn't this exactly what Quebec is asking .... emulate us or fall short of their standards. They are saying "emulate how we dress". Rather shallow, don't you think? |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 13, 2010 11:16:32 GMT -5
Isn't this exactly what Quebec is asking .... emulate us or fall short of their standards. They are saying "emulate how we dress". Rather shallow, don't you think? They are saying you dont have to emulate our culture, but don't expect us to go above and beyond to accomodate yours .... Keep in mind Quebec standards are different than most areas of the country, and they have the right to dictate their standards ..... I would like to clarify my position on this once again. In matters where identity is paramount in relation to government affairs (receiving money, driver's license, receiving medicines ... and so forth ... which one's are vital is something that will be debated), I think the burqua should be removed, and I am swaying towards no special treatment for them (seperate rooms and the like) to do so .... On the street, in their homes, everyday living ... they are free to wear what they please, as long as the burqua isnt worn in the commission of a crime obviously... |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Apr 13, 2010 11:21:03 GMT -5
Isn't this exactly what Quebec is asking .... emulate us or fall short of their standards. They are saying "emulate how we dress". Rather shallow, don't you think? Or they - we - are saying "don't subjugate your women to inferiority status in Quebec." Is that shallow? Or is okay for women from those cultures to be inferior, because "that's the way they like it?" What happened to your Canadian model that is a beacon of shining light for the rest of the world? Not applicable to dem der A-rabs, especially da female ones? You say it's "shallow" to be regulating dress codes, and yet you yourself said that we have to do so in the case of the naked tribesman, to protect the children or something. Because in OUR culture a naked man is deemed, rightly or wrongly, to be damaging to children. In other cultures it is not. Let me repeat that; in other cultures it is not. You yourself agree that not every aspect of another culture can be accepted in ours. You have your line, too. The VAST majority of women around the world who wear the burqa/niqab are not considered to be of equal status by the men and cultures that they usually come from. Whether that is true for ALL women who wear these covering is irrelevant, just as it is irrelevant that the Swastika is used by many religions around the world with nary a word of protest. In our culture it is deemed inappropriate to fly one above your house, and you can be subject to prosecution if you do so, no matter what your personal beliefs may be. Just like it is inappropriate to teach a class full of children in the nude, even if that's what you did "back in the old country." Like it or not, the burqa, in the Western world, is a symbol of misogyny, of the oppression of women. It is associated with forced marriages, child rape (through marriage), abuse, honor killings and many other nasty things that are unacceptable in our culture, but quite pervasive in the cultures where the niqab comes from. Whether they have occurred here is again, irrelevant. A line has to be drawn somewhere. You make think it's shallow. I actually think it's quite enlightened. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 13, 2010 11:49:37 GMT -5
You say it's "shallow" to be regulating dress codes, and yet you yourself said that we have to do so in the case of the naked tribesman, to protect the children or something. Because in OUR culture a naked man is deemed, rightly or wrongly, to be damaging to children. In other cultures it is not. Let me repeat that; in other cultures it is not. Ever been in a Scandanavian public school classroom or spent time with a Scandinavian family in their home? I have in Denmark. Nudity? Not an issue. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Apr 13, 2010 12:16:00 GMT -5
They are saying "emulate how we dress". Rather shallow, don't you think? They are saying you dont have to emulate our culture, but don't expect us to go above and beyond to accomodate yours .... Keep in mind Quebec standards are different than most areas of the country, and they have the right to dictate their standards ..... I would like to clarify my position on this once again. In matters where identity is paramount in relation to government affairs (receiving money, driver's license, receiving medicines ... and so forth ... which one's are vital is something that will be debated), I think the burqua should be removed, and I am swaying towards no special treatment for them (seperate rooms and the like) to do so .... On the street, in their homes, everyday living ... they are free to wear what they please, as long as the burqua isnt worn in the commission of a crime obviously... As has been pointed out, this is not what the law states. The law states "if you want any government services - even something so insignificant as getting a form - then you have to remove your burqa". This is why the law is wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 13, 2010 12:32:44 GMT -5
Ever been in a Scandanavian public school classroom or spent time with a Scandinavian family in their home? I have in Denmark. Nudity? Not an issue. Cheers. Only in repressive North America. Remember watching an Archie Bunker episode where he called it a "chicken chest" . . . couldn't use the "B" word. Not advocating for public nudity [wouldn't want to put CO out of business] but you'd think we'd be beyond the horror of a woman nursing her child by now. 'Course, the public nudity thing speaks to the Niqab/Burqa issue. In Germany, Scandinavia, Papua New Guinea, etc nakedness is a fact of life. In more western culture it is sexualized. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Apr 13, 2010 12:37:24 GMT -5
Or they - we - are saying "don't subjugate your women to inferiority status in Quebec." Is that shallow? Or is okay for women from those cultures to be inferior, because "that's the way they like it?" Which would be a fine observation, if only oppressed women wore the burqa. This is not the case, however, and has been pointed out many women who choose to wear such head dresses do so because they believe it is the right thing to do. Are there some women who are bullied and abused into wearing one? Sure. But there are some who are not. And unless you're willing to suspend a lot more basic human rights then no one - not you, not the government of the province of Quebec - can tell the difference. What happened to your Canadian model that is a beacon of shining light for the rest of the world? Not applicable to dem der A-rabs, especially da female ones? It is quite applicable Arabs (as well as those of other cultures who are Muslim - the most recent woman kicked out of a French class is actually Indian). That's why I also am patently against any laws that would force people to wear the burqa. But that's not what we're talking about is it? We're talking about laws that force people to not wear the burqa. Which frankly is the same kind of tyranny. You say it's "shallow" to be regulating dress codes, and yet you yourself said that we have to do so in the case of the naked tribesman, to protect the children or something. Because in OUR culture a naked man is deemed, rightly or wrongly, to be damaging to children. In other cultures it is not. Let me repeat that; in other cultures it is not. You yourself agree that not every aspect of another culture can be accepted in ours. You have your line, too. Have I ever denied having a "line". Nope. I just put mine in a more appropriate place. Public welfare and safety as opposed to "beating other cultures into accepting ours"? The VAST majority of women around the world who wear the burqa/niqab are not considered to be of equal status by the men and cultures that they usually come from. Whether that is true for ALL women who wear these covering is irrelevant, just as it is irrelevant that the Swastika is used by many religions around the world with nary a word of protest. In our culture it is deemed inappropriate to fly one above your house, and you can be subject to prosecution if you do so, no matter what your personal beliefs may be. Just like it is inappropriate to teach a class full of children in the nude, even if that's what you did "back in the old country." So? The vast majority of women around the world who don't wear burqa's are also considered second class citizens (look up misogeny in China, Japan and India - that gives them a massive running start). But those are other countries, and they don't matter a whit. This is Canada. As for your broad (and incorrect) statements: (a) I have been in a number of houses (mainly of Indian friends) who have proudly displayed a swastika on their walls. No criminal charges. (b) Even if they flew a flag with a swastika there would be no criminal charges in Canada. (c) Even if they flew the Nazi flag there would be no criminal charges (there is nothing in our criminal code about such an act) although there would probably be HRC complaints up the wazoo. Like it or not, the burqa, in the Western world, is a symbol of misogyny, of the oppression of women. It is associated with forced marriages, child rape (through marriage), abuse, honor killings and many other nasty things that are unacceptable in our culture, but quite pervasive in the cultures where the niqab comes from. Whether they have occurred here is again, irrelevant. A line has to be drawn somewhere. You make think it's shallow. I actually think it's quite enlightened. So lets out and out ban Islam. I mean most people associate that with misogeny as well. And while we're at it, lets ban Catholiscism, since people associate that with pedophilia. And the Liberals (fraud). And the Conservatives (fraud). And the NDP (sponge-headedness). Lets ban Newfoundlanders (the Seal Hunt) and people from British Columbia (pot smoking). Lets ban the Royal Family (the whole Eire thing) and the office of the Prime Minister (countless scandals). Lets ban the French (oppression of the English within their culture) and the English (oppression of the French within their culture). Lets ban the natives (association with drugs and alcohol and suicide and teen pregnancy and a raft of other bad things) and the non-natives (oppression of the natives) and the immigrants (for attacks on our culture). I think I've already got most of Canada there. Is there anyone else left worth saving? |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 13, 2010 12:37:46 GMT -5
They are saying you dont have to emulate our culture, but don't expect us to go above and beyond to accomodate yours .... Keep in mind Quebec standards are different than most areas of the country, and they have the right to dictate their standards ..... I would like to clarify my position on this once again. In matters where identity is paramount in relation to government affairs (receiving money, driver's license, receiving medicines ... and so forth ... which one's are vital is something that will be debated), I think the burqua should be removed, and I am swaying towards no special treatment for them (seperate rooms and the like) to do so .... On the street, in their homes, everyday living ... they are free to wear what they please, as long as the burqua isnt worn in the commission of a crime obviously... As has been pointed out, this is not what the law states. The law states "if you want any government services - even something so insignificant as getting a form - then you have to remove your burqa". This is why the law is wrong. But I think calling the law wrong is just as wrong .... Who are you and I to dictate what the people of Quebec hold as their standards? Shouldn't Quebec society be allowed to shape based on the will of their people ...laws, and society are primarily based on the will of people afterall. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 13, 2010 12:41:55 GMT -5
oooohhh, Skilly . . . be careful . . .
|
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Apr 13, 2010 12:43:52 GMT -5
As has been pointed out, this is not what the law states. The law states "if you want any government services - even something so insignificant as getting a form - then you have to remove your burqa". This is why the law is wrong. But I think calling the law wrong is just as wrong .... Who are you and I to dictate what the people of Quebec hold as their standards? Shouldn't Quebec society be allowed to shape based on the will of their people ...laws, and society are primarily based on the will of people afterall. I am the holder of universal truth. Seriously though, you're dragging slowly in territory into which I must not go, for fear of inciting the mods again. You know what I'm like when that particular issues comes up. So let me be short and curt. Should they be allowed to shape their own culture? Yes. But it still should remain a subset of Canadian culture. Would it be right if they banned Islam altogether? What if they mandated that everyone must convert to Roman Catholic? Would that not be wrong? Saying "you must not wear a niqba" is just as wrong to me as saying "you must wear a niqba". Those sentiments are not remotely Canadian. The men and women of Canada - of Quebec - who died protecting our nation and our rights would, I think, be spinning in their graves. |
|
