|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 13, 2010 13:04:00 GMT -5
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. ..... 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. It's not like the burqa is the only "dress-code law" .... - in some countries it is against the law to walk with your shoe laces untied. - in some countries you are not allowed to hang a clothes-line - in some countries you are not allowed to have more than 2 colours on your house |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Apr 13, 2010 13:15:21 GMT -5
I am the holder of universal truth. ..... 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. It's not like the burqa is the only "dress-code law" .... - in some countries it is against the law to walk with your shoe laces untied. - in some countries you are not allowed to hang a clothes-line - in some countries you are not allowed to have more than 2 colours on your house Going through the odd Canadian laws list mayhaps? The difference being that those are by an large old laws that are no longer enforced. It's also illegal to drive through Halifax at night without a person 500 yds in front of you holding a large lantern. Most are also the result of the local municipal government and would probably be overturned in any court unless there was a good reason behind them. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 13, 2010 13:17:55 GMT -5
It's not like the burqa is the only "dress-code law" .... - in some countries it is against the law to walk with your shoe laces untied. - in some countries you are not allowed to hang a clothes-line - in some countries you are not allowed to have more than 2 colours on your house Going through the odd Canadian laws list mayhaps? The difference being that those are by an large old laws that are no longer enforced. It's also illegal to drive through Halifax at night without a person 500 yds in front of you holding a large lantern. Most are also the result of the local municipal government and would probably be overturned in any court unless there was a good reason behind them. or ride a moose backwards down the right side of the sidewalk monday from 6 to 7pm, but it is a law still on the books, in the realm of universal truths .... at one point they had meaning, but society changed, so the laws lost their meaning. If the people of Quebec want this law, it would be repressive of their society ... so we fight their supposed repression of a group, by repressing them? |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 13, 2010 13:30:41 GMT -5
It's not like the burqa is the only "dress-code law" .... - in some countries it is against the law to walk with your shoe laces untied. [- in some countries you are not allowed to hang a clothes-line- in some countries you are not allowed to have more than 2 colours on your house Going through the odd Canadian laws list mayhaps? The difference being that those are by an large old laws that are no longer enforced. I Kanata: enforced! Also the colour of house and door: enforced! |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Apr 13, 2010 13:33:15 GMT -5
If the people of Quebec want this law, it would be repressive of their society ... so we fight their supposed repression of a group, by repressing them? We aren't repressing the people of Quebec just by criticizing them. 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 think we have an obligation to criticize this law just as we have an obligation to criticize the practice of forcing women to dress this way in other countries. I don't necessarily agree with everything he says, but I think Sam Harris made some interesting points in his recent TED talk, Science Can Answer Moral Questions. |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Apr 13, 2010 13:39:53 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]. Woah, I really don't want to be understood as expressing support for the burqa - I'm very much against forcing women to wear it, and frankly I would prefer that women in Canada chose not to wear it. I just don't think this particular law makes any sense. I more or less agree with Skilly when he said this: 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 .... My point earlier was that many people who claim to object to people covering their faces really only object to specific kinds of coverings -- for whatever reason -- and I don't think we should pretend that this law is somehow not specifically targeted at those coverings by couching it it more general language. This is a law made because of [some] Muslims, largely targeting [some] Muslims. Nobody had any issue with people covering their faces (except in cases where identification is an issue obviously) until they started to notice Muslims covering their faces. |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Apr 13, 2010 13:46:17 GMT -5
Is every black tribesman who prefers to stand naked in front of a group of children a pedophile? Can you tell the difference by looking at one? You accept that a cultural norm must be suspended for the good of the group in that case, even if there is no malicious intent behind the norm. We accept this restriction because in general we believe that it is a bad thing. In general the women who chose to wear the burqa come from oppressive, misogynistic cultures.
As I pointed out a couple of pages back whether they choose to wear the burqa is almost irrelevant. Many abused women also choose to stay with their abusive husbands, many have come to believe that they deserve it, that they believe what their husband is doing is the right thing to do. Doesn’t make it acceptable. Can I tell which women are staying because they are abused, and which are staying because they believe they deserved it and have accepted is part of their lives? Nope. So I draw up a law that says it is unacceptable in all situations whether you believe it to be justified or not.
No, we’re talking about laws that force people to respect Canadian institutions, morals and values, including the equality of the sexes. The burqa is merely a symbol, in much the same way the Swastika and white hoods of the Ku Klux Klan are symbols.
Of course you have a line, just like everybody else. But to insist your line is “more appropriate” is to act in the same way as the very people you believe yourself to be morally superior than. Quebec, in other words. Quebec has a line that they feel is appropriate. Your line is in a different place, and feel that the Quebec culture should be beaten into accepting your line because your line is in a more “appropriate place.” You know better than those racist Quebec guys, in other words. Oh, the irony.
Indeed. This is Canada. Thanks for agreeing with my point.
I suspect you would be wrong on the criminal charges thing. Remember the woman who had child services take her kid away because she showed up with a washable Nazi tattoo on her arm? But even if you aren’t, what is the difference between “criminal” charges and a Human Rights Tribunal? Both have the power to fine you up the wazoo, close your business and restrict your freedom of speech (oh, the irony). In fact, a cursory look at the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal web site seems to indicate that they consider themselves to be the law, so differentiating between them and the “criminal code” is an argument in semantics. From THEIR website:
* The Tribunal is similar to a court of law, but is less formal and only hears cases relating to discrimination.
* The Tribunal's decisions inform the parties-and Canadians-about the law.
* Thus, the Tribunal gives real effect to these lofty ideals through practical and legally binding decisions.
* In larger cities, it is not uncommon for hearings to be held in a federal courthouse.
Histrionics aside you pretty much encapsulate the very debate and dilemma facing Quebec and Canada. Perhaps not by design, but you’ve asked the very question we as a culture are struggling with. What is “reasonable accommodation?” Where is the appropriate place for the line that we all agree must be drawn? If not the burqa, then where? Honor killings? No way. Beating your wife? Nope. Beating your kid? Wouldn’t think so. Spanking your kid? Uh… EVERYTHING is a slippery slope, and the question is where do we want to stand on said slope? I believe that the burqa is a symbol of oppression, if not an actual tool of oppression, and should thus be banned. Judging by the polls the vast majority of Canadians and Europeans also believe that it should be banned. The Canadian Muslim Congress believes as I do, as do numerous Muslim dominated countries around the world like Turkey, Tunisia and Morocco. Many prominent Islamic clerics have also called for a burqa ban. Like it or not there is a significant portion of the world, both Western and otherwise, that believes the burqa is more than a piece of clothing. Dismissing the debate as racist and shallow is to really miss the whole point.
|
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Apr 13, 2010 13:46:51 GMT -5
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'." There's a very similar argument in favour of school uniforms, which I found pretty convincing when I read it. But those uniforms didn't cover the face. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Apr 13, 2010 13:53:54 GMT -5
Going through the odd Canadian laws list mayhaps? The difference being that those are by an large old laws that are no longer enforced. I Kanata: enforced! Also the colour of house and door: enforced! Are you sure about that? I checked through the bylaws of the City of Ottawa (which now, IIRC, includes Kanata as well) and found nothing to the effect of what you mentioned above. Is it possible that you are confusing the law with contracts that you might sign upon purchase of a house with the homeowners association? |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 13, 2010 14:16:36 GMT -5
nope. Willie would know better, but even though Kanata was amalgamated with Ottawa they were still able to somehow hold on to their old laws . . . the fight to ban the ban on clotheslines continues
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 13, 2010 14:41:03 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. "... tonight we're havink chicken chest wit chezz ..." Here, here !! To me we're still immature when distinguishing between nudity and sexuality. The Europeans know and understand the differences to the point where that attitude is natural. They're generations ahead of us just on attitude. However, Europe is in a very real danger of losing their traditional cultures to an up and coming culture that has been accommodated to time and time again. In some cases, accommodation has equated to more votes. This is where Quebec scores points with me. They're saying they have a culture worth defending. The Europeans fell the same, granted, but unlike Quebercers, some of these countries are only now realizing that there has to be a limit. Oh, and the naked tribesman (Sideshow Bob shudder) ... let him teach in his country (shudder) Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Apr 13, 2010 14:51:20 GMT -5
Oh, and the naked tribesman (Sideshow Bob shudder) ... let him teach in his country (shudder) |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Apr 13, 2010 18:40:27 GMT -5
Is every black tribesman who prefers to stand naked in front of a group of children a pedophile? Can you tell the difference by looking at one? You accept that a cultural norm must be suspended for the good of the group in that case, even if there is no malicious intent behind the norm. We accept this restriction because in general we believe that it is a bad thing. In general the women who chose to wear the burqa come from oppressive, misogynistic cultures. Does it matter if he is a pedophile. It is not the nature of the nude man (and as I mentioned when you first brought it up I am of the school of thought that our society is far too closed minded on nudity, but I digress) but the nature of those around him. It is his nudity that harms, not his other proclivities. And it is for this reason that he would not be allowed. On the other hand, even if the burqa is a symbol of misogynistic culture (something which you constantly reassert, but which I do not yet buy), does it harm anyone (but the wearer)? No. No little kid sees a burqa and says "I want to wear that when I grow up" or "I want to be an abused wife when I grow up" (or, I suppose, "I want to abuse my wife when I grow up"). No adult male, upon seeing the burqa, goes home and beats his wife as a result. It harms no one but the wearer. As I pointed out a couple of pages back whether they choose to wear the burqa is almost irrelevant. Many abused women also choose to stay with their abusive husbands, many have come to believe that they deserve it, that they believe what their husband is doing is the right thing to do. Doesn’t make it acceptable. Can I tell which women are staying because they are abused, and which are staying because they believe they deserved it and have accepted is part of their lives? Nope. So I draw up a law that says it is unacceptable in all situations whether you believe it to be justified or not. But it is relevant. Look at your own words. Women who stay with their abusive husbands - they choose to stay there and we do not force them to leave. Oh we can pressure them - particularly if there are vulnerable third parties involved (children) - but we never force them. And there's a couple of reasons for that. The first is that this is a free country and people are free to choose their own destiny - and make their own mistakes. The latter is because it doesn't work. No, we’re talking about laws that force people to respect Canadian institutions, morals and values, including the equality of the sexes. The burqa is merely a symbol, in much the same way the Swastika and white hoods of the Ku Klux Klan are symbols. And we let people where KKK hoods and walk around with swastikas, do we not? Of course you have a line, just like everybody else. But to insist your line is “more appropriate” is to act in the same way as the very people you believe yourself to be morally superior than. Quebec, in other words. Quebec has a line that they feel is appropriate. Your line is in a different place, and feel that the Quebec culture should be beaten into accepting your line because your line is in a more “appropriate place.” You know better than those racist Quebec guys, in other words. Oh, the irony. You seem to be confusing me with a cultural relativist. You're wrong. I'm more of a, broadly speaking, utilitarian with a few sprinkles of the categorical imperative. I believe there is a universal truth. Well, several universal truths that can be codified. But this isn't the place to get into deep philosophical discussions about codes and what not. Broadly speaking - yes, my line is in a different place. It is in a better place than those currently guiding Quebec and until I see some reasonably amount of evidence to the contrary I will continue to believe that my moral compass is superior. Although I do not think the "Quebec guys" are racist - just ignorant and misguided. Histrionics aside you pretty much encapsulate the very debate and dilemma facing Quebec and Canada. Perhaps not by design, but you’ve asked the very question we as a culture are struggling with. What is “reasonable accommodation?” Where is the appropriate place for the line that we all agree must be drawn? If not the burqa, then where? Honor killings? No way. Beating your wife? Nope. Beating your kid? Wouldn’t think so. Spanking your kid? Uh… EVERYTHING is a slippery slope, and the question is where do we want to stand on said slope? I believe that the burqa is a symbol of oppression, if not an actual tool of oppression, and should thus be banned. Judging by the polls the vast majority of Canadians and Europeans also believe that it should be banned. The Canadian Muslim Congress believes as I do, as do numerous Muslim dominated countries around the world like Turkey, Tunisia and Morocco. Many prominent Islamic clerics have also called for a burqa ban. Like it or not there is a significant portion of the world, both Western and otherwise, that believes the burqa is more than a piece of clothing. Dismissing the debate as racist and shallow is to really miss the whole point. Reasonable accommodation = living as you choose. Liberty and freedom, so long as you do not hurt any others in the pursuit of your private goals. Simple and easy hey? If the Muslims wish to get rid of the burqa let them do so. Do not force them to do it. |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Apr 13, 2010 19:49:16 GMT -5
Broadly speaking - yes, my line is in a different place. It is in a better place than those currently guiding Quebec and until I see some reasonably amount of evidence to the contrary I will continue to believe that my moral compass is superior. Although I do not think the "Quebec guys" are racist - just ignorant and misguided. LOL! That's classic! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 13, 2010 22:25:55 GMT -5
On the other hand, even if the burqa is a symbol of misogynistic culture (something which you constantly reassert, but which I do not yet buy), does it harm anyone (but the wearer)? No. No little kid sees a burqa and says "I want to wear that when I grow up" or "I want to be an abused wife when I grow up" (or, I suppose, "I want to abuse my wife when I grow up"). No adult male, upon seeing the burqa, goes home and beats his wife as a result. It harms no one but the wearer. I take it you do not have kids ..... most, I would go so far as to say a great percentage of children, and 95+% of girls would ask "why are they wearing that dress that covers their face". I know for absolute fact mine would. I would tell them, "because it is apart of their culture" and the next question would be "why is it apart of their culture" or "what is their culture" and eventually "why dont I wear one, or my friends" .... kids question everything they see... and of course, it is up to the parent to ensure they dont get the wrong message, but I think it is naive to think little girls wouldnt want to wear one, cause little girls love playing dress-up ... |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Apr 14, 2010 6:24:50 GMT -5
On the other hand, even if the burqa is a symbol of misogynistic culture (something which you constantly reassert, but which I do not yet buy), does it harm anyone (but the wearer)? No. No little kid sees a burqa and says "I want to wear that when I grow up" or "I want to be an abused wife when I grow up" (or, I suppose, "I want to abuse my wife when I grow up"). No adult male, upon seeing the burqa, goes home and beats his wife as a result. It harms no one but the wearer. I take it you do not have kids ..... most, I would go so far as to say a great percentage of children, and 95+% of girls would ask "why are they wearing that dress that covers their face". I know for absolute fact mine would. I would tell them, "because it is apart of their culture" and the next question would be "why is it apart of their culture" or "what is their culture" and eventually "why dont I wear one, or my friends" .... kids question everything they see... and of course, it is up to the parent to ensure they dont get the wrong message, but I think it is naive to think little girls wouldnt want to wear one, cause little girls love playing dress-up ... You're right - I don't have kids. So perhaps they would choose to wear the burqa. They still will not think "hey, it's cool to be beaten up" (or "hey, it's cool to beat women up"). It still does no harm to anyone but the wearer. And so it does not invalidate my point. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 14, 2010 6:54:37 GMT -5
You're right - I don't have kids. So perhaps they would choose to wear the burqa. They still will not think "hey, it's cool to be beaten up" (or "hey, it's cool to beat women up"). It still does no harm to anyone but the wearer. And so it does not invalidate my point. Extreme example alert and devil's advocate alert ... Porn does no harm to anyone but the performers, would you let little girls look at porn all day? What message does it send to them? Studies have been conducted (and I have no idea if they are correct or just commissioned by someone to come to their wanted conclusion) that visual stimulae do in fact have a bearing on the viewer .... |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 14, 2010 7:29:06 GMT -5
Reasonable accommodation = living as you choose. Liberty and freedom, so long as you do not hurt any others in the pursuit of your private goals. Simple and easy hey? Yes, I agree ... it's easy to do. Reasonable accommodation = choosing to adopt and practice the customs of the new country you've moved to. What about the Muslim Canadian Congress' position? They, themselves being Muslims, feel the niqab and burqa to marginalize women. Imagine the process an congress like the MCC must have gone through in recommending this. Imagine the risk factor in publicly stating something like this. They must have known how something like this would have been preceived in fundamental Islamic countries. Yet: 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. ... 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. This is very significant IMO. A national Islamic organization that wants to catch up with the rest of the world. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Apr 14, 2010 7:37:17 GMT -5
Extreme example alert and devil's advocate alert ... Porn does no harm to anyone but the performers, would you let little girls look at porn all day? What message does it send to them? Studies have been conducted (and I have no idea if they are correct or just commissioned by someone to come to their wanted conclusion) that visual stimulae do in fact have a bearing on the viewer .... We've already been down this road with the naked African tribesman. Rightly or wrongly our society percieves there is harm done to a child viewing nude, and particularily sexualized images, at a young age. This is not so with wearing the burqa. The best argument that has cropped up here has been "it is a symbol of the degradation of women" but beyond it being a symbol (and a very, very vague one at that), and the implication that women behind the mask might wish to be free of it (not entirely true, but in some cases sure). It does not encourage poor gender relations. It does not encourage the degradation of women (possible exception, now that I think of it - it might have a negative impact on males raised in homes where the burqa is worn - however frankly I think in that case the burqa is the least of what's going to make that child into an abusive husband). It mere states that, at worst, this woman has put herself (and continues to put herself) into a situation where she is not accorded the respect she deserves. Nothing more. It is not imitatible. It is not inherently harmful. It simply is. Hell, your own comments even point out a positive aspect of it - if the little girl in your previous example ask questions then she will learn about the culture - its strengths, its weaknesses and what not. That's value added right there. Beside the fact, everyone knows if you are giving an extreme example it should include the Nazis. You didn't even come close to crossing the extreme threshold. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Apr 14, 2010 7:57:58 GMT -5
Yes, I agree ... it's easy to do. Reasonable accommodation = choosing to adopt and practice the customs of the new country you've moved to. And that's your position. Its a fair position, I suppose, but to me that's wrong. Think about it this way. You move to a "free" country where women aren't hung for going to the doctor, where men can occasionally imbibe and where children will recieve a top notch education (and health care). You do this for your own good and, more importantly, the good of your family. But you get to this "free" country and suddenly they are trying to make you like them. It's not the big things that bother you - that's why you came here in the first place. It's the little things. Like wearing a traditional dress that your particular flavour of religion says that you should. Wearing it hurts no one - save perhaps yourself - but they want to make you change anyway. They want you to fit in. There's a line in a song, the title of which I have forgotten, but I'm sure it's about Ireland. It says "The strangers came and tried to teach us their way. They scorned us for being what we are. But they might as well go chasing after moonbeams, or light a penny candle from a star." These people come to Canada because they want what Canada has - the way of life, the prosperity, the security for their children. They want to be a part of our culture. But we push them outside. We don't even do it for a good reason. It's not like we're saying "you can't mutilate your daughter's genitals here". We're saying "you can't wear a traditional piece of clothing here". We don't have a good reason. We just want you to 'be like us'. Well we might as well send them all back, because they'll never change entirely - no matter how much we try and force them. We just force them outside, to the fringes. What about the Muslim Canadian Congress' position? They, themselves being Muslims, feel the niqab and burqa to marginalize women. Imagine the process an congress like the MCC must have gone through in recommending this. Imagine the risk factor in publicly stating something like this. They must have known how something like this would have been preceived in fundamental Islamic countries. Yet: 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. ... 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. This is very significant IMO. A national Islamic organization that wants to catch up with the rest of the world. Cheers. It is very significant. Because it shows they want to come to us. If they want to ban the niqab then I fully support their actions. But the pressure should never come from us. It's not our place, beyond what is necessary for the safety and security of society, to tell them how and when they should integrate. Otherwise there will be only resistance, conflict and ill will toward one another. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 14, 2010 8:20:56 GMT -5
interesting point, NG -- come to our country where you are free to choose . . . as long as you choose to be like us.
the law doesn't quite go that far though . . . there are always limits to choice . . . there is a difference between rights and responsibilities.
in this case: you have the right to wear a Niqba if you so choose; however, if you so choose I have the right not to serve you . . .
|
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Apr 14, 2010 9:22:54 GMT -5
interesting point, NG -- come to our country where you are free to choose . . . as long as you choose to be like us. the law doesn't quite go that far though . . . there are always] limits to choice . . . there is a difference between rights and responsibilities.
in this case: you have the right to wear a Niqba if you so choose; however, if you so choose I have the right not to serve you . . . Then you should also have the right not to serve someone if they are black, asian, french, english... Sorry, that just doesn't work. The nibaq is singled out, but really we single it out at least in part (I think) because we are afraid. In a pre-9/11 world this doesn't happen. Now extremist Arabs are our enemies, and all extremist Arabs wear nibaqs, therefore all persons who wear nibaqs are extremist Arabs (yes, I'm aware of the horrendous logical fallacy there, but that doesn't mean we don't think like that anyway). That's my theory, and I very well might be wrong - a sociologist I am not. This is especially true for the government. Even if you could somehow convince me that the private sector had the right to deny people access because of their dress (they do in some cases, but those dress codes are always specific and inclusive, rather than exclusive - only tuxedos rather than anything other than nibaqs) the government - paid for by tax payers money, by their money - should never exclude everyone. |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Apr 14, 2010 9:30:05 GMT -5
interesting point, NG -- come to our country where you are free to choose . . . as long as you choose to be like us. the law doesn't quite go that far though . . . there are always] limits to choice . . . there is a difference between rights and responsibilities.
in this case: you have the right to wear a Niqba if you so choose; however, if you so choose I have the right not to serve you . . . In the original case, the case that launched this whole debate, the woman wasn’t thrown out of the class for JUST wearing a niqab, as is being reported in the English media, but because she DEMANDED that the rest of the class, including the teacher, accommodate HER beliefs. The teacher was forced to give her one-on-one instructions (unpaid of course), she was allowed to give presentations facing away from the class (must have been really exciting and informative for the other students), and best of all she DEMANDED that all the males in the class be removed from her line of sight.Let me repeat that; no male in the classroom was allowed to sit in front of her in the classroom.How this doesn’t impact gender relations or the class itself would be beyond me. Clearly, she was a pain in the ass student, and that’s why they threw her out. She didn’t walk into the class on Day 1 and get immediately expelled. They tried, for weeks, to accommodate her beliefs, and when it became clear that she wasn’t going to be accommodated they gave her an ultimatum; stop ruining it for everyone else or get out. She chose to get out. No male can be in my line of sight. She sat in the front row, all the males sat behind her, because SHE said so.Compulsory extreme example: “I grew up in apartheid South Africa, and have a different view of blacks. I should be allowed to wear this Ku Klux Klan outfit to this government-sponsored class, I shouldn’t have to speak directly to blacks and if this is not possible then I should get a private lesson where no blacks are present. Any blacks in the classroom should sit behind me, and out of my line of sight, because looking at them makes me uncomfortable.” The niqab is symbolic. Muslim countries like Turkey, Egypt, Morroco and Tunisia have not banned it because it’s like, sooo last year’s fashion man, but because it is symbolic of a way of life that they do not want in their countries. Like it or not it is associated with Islamic fundamentalism, in much the same way the Swastika is associated with anti-Semitism. Clothing IS symbolic, and what you wear says a lot about who you are, your state of mind, your cultural beliefs and the people you may be associated with. Whether it be a goth look, a preppy look, a wedding dress, a white sheet, a white collar, or a niqab. To argue that its just a piece of fabric with no further ramifications is to miss the point of the debate. Which brings us back to the original question; what is a reasonable accommodation? |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 14, 2010 9:44:58 GMT -5
sure, sure . . . get us back on track. what's the fun of that?  funny that my rights so often mean yours don't count. I maintain: there is a difference between rights and responsibilities.You have a right to be in the class . . . you have a responsibility to be part of the class as it is offered. if you want special status you need to go to a "special status" [read private] class. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Apr 14, 2010 9:59:06 GMT -5
In the original case, the case that launched this whole debate, the woman wasn’t thrown out of the class for JUST wearing a niqab, as is being reported in the English media, but because she DEMANDED that the rest of the class, including the teacher, accommodate HER beliefs. The teacher was forced to give her one-on-one instructions (unpaid of course), she was allowed to give presentations facing away from the class (must have been really exciting and informative for the other students), and best of all she DEMANDED that all the males in the class be removed from her line of sight.{snip} The niqab is symbolic. Muslim countries like Turkey, Egypt, Morroco and Tunisia have not banned it because it’s like, sooo last year’s fashion man, but because it is symbolic of a way of life that they do not want in their countries. Like it or not it is associated with Islamic fundamentalism, in much the same way the Swastika is associated with anti-Semitism. Clothing IS symbolic, and what you wear says a lot about who you are, your state of mind, your cultural beliefs and the people you may be associated with. Whether it be a goth look, a preppy look, a wedding dress, a white sheet, a white collar, or a niqab. To argue that its just a piece of fabric with no further ramifications is to miss the point of the debate. Which brings us back to the original question; what is a reasonable accommodation? Then ban the act, not the clothing she happened to be wearing while committing the act. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 14, 2010 10:18:55 GMT -5
Yes, I agree ... it's easy to do. Reasonable accommodation = choosing to adopt and practice the customs of the new country you've moved to. And that's your position. Its a fair position, I suppose, but to me that's wrong. You see here's where you distance me from debating with you. I don't consider your position to be wrong. I consider it another opinion from another perspective. Suggesting anyone's position is "wrong" simply implies that your position is the only "right" one. And the other perspective is, you, as an immigrant, knew ahead of time what the customs, rules and regulations were to the country you wanted to immigrate to. So, you make your choice to come over and decide that those rules are offensive. Once more, your national representation, The Muslim Canadian Congress, now feels the customs you are bringing with you from your country of origin, are outdated. They're even saying, "... let's set new standards for Islam ..." Granted, for many Muslims this is a hard accommodation; even insulting I'd say. However, what's wrong with accommodating with your host's rules? What's wrong with people coming to the country having to adapt to our rules? The Muslim Canadian Congress feels the same way. I feel they've gone to the extreme in that they want to ban all niqabs and burqas; however, I also feel they're doing it for the right reasons. In addition to promoting new, more contemporary standards for Islam, I believe they are also trying to adapt to an already established Canadian culture. I believe that in some, definitely not all. Here's where our perspective differ again. If we were pushing them out, there'd be no discussion, zero tolerance and selective immigrations. Yet, in addition to the MCC's position, there are prominent Sikh's who are suggesting a ban on their kirpans or ceremonial daggers worn by orthodox members of his religion has no place in Canada and should be banned. In both cases we're seeing either national representatives and/or prominent citizens lobbying for changes that would otherwise be considered sacreligious outside of Canadian borders. Well said, TNG. However, it is our place to dictate and enforce the rules for our society. Other countries do it. Indeed, I've had friends who worked in Saudi Arabia. I forget exactly which part of the country they were in, but during a pray period they were swatted on the ankles with switch sticks until they were off the main street and out of sight in a building. Only after prayers were over, were my friends allowed to continue on their way. But here is an example of zero tolerance, zero accommodation. You've entered my house and if you don't know the rules, well by God Allah I'll teach you. Ignorance is no excuse; conform or suffer the consequences, which can result in legal action and incarceration. And unless there's actual abuse going on, our government will probably ask you, "were you not conversant with the customs? Why not?" This is why I see no problem with what Quebec wants to do. They're going about it the right way. They're not asking for a complete ban on niqabs and burqas, unlike the MCC by the way, and they're not using any kind of bullying either. All they're asking for is an accommodation. It's proper manners to adhere to the rules of someone else's house. However, those manners should work both ways. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 14, 2010 10:21:09 GMT -5
interesting point, NG -- come to our country where you are free to choose . . . as long as you choose to be like us. the law doesn't quite go that far though . . . there are always limits to choice . . . there is a difference between rights and responsibilities. in this case: you have the right to wear a Niqba if you so choose; however, if you so choose I have the right not to serve you . . . Then you should also have the right not to serve someone if they are black, asian, french, english... I would . . . if they demanded special accommodation [let's not move this into the realm of French/English, though]. BC's reasonable accommodation holds sway. I do not go into a vegan establishment and ask for an Angus burger -- it isn't reasonable. If I am at such an establishment and want a burger I'll have to ask for a soy burger [or more likely skip lunch  ]. I'll not throw a fit because they aren't serving me what I want; nor should a vegan go to The Works here in Ottawa and complain that it smells like meat. Sometimes special accommodations need to be made: new sidewalks take wheelchairs into account, for example. However, special accommodations can go to far, like the HRC that fined the co-op for not accommodating the overweight person / for not giving her the preferred parking space next to the door [to do so they had to take it from the elderly woman whose it was originally]. I'll accept that you are wrong ;D [sorry, Dis -- we were replying at the same time -- I'll take it back if you want, though there is a smilie ;D ] On the one hand we are afraid -- but not just of the possibility that a niqab-wearer might be a terrorist, but also of the possibility that anyone covering their face [ski-mask, whatever] may be one. So we take precautions and say "show yourself". On the other hand it is not fear but the desire for openness and common decency that we ask people to talk to us "face-to-face". the government isn't excluding anyone from the class -- all are welcome if they will abide by some form of acceptable policy. AND there are other alternatives -- she can take the course privately. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 14, 2010 10:32:22 GMT -5
interesting point, NG -- come to our country where you are free to choose . . . as long as you choose to be like us. the law doesn't quite go that far though . . . there are always] limits to choice . . . there is a difference between rights and responsibilities.
in this case: you have the right to wear a Niqba if you so choose; however, if you so choose I have the right not to serve you . . . Then you should also have the right not to serve someone if they are black, asian, french, english... If you refuse to serve black, asian, french, english then it is discrimination ... you can't dicriminate against someone based on the way they dress (I dont think so anyway). We have already read in this debate, that Muslim leaders say the burqa has no basis as a religious garment. And I believe discrimination has to be based on race, religion, age, gender, and/or sexual orientation. You, yourself, have argued the point "it is just a dress". I know banks and other stores do not have to serve you if you have a covered face. Some places will ask you to remove the bag/mask/etc. and if you don't will ask you to leave. Refusal can then result in trespassing. Some strip/dance clubs require ties, or no sneakers, or no hats ..... I know I had a professor at MUN who wouldn't teach if anyone wore a hat in class. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Apr 14, 2010 10:41:11 GMT -5
Then you should also have the right not to serve someone if they are black, asian, french, english... If you refuse to serve black, asian, french, english then it is discrimination ... you can't dicriminate against someone based on the way they dress (I dont think so anyway). We have already read in this debate, that Muslim leaders say the burqa has no basis as a religious garment. And I believe discrimination has to be based on race, religion, age, gender, and/or sexual orientation. You, yourself, have argued the point "it is just a dress". I know banks and other stores do not have to serve you if you have a covered face. Some places will ask you to remove the bag/mask/etc. and if you don't will ask you to leave. Refusal can then result in trespassing. Some strip/dance clubs require ties, or no sneakers, or no hats ..... I know I had a professor at MUN who wouldn't teach if anyone wore a hat in class. Muslim leaders say the the burqa has no basis as a religious garment. Others disagree. Much like some Christians believe that the host is literally the body of Jesus Christ, transubstantiated from whatever cardboard tasting substance the wafer is made from during the mass, while others believe it is merely a symbol. Further more you could argue that, even if it is not a distinct race, it is a distinct culture (ooh, I know how people love those words) within a range of racial groups. Much like the Quebecois are. So if it's alright to deny service to those that wear a nibaq, I guess it's also alright to deny service to those people that speak french. I've already addressed other dress codes - they are inclusive rather than exclusive ("must wear a tie" rather than "no nibaqs") and banks have a legitimate reason for being able to identify a customer (as they are handing out someone's money). Further more they are private institution - not taxpayer funded. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Apr 14, 2010 10:48:41 GMT -5
BC's reasonable accommodation holds sway. I do not go into a vegan establishment and ask for an Angus burger -- it isn't reasonable. If I am at such an establishment and want a burger I'll have to ask for a soy burger [or more likely skip lunch ]. I'll not throw a fit because they aren't serving me what I want; nor should a vegan go to The Works here in Ottawa and complain that it smells like meat. Sometimes special accommodations need to be made: new sidewalks take wheelchairs into account, for example. However, special accommodations can go to far, like the HRC that fined the co-op for not accommodating the overweight person / for not giving her the preferred parking space next to the door [to do so they had to take it from the elderly woman whose it was originally]. That's because you have other options. As a vegetarian you can find a vegetarian restaurant or cook at home. A niqba wearing Muslim, who needs to access government services, has no other choice. Also, this is not an HRC debate, so it's not worth my time to go down that road. Suffice it to say that 99.9% of their problems could easily be solved by simply thinking rather than judging. I'll accept that you are wrong ;D [sorry, Dis -- we were replying at the same time -- I'll take it back if you want, though there is a smilie ;D ] On the one hand we are afraid -- but not just of the possibility that a niqab-wearer might be a terrorist, but also of the possibility that anyone covering their face [ski-mask, whatever] may be one. So we take precautions and say "show yourself". On the other hand it is not fear but the desire for openness and common decency that we ask people to talk to us "face-to-face". I very well might be - although you have to do a bit more to prove me wrong. My moral compass is always right, remember? (-: Seriously though, I think it is fear. And I think fear is a terrible reason to do anything. It means the terrorists have won. They have made us so frightened of them that we abandon that which we hold dear. the government isn't excluding anyone from the class -- all are welcome if they will abide by some form of acceptable policy. AND there are other alternatives -- she can take the course privately. They are welcome if they abide by a policy which forces them to abandon their cultural moors (is that proper spelling) for no good reason. It's not us telling her to stop complaining about other people in the class because they have a right to be there. We're telling her she doesn't have a right to be there. And while she may have alternatives, how many of them are prohibitively expensive? |
|
]. I'll not throw a fit because they aren't serving me what I want; nor should a vegan go to The Works here in Ottawa and complain that it smells like meat.