|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 14, 2010 11:20:21 GMT -5
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 ] No worries mate. However, if you feel guilty I can lessen your time in pergatory if you were make out all cheques payable to "Disgruntled70sHab Pensions and Social Engineering Inc." But, I'll need to see your face for positive ID  ;D This was a point I wanted to make several times; however, I'm always going here and there throughout the workday and I just lose the thought. What we're talking about in the root sense here IS fear. a. The fear of losing one's cultural identity and it pertains to both sides. b. The fear of establishing a dangerous precedence for the conduct of future classes and, on a much larger scale, that can result in the same mess some European countries are going through right now. c. The fear of dividing the people who have lived in your country for centuries. d. The fear of being harshly disciplined for failing to adhere to the teachings of your customs and/or religion. e. The fear of being singled out and ostrasized for upholding your beliefs (on both sides). f. Fear of not knowing which version of the story the media will promote. Case in point: 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.There's a lot of fear in this whole scenario. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 14, 2010 11:30:23 GMT -5
Hmmmm. Well said, Dis.
I'll go along with that.
|
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Apr 14, 2010 11:38:13 GMT -5
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. It is the only right one. Until I'm convinced otherwise. It's not that I don't accept that I may be wrong, but that I believe I am right - based on the situation and the thought I've put into it (and my own moral codes and what not). I may have overlooked something. I may have failed to consider something from a certain angle, or overlooked a certain perspective. The purpose of debate is to find those points - those things which we miss (because we are flawed creatures) and add them to our own knowledge and experience - learn from others. So far there have been three main points which have been used to justify this law: (a) It's for the protection of women A noble ideal, but in the end all this does is put barriers between women who might need access to these things. Asking them to give up an aspect of their culture to contact government and possibly take part in programs that will help them seems to only hinder, not further this end. The effects of others (particularily children) who might view the burqa or niqba as a symbol of misogeny is negligible. (b) It's for our protection I have no problem with ordering head coverings removed in cases where an identity must be confirmed. However this law is broad and goes beyond that scope. If it were restricted in some way it would be a fine law, but it's not. (c) They should adopt our culture They should. On their own time, not on ours. Forcing a culture group to assimilate has only failed in the past. We tried it with the French. We tried it with the Aboriginal Peoples. They were all spectacular failures. 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. And you're right. But this is not a law that complies with the "spirit" of Canada (yes a vague and meaningless term - I'm about to be more specific). Our country is, primarily, about freedom. And we are, for no good reason, restricting the freedom of women who wish to wear the nibaq. Now you may counter that Canada is not about freedom, that it is about something else - cooperation (although it would violate this too IMHO) or justice (and this) or hockey (which is nonsensical, and mostly a joke entry). We're singling out people for no good reason. Denying them services unless they change their ways and become like us. That's bad for countless reasons/ 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? Because it's a law without reason. Imagine if I passed a law that said you can't get government services unless you are wearing a Maple Leafs jersey. For some of us it'd be a problem, since blue and white tends to spontainiously conbust in our presence. For others it would be a more emotional thing. Now the nibaq law has a bit of practicality to it - I'm fine with it mandating that if you need to be identified then you need to be identified and get over it. But if I don't need to be identified - say, while taking a French class - then there is no justification for it. 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. Kirpans are different in that they are concealed weapons - they are a different debate altogether. As for the MCC - you know something, that's exactly what we want. Come to the table. Come sit with us. Be a part of our family. Accept us, and we accept you. Forcing them, however, does nothing of the sort. It forces to people to our table and tells them we will only accept them if they are like us. 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. As I keep repeating - so? Let them do in Saudi Arabia what they will do. We are better than they are. This is Canada. 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. To me it is bullying. Once again, if the law is cut down so that it makes sense - so that burqas are removed only when required (and, if you are a female who wants to only speak with a female you will wait your turn until a female employee becomes available to help you - not even a special dispensation to create a woman-only line) then I'm fine with it. A broad ban on accessing any government service is counter-productive. It drives a wedge instead of building bridges. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 14, 2010 12:23:18 GMT -5
Some 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. It isn't a part of their culture either from what I understand ... it is because their husband wishes it so. How is "no hat" , "no sneakers" different from "no burqa" ? |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Apr 14, 2010 13:49:40 GMT -5
It isn't a part of their culture either from what I understand ... it is because their husband wishes it so. How is "no hat" , "no sneakers" different from "no burqa" ? What about the western woman in Florida (cited a couple pages back) that converted to Islam and demanded she be permitted to wear the face covering on her driver's license? Not that she should be allowed to, mind you, but it's clearly an example of where someone has chosen to wear the burqa rather than is forced to wear it, since she more or less chose to accept the tenets of the culture. It is very rare that anyone actually has a legal right to deman someone take off their hat. Not even when the national anthem is sung or at a funeral. Your example - a university professor - is anecdotal at best, and generally speaking, focuses on the eccentricities of an academic (who are, by and large, and eccentric bunch). He probably left himself open to a lawsuit in his situation, but the flipside of that a lawsuit is a long way to go to be allowed to wear a ballcap - a cultural identifier would be another thing, but I'd bet not many (read: not one) people in the professor's class wore turbans or face coverings or the like. Shoes is another matter - sanitary reasons I believe. Is it necessary - I don't know, but again health and welfare is served. Same with the "no shirt" and "no pets" regulation. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 14, 2010 15:18:56 GMT -5
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. It is the only right one. Until I'm convinced otherwise. It's not that I don't accept that I may be wrong, but that I believe I am right - based on the situation and the thought I've put into it (and my own moral codes and what not). I may have overlooked something. I may have failed to consider something from a certain angle, or overlooked a certain perspective. The purpose of debate is to find those points - those things which we miss (because we are flawed creatures) and add them to our own knowledge and experience - learn from others. Well said, TNG. I've openly admitted that discussions like this often prove to still have educational value for me. By chance what have you learned form this discussion. I disagree with your opinions here. I honestly feel accommodating to the rights of one woman in this case to be an infringement of the rights her classmates and the right of the institution to conduct classes in accordance with their policy. The reasonable accommodation BC asks about is very reasonable. Having women totally cloaked is one thing, but the other issue is how men must be made to accommodate a custom that is totally foreign to them. Is it the pending bill that's the problem or the where this discussion inevitably went to? I'll have to review the bill once again. I remember the MCC wanting to ban the niqab and the burqa, but not this bill. I'll check it out when I get home later this evening. Actually, we're not out of the woods yet, but we're getting there. The country is still together and we have issues from coast to coast to settle. However, it's possible an issue like this is what's necessary to bring many of us together on the same page. I believe this is all about Canada and her identity. There are plenty of good reasons why women must properly identify themselves for specific services. That's not a bad thing. However, it's the MCC that is recommending a total ban on the niqab and burqa. Again, I'll check the bill out when I get home sometime tonight, but I'm not so sure it's calling for all-encompassing total ban on this traditional head garb. No, quite the contrary actually. I spent 23 years in uniform defending the opposite. Incidently, we have soldiers from many different religions and races, men and women, all wearing the same uniform, all serving the same country and the culture and values it promotes. Actually to talk the way I do means to be singled out in the media as a bigot. And if I try to defend myself it's possible the resulting news story will be what that editor wants to publish. Then so are all of the laws Quebec has passed to protect their identity and culture. I disagree with your opinion. If that jersey was pulled over your head so I couldn't see your face then, yes, I'd ask you to reveal your face. Does that mean then that this person has the right to leave that jersey over his/her head ... and make those wearing other jersey's sit out of plain site of you while you're in class? Yes, it's a silly response, but you'll have to come up with a better example than a hockey jersey-to-niqab. One covers the face, the other doesn't. I disagree ... it's about how far we have to accommodate in our society. How much is enough already?!?! Much of Islam is like other religions. It's about dictation, not accommodation. There's more I'd like to contribute but I've got to get out of the office. It's a long way home. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 14, 2010 18:39:09 GMT -5
Shoes is another matter - sanitary reasons I believe. Is it necessary - I don't know, but again health and welfare is served. Same with the "no shirt" and "no pets" regulation. This is not what I meant. There is a bar here in St. John's that had a strict no sneakers policy (they have been more lenient in the past year admittedly), and there were a few (a strip club and a high end bar) that have no hat policies .... they could refuse you service or admittance and did. How is this different than "no burqa" |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Apr 15, 2010 0:26:13 GMT -5
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". from 'People think you're oppressed' if you wear the niqab |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Apr 15, 2010 7:02:48 GMT -5
Well said, TNG. I've openly admitted that discussions like this often prove to still have educational value for me. By chance what have you learned form this discussion. I value internal consistency. If my moral code does not hold in all cases, then it's not really a code - I'm just doing what I want in a given situation. Of all the points presented the most difficult to remain conistent on is the "African Tribesman" problem that has been referred to again and again. Part of it is because I feel that he should be allowed and that the 'threat' he poses is negligible. However since he does pose a 'danger' to our children according to the commons - well, the right to be safe trumps any other right in the book, so I can deal. It's not a good defnese of my opinion on that, but it's a defense. Otherwise the three primary arguments (as presented above) are all fail to provide me with any sort of internal consistency when we look at them. I've posted my critques of them, and you've responded below, so I'll save that until later. I disagree with your opinions here. I honestly feel accommodating to the rights of one woman in this case to be an infringement of the rights her classmates and the right of the institution to conduct classes in accordance with their policy. The reasonable accommodation BC asks about is very reasonable. Having women totally cloaked is one thing, but the other issue is how men must be made to accommodate a custom that is totally foreign to them. I agree. And if the law said "government services are open to everyone" (and then, obviously, defined it) so that she lost her right to complain about such trivial things I would support the law. But the proposed law, as I understand it, specifically bans the wearing of a burqa or niqba when partaking of government services. You're banning what she was wearing, simply because she was a horse's behind while wearing it. Allowing her to wear the burqa in a situation where there is no harm in having her wear it (such as in a French classroom) is "reasonable accomodation". Tolerating the rest of her nonsense is not, but that is not what the law addresses (or at least not why I disagree with the law so vehemently) Is it the pending bill that's the problem or the where this discussion inevitably went to? I'll have to review the bill once again. I remember the MCC wanting to ban the niqab and the burqa, but not this bill. I'll check it out when I get home later this evening. I may be wrong, since I'm not a lawyer and my French is limited to a few words I know from watching hockey on RDS, but judging by the English reports I have read, I believe the proposed law specifically prohibits any person from wearing the burqa or nibaq while partaking of services provided by the Province of Quebec. This, at least as far as I know, would range from getting medical service to visiting a friend in the hospital and getting directions and from visiting a government office to picking up a few forms at the DMV. It might (and I can't be sure on this) even extend to shelters for battered women run by the province. Stop and think about that for a second - everyone on here seems to be of the opinion that these women are almost all battered (I disagree, but that's beside the point here). This law may force them to remove their head covering, a piece of their culture that they cling to with religious ferocity, before they can get help. Another barrier between them and the help they need. Actually, we're not out of the woods yet, but we're getting there. The country is still together and we have issues from coast to coast to settle. However, it's possible an issue like this is what's necessary to bring many of us together on the same page. Or drives us further apart. I once again point to the many examples of failed 'forced' integration in the past 2000 years. I believe this is all about Canada and her identity. There are plenty of good reasons why women must properly identify themselves for specific services. That's not a bad thing. And when there is a need for specific services I am fine with the law. Want to enter a government building - I'll be needing to see your face ma'am. Want to get a driver's license - take off the burqa and stand over here so I can take your picture. Don't want another man to see you? I need to identify you - life is about tough choices ma'am so you either remove the head scarf or you don't get a license. But the rule as written (or as I understand it is written) is too broad. Want to pick up tax forms to fill out and mail in? Show your face. Want to register (not be treated by a doctor - just register) at a hospital? Show your face. Want to attend a french class? Show your face. No, quite the contrary actually. I spent 23 years in uniform defending the opposite. Incidently, we have soldiers from many different religions and races, men and women, all wearing the same uniform, all serving the same country and the culture and values it promotes. Well, last I recall they got rid of that ugly green "Canadian Armed Forces" general uniform, so there's at least three uniforms - Air, Navy and Army. But that's nitpicking. If I recall correctly (and it may not have been the case when you were in the service, as I believe they are more recent - and in any case they are very isolated) there have been several special provisions made. Sikhs can wear a turban instead of the traditional head dress and possibly have less than your standard military approved beard as well (kirpans, on the other hand, are not as big an issue). Inuit (or Innu - can't remember which) can wear their hair long as cutting it is a symbol of mourning in their culture. Don't they count as "different" uniforms Actually to talk the way I do means to be singled out in the media as a bigot. And if I try to defend myself it's possible the resulting news story will be what that editor wants to publish. As I mentioned above, I don't think this opinion is bigoted, just ignorant and misguided. Misguided in your case, rather than ignorant, because you've clearly put some thought into your opinion and are not acting under the 'burqa equals terrorist' mentality that (I fear) many do. There is good intention behind your opinion, but it is tainted with poor execution. That's okay though - I'm here to help you see the light (-: Then so are all of the laws Quebec has passed to protect their identity and culture. I disagree with your opinion. No comment. Because I'm sure you know where I'll go on this particular topic. If that jersey was pulled over your head so I couldn't see your face then, yes, I'd ask you to reveal your face. Does that mean then that this person has the right to leave that jersey over his/her head ... and make those wearing other jersey's sit out of plain site of you while you're in class? Do you have a right to see his face, by any chance? And we're not talking about the other aspects of what the women did (or what the law might say) - my critique is of the burqa ban only. Everything else is immaterial. Yes, it's a silly response, but you'll have to come up with a better example than a hockey jersey-to-niqab. One covers the face, the other doesn't. But I'm not suggesting that we should ban identifying these women when necessary. I'm not even proposing we go out of our way to accomodate them when they need to be identified. I am suggesting that, in situations where you do not need to be identified, you not be forced to identify yourself or remove the headcovering which is closely related to your cultural beliefs. I disagree ... it's about how far we have to accommodate in our society. How much is enough already?!?! All my comments above pretty clearly state where the line is. Much of Islam is like other religions. It's about dictation, not accommodation. So why should we lower ourselves to their standard? |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 15, 2010 7:11:18 GMT -5
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". from 'People think you're oppressed' if you wear the niqabThe Supreme Court in the U.S. (both legal systems based on common law) has accepted the arguement that: " religious indoctrination can cause potential converts to lose the free exercise of their will, and that persons so influenced can sue for damages" |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Apr 15, 2010 8:07:08 GMT -5
I value internal consistency. If my moral code does not hold in all cases, then it's not really a code - I'm just doing what I want in a given situation. Of all the points presented the most difficult to remain conistent on is the "African Tribesman" problem that has been referred to again and again. Part of it is because I feel that he should be allowed and that the 'threat' he poses is negligible. However since he does pose a 'danger' to our children according to the commons - well, the right to be safe trumps any other right in the book, so I can deal. It's not a good defnese of my opinion on that, but it's a defense. Ah, but now you’re not being consistent. Since the naked tribesman poses a "danger to our children according to the commons” then the law applies, no matter what the minority believes. As, rightly or wrongly, it works in a democracy. According to recent polls 95% percent of Quebecers support a ban on the burqa, and 75% of Canadians in general. Since the “commons” believe the burqa should be banned then shouldn’t you have to “deal?” Even though you don’t personally believe it to be so, the common folk, in their misguided ignorance believe that a 6’4 naked black man teaching little girls grammar and basic math is a bad thing. You can apparently accept that ban on his cultural beliefs because the right to be safe trumps all, even if the safety is only in the (mis) perception of the masses. So to be consistent you should be accepting the burqa ban as well, as apparently the masses believe it to be a threat, even if you do not. To be consistent you would have to accept both the tribesman AND the burqa. Otherwise you are doing the exact same thing you accuse others of doing; ignoring your moral code and doing what you want in a given situation. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 15, 2010 8:07:50 GMT -5
A very good read, MC, thanks. It covers both perspectives very well.
"In Canada we recognize the equality of men and women. The burqa marginalizes women," said Salma Siddiqui, a member of the outspoken and secular Muslim Canadian Congress.
... and the other side, leaving tradition and religion out of it:
Yet in Canada, some academics, activists and Muslims say such a move is perhaps more un-Canadian than the niqab itself.
... and better still:
This month, the MCC called upon the government to ban the niqab and burqa in Canada.
France, Italy and the Netherlands are seriously considering such legislation.
As I was saying to Franko, whether we can admit to it or not, there is a signifcant fear factor here. Indeed, some European governments are almost in a panic mode out of fear of losing their traditional cultural identities. And from I've read, they've got some valid concerns. Based on these examples, these fears, I don't blame Quebec one bit for implementing their 'protectionism.'
... the fallout:
The comments of the university's Sheikh Mohammed Tantawi ... especially strengthened the stance of progressive Muslim groups who say the niqab is a cultural practice and a symbol of more conservative Islam.
To me, this is a clear attempt by some Muslim groups to bring Islam into a newer, more contemporary world. Given the extremism that's prevalent in our world, I'd say initiatives like this take a lot of courage to lobby.
In each of these examples we're seeing perspectives from all sides. We have Muslims who feel traditional head garb (less the hijab) to be out of date, while other Muslims feel banning such clothing to be against Canadian society.
If nothing else, the Muslim world is fastly approaching a crossroads. They have no option now; they're going to have to address the changing directions of their religion. But, they're not alone. The Catholic church is taking major hits all around the world now, while the Pope is trying to uphold traditional Catholic values, many Catholics are, and have been for a while, living the way they want to.
To me, in each case, it shows progression. People, on both sides of the fence, have always asked questions, but nowadays they're asking the right questions. The answers are difficult to arrive at, more so when there's a fear factor involved.
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 15, 2010 10:08:18 GMT -5
Well said, TNG. I've openly admitted that discussions like this often prove to still have educational value for me. By chance what have you learned form this discussion. I value internal consistency. I'll have to assume the answer to my question is no. No ... I did not say that at all ... this is a very poor choice of words that distances me from your viewpoint. She's being made to remove the facial covering because it's a government-sponsored course she's undertaking. The remainder of the class, both men and women, are the ones accommodating. Men will be made to sit behind her while it's possible other women in the class may precieve this as preferential treatment. "What makes her so special." Being a professional educator at both the instructional and higher-learning levels, I've seen what the preception of an 'accommodating teacher' can do to a class. Having been part of an appointed group to investigate such allegations, it's damaging not only to the educator, but to the institution itself. It's the kind of material that makes the front pages a lot of times. You're right, it's not the law that addresses this; it's the policy of the institution, the integrity of which, must be upheld. You've already agreed to this. ... and government-sponsored courses as well. No, not everyone. Not at all. If I remember correctly, BC was referring to the stigma associated with the niqab and burqa. And what Quebec is now asking for is an accommodation to their way of life, not the other way around. That's a barrier those who choose to live in Quebec will have to deal with, not the other way around. Yet, should one choose to live in another country, then it should be they who adapt to the laws and culture they wish to live in. I'm not so sure you're reference to tax forms is viable, TNG. I mean, I can go into a post office, or a company that specializes in tax returns and pick up a tax package. No waiting in line, no talking to a clerk. However, if you want to register for, or receive health services, then there's no disrespect in confirming that the face under the burqa is the same as on the health card. Photo ID on a health card became necessary when it was discovered the amount of health care fraud that was going on. And if you want to take French classes, what's wrong with making sure it's the same person coming into classes each and every day? There were dress regulations that accommodated the wearing of a turbin. I remember that well as a matter of fact. I also remember the CF trying to come up with a bullet-proof turbin at one point. But, while a turban is acceptable in garrison, it can seriously compromise a soldier's personal protection in combat. Actually, regulations for hair are in place for both Inuit and First Nations. However, without getting into the actual specifics (they're on my baseline actually) there are regulations in place for that as well. Having said all of that, I've had Muslim and Asian students come through my classrooms. If they had insisted on wearing traditional head garb then the CF would have no option but to accommodate them (it's in the regs after all); however, not one of them have exercised the option to do so. I can't tell you why, only they know the answer to that. But, I can tell you that they are fine young men and women who are part of a team, which is part of a much larger representation. They've consciously made the decision to adapt to the uniform and the standards their peers have. This here may be your opinion, but it's a judgment on the person, not their opinion. You've done this before already in this discussion and the person you were address simply laughed it off. Me? I'd never judge your execution and/or you, yourself, or anyone else in front of the community. I'd never suggest that anyone on this board is ignorant or misguided in their beliefs. All that would do is distance others from partaking in a very useful discussion and possibly run the risk of conveying a negative image of myself. No, I feel myself to be much bigger than that  I disagree. The thread suggests otherwise. How are we lowering our standard by asking people to abide by the rules of the house we own? If anyone comes into my house and tries to dictate to me how I should conduct it, or tries to make me feel guilty for the way I conduct it, I'll show them the door. And I would care less if they're English, French, Muslim, Asian, tribal or redneck, Liberal, socialist or neocon for that matter. They'll all be treated the same in my house. If they don't like it they know where the door is. As for the discussion itself, well, I liken it now to a rowboat out in the middle of the lake; however, that rowboat only has one oar. There's no balance, no clear direction. It's very difficult to find any kind of solid ground, moral or otherwise, when that occurs. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Apr 15, 2010 11:03:53 GMT -5
The Supreme Court in the U.S. (both legal systems based on common law) has accepted the arguement that: " religious indoctrination can cause potential converts to lose the free exercise of their will, and that persons so influenced can sue for damages" Dude, if you're expecting me to defend religion, it's not gonna happen! I was just clarifying that in Canada we don't discriminate on the basis of beliefs, regardless of whether they are officially sanctioned (and boy would it ever be silly: "you can believe what this guy tells you but not what that guy tells you"). |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 15, 2010 13:28:54 GMT -5
The Supreme Court in the U.S. (both legal systems based on common law) has accepted the arguement that: " religious indoctrination can cause potential converts to lose the free exercise of their will, and that persons so influenced can sue for damages" Dude, if you're expecting me to defend religion, it's not gonna happen! I was just clarifying that in Canada we don't discriminate on the basis of beliefs, regardless of whether they are officially sanctioned (and boy would it ever be silly: "you can believe what this guy tells you but not what that guy tells you"). No no .. I dont expect you to defend religion. I am just pointing out that in court it is how good you can argue a point, and the arguement can be made that some aspects of religion/customs are adhered to due to duress, or they feel the loss of their free will ... which is also against our Charter of Rights. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Apr 15, 2010 18:17:54 GMT -5
I value internal consistency. If my moral code does not hold in all cases, then it's not really a code - I'm just doing what I want in a given situation. Of all the points presented the most difficult to remain conistent on is the "African Tribesman" problem that has been referred to again and again. Part of it is because I feel that he should be allowed and that the 'threat' he poses is negligible. However since he does pose a 'danger' to our children according to the commons - well, the right to be safe trumps any other right in the book, so I can deal. It's not a good defnese of my opinion on that, but it's a defense. Ah, but now you’re not being consistent. Since the naked tribesman poses a "danger to our children according to the commons” then the law applies, no matter what the minority believes. As, rightly or wrongly, it works in a democracy. According to recent polls 95% percent of Quebecers support a ban on the burqa, and 75% of Canadians in general. Since the “commons” believe the burqa should be banned then shouldn’t you have to “deal?” Even though you don’t personally believe it to be so, the common folk, in their misguided ignorance believe that a 6’4 naked black man teaching little girls grammar and basic math is a bad thing. You can apparently accept that ban on his cultural beliefs because the right to be safe trumps all, even if the safety is only in the (mis) perception of the masses. So to be consistent you should be accepting the burqa ban as well, as apparently the masses believe it to be a threat, even if you do not. To be consistent you would have to accept both the tribesman AND the burqa. Otherwise you are doing the exact same thing you accuse others of doing; ignoring your moral code and doing what you want in a given situation. Nope. You would have a point if the poll said anything about why Quebecers support the ban. As it is there are any number of reasons. Maybe they want it because they think forcing a culture to integrate into theirs is a good idea. Maybe they want the ban because they are petty and want to exact revenge on the Saudi's for doing it to their people in SA. Maybe they're acutely fashion aware and think the burqas are just plain ugly. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Apr 15, 2010 19:09:23 GMT -5
No ... I did not say that at all ... this is a very poor choice of words that distances me from your viewpoint. She's being made to remove the facial covering because it's a government-sponsored course she's undertaking. Okay. So now answer the question why? Why is she not allowed to wear a burqa to the class. The remainder of the class, both men and women, are the ones accommodating. Men will be made to sit behind her while it's possible other women in the class may precieve this as preferential treatment. "What makes her so special." Not what I'm talking about. I am talking about the burqa/niqab. Nothing more. You're dragging the conversation off topic. Being a professional educator at both the instructional and higher-learning levels, I've seen what the preception of an 'accommodating teacher' can do to a class. Having been part of an appointed group to investigate such allegations, it's damaging not only to the educator, but to the institution itself. It's the kind of material that makes the front pages a lot of times. So? Once again you're dragging things off topic. We are referring the the burqa/nibaq ban - not anything else that happened to go on in that class. Unless you are suggesting that the head dress she was wearing somehow caused her behavior this line of discussion is irrelevant. And what Quebec is now asking for is an accommodation to their way of life, not the other way around. That's a barrier those who choose to live in Quebec will have to deal with, not the other way around. How does any woman (or me, for that matter) wearing a burqa force you (or anyone else) to do anything to accommodate me? I'm not so sure you're reference to tax forms is viable, TNG. I mean, I can go into a post office, or a company that specializes in tax returns and pick up a tax package. No waiting in line, no talking to a clerk. Doesn't change the fact that forms (of any kind) that are not available (and depending on the reading of the law, even if they are) a burqa-wearing person can not get them. Now, as I said, I'm sure most people will follow the law in the spirit it's intended - but not all. However, if you want to register for, or receive health services, then there's no disrespect in confirming that the face under the burqa is the same as on the health card. Photo ID on a health card became necessary when it was discovered the amount of health care fraud that was going on. And if you want to take French classes, what's wrong with making sure it's the same person coming into classes each and every day? If it's a part of the health card, then it might be valid reason to check the identity upon registration. I personally thought it was only OHIP that did that (and frankly, 50% of the time with OHIP they just needed my number - not the card itself). Now that I'm back home I have no photo on my MCP card. There were dress regulations that accommodated the wearing of a turbin. I remember that well as a matter of fact. I also remember the CF trying to come up with a bullet-proof turbin at one point. But, while a turban is acceptable in garrison, it can seriously compromise a soldier's personal protection in combat. So - you're saying accommodations were made for wearing cultural dress, except in a situation where lives are at stake. Interesting, because that's exactly what I've been saying the law should be all along. Having said all of that, I've had Muslim and Asian students come through my classrooms. If they had insisted on wearing traditional head garb then the CF would have no option but to accommodate them (it's in the regs after all); however, not one of them have exercised the option to do so. I can't tell you why, only they know the answer to that. But, I can tell you that they are fine young men and women who are part of a team, which is part of a much larger representation. They've consciously made the decision to adapt to the uniform and the standards their peers have. Also what I've been saying. It's great when they come to us. But trying to force them is futile and likely to only lead to frustration and ill will This here may be your opinion, but it's a judgment on the person, not their opinion. You've done this before already in this discussion and the person you were address simply laughed it off. Me? I'd never judge your execution and/or you, yourself, or anyone else in front of the community. I'd never suggest that anyone on this board is ignorant or misguided in their beliefs. All that would do is distance others from partaking in a very useful discussion and possibly run the risk of conveying a negative image of myself. No, I feel myself to be much bigger than that And that's your choice. And if you think I've stepped over a line feel free to say so - but you should say so openly. I don't mean it as an insult - however while I feel your basic logic is sound, the basic axioms which you build your argument around are wrong. As such you are misguided. Would you rather I danced around the topic and made less than cleverly veiled comments to that effect? How are we lowering our standard by asking people to abide by the rules of the house we own? If anyone comes into my house and tries to dictate to me how I should conduct it, or tries to make me feel guilty for the way I conduct it, I'll show them the door. And I would care less if they're English, French, Muslim, Asian, tribal or redneck, Liberal, socialist or neocon for that matter. They'll all be treated the same in my house. If they don't like it they know where the door is. The sikh is allowed to wear his turban (and, of all things, his kirpan). I am allowed to wear a wig, a false moustache, makeup and otherwise alter my appearance (and disguise my identity). The burqa wearing Muslim is not. As for the discussion itself, well, I liken it now to a rowboat out in the middle of the lake; however, that rowboat only has one oar. There's no balance, no clear direction. It's very difficult to find any kind of solid ground, moral or otherwise, when that occurs. Doesn't mean you give up in the middle of the pond. You keep trying. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 15, 2010 19:57:53 GMT -5
Guys, I'm going to temporarily step back from the discussion right now. There doesn't seem to be any progression to speak of and the dwindling amount of people participating might be indicative of that.
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Apr 16, 2010 1:10:22 GMT -5
However, if you want to register for, or receive health services, then there's no disrespect in confirming that the face under the burqa is the same as on the health card. Photo ID on a health card became necessary when it was discovered the amount of health care fraud that was going on. And if you want to take French classes, what's wrong with making sure it's the same person coming into classes each and every day? It seems clear to me that the law is not just about "confirming that the face under the burqa is the same" or "making sure it's the same person coming into classes," because it's not a requirement to temporarily show your face for identification purposes when entering the class or going up to the counter or whatever. It's a requirement to keep your face exposed for the entire duration of the class/interaction with a government bureaucrat/etc.. Whether you think that's a good law or not, it's clearly not the same thing. As far as the discussion not progressing, I would guess that's because people keep talking as though this law only applies in specific cases where identification is important (and I think we're all pretty much in agreement about those cases anyway). |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Apr 16, 2010 8:26:29 GMT -5
Nope. You would have a point if the poll said anything about why Quebecers support the ban. As it is there are any number of reasons. Maybe they want it because they think forcing a culture to integrate into theirs is a good idea. Maybe they want the ban because they are petty and want to exact revenge on the Saudi's for doing it to their people in SA. Maybe they're acutely fashion aware and think the burqas are just plain ugly. Riiiight… And people don’t want the naked tribesman because they are afraid he might catch a cold. I mean did anybody ask people why they don’t want him in the classroom? Was there ever a poll on that? Or did we just assume, because of everything else that we know about our culture, that it was because of a sexual threat? Since I know you don’t follow the Quebec media all that much, and the French media at all, I’ll “inform” you of what has already transpired here. We’ve already had this discussion. The government appointed a commission to consult with the general population on the issue of reasonable accommodation, to find out what the “commons” mood, attitudes and reasoning was. The Bouchard – Taylor Commission concluded, after holding 15 separate public consultations, that the public perception of reasonable accommodation could be placed into several broad categories, which included the following; * Harmonization practices are contrary to Québec’s core values. * Harmonization practices threaten social cohesion. * Harmonization practices threaten the very survival of Québec culture. In other words Quebecers fear that there is a significant threat to their culture, society and core values, in much the same way people feel that a naked tribesman would pose a threat to their children. Government commissions, letters-to-the-editor, editorials, interviews with the man on the street, other polls on reasonable accommodation, they all point to the same conclusion; Quebecers, rightly or wrongly, feel that their culture, their very way of life, is threatened by “unreasonable accommodations.” Your attempt to deflect the poll results to the conclusion that “perhaps it’s a fashion statement” is at best inconsistent, at worst sophistry. You cannot argue for a universal truth, and then fall back on a moral relativism position. Anyways, like Dis I am going to step away now. |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Apr 16, 2010 11:26:41 GMT -5
Bikini-clad teachers. Any law against that?
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 16, 2010 12:01:47 GMT -5
not according to these guys
|
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Apr 16, 2010 12:45:04 GMT -5
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. 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. ...government officials shouldn't have to be aware of who's wearing it and who isn't and make ad-hoc decisions. Citizen should know what they can or can't do. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse. Well Aisha, once that bill passes, it'll solve the valid clarity/predictably issue you raise. Thank you for your concern. Meanwhile if I was you, despite the fact that we have always welcom diffirent cultures that bonify, enrich and color our own, I'd question myself if I want to be part of a society where men and women are considered equal, where they can freely look and speak to each other. We're not coming back on that. Not a judgement on your culture or religion, but I feel there are societies and country that better fit your choices. Again, had we been clearer on who we are and what we stand for, as a vast majority, those choices could have been easier for you (or for whoever decides for you). Like they are for me. We're working on it though. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 16, 2010 20:55:06 GMT -5
You cannot argue for a universal truth, and then fall back on a moral relativism position. That is the biggest problem I have. Freedom is a very narrow ledge where one side is slippery slop and the other a wall of censorship. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Apr 17, 2010 15:17:48 GMT -5
Riiiight… And people don’t want the naked tribesman because they are afraid he might catch a cold. I mean did anybody ask people why they don’t want him in the classroom? Was there ever a poll on that? Or did we just assume, because of everything else that we know about our culture, that it was because of a sexual threat? Since I know you don’t follow the Quebec media all that much, and the French media at all, I’ll “inform” you of what has already transpired here. We’ve already had this discussion. The government appointed a commission to consult with the general population on the issue of reasonable accommodation, to find out what the “commons” mood, attitudes and reasoning was. The Bouchard – Taylor Commission concluded, after holding 15 separate public consultations, that the public perception of reasonable accommodation could be placed into several broad categories, which included the following; * Harmonization practices are contrary to Québec’s core values. * Harmonization practices threaten social cohesion. * Harmonization practices threaten the very survival of Québec culture. In other words Quebecers fear that there is a significant threat to their culture, society and core values, in much the same way people feel that a naked tribesman would pose a threat to their children. Government commissions, letters-to-the-editor, editorials, interviews with the man on the street, other polls on reasonable accommodation, they all point to the same conclusion; Quebecers, rightly or wrongly, feel that their culture, their very way of life, is threatened by “unreasonable accommodations.” Your attempt to deflect the poll results to the conclusion that “perhaps it’s a fashion statement” is at best inconsistent, at worst sophistry. You cannot argue for a universal truth, and then fall back on a moral relativism position. Anyways, like Dis I am going to step away now. Well, the "fashion statement" business was a bit of a joke. I know my sense of humour can be a little odd sometimes, but I figured that one was pretty easy to pick up on. With regard to the Bouchard-Taylor report - well, by your own words it is a concern about "culture" and "way of life". It is not a threat to the well being of anyone - merely the Quebecois "culture". And while I understand that the Quebecois go out of their way to protect their culture (although I disagree with their methods) I don't think one's cultural rights should trump anyone else's. "Protecting" a culture is a fool's game anyways - you lose, always. The counter argument to that is "they are coming into our 'house' they should learn to adapt to our culture" but that doesn't hold water - by that logic we should all be practicing native culture, should we not? Aside from all that it's also worth nothing the the Bouchard-Taylor report goes out of its way to say that cultural integration should not be legislated, but should be done by the communities on their own. Which means what the MCC is doing, and what I've been saying for at least two pages is the only way for integration to happen. As for your "stepping back" - well, I'm sorry you (and Dis) feel that way, but like MC Habber I also feel that the discussion is going nowhere because people are looking only at the areas where we all seem to agree the law is valid (and henceforth strong) and not at the areas where it's effects are negative. It's easy to look at any law and validate it based on it's strengths. It is much harder to validate it on its weaknesses. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 18, 2010 18:00:06 GMT -5
I don't think one's cultural rights should trump anyone else's. Except when it is a minority's cultural right? Like wearing a burqa? Why does her cultural right take precedence over a whole province's cultural right? Whether is hurts anybody (outside the "offender") is irrelevant. A law is a law is a law ... and since Quebec's law is different than Canada's (Napoleonic/Quebec civil code vs Common Law) than you, I and anyone visiting has to abide by the laws of Quebec. Rightly or wrongly, we have no business telling the majority of Quebec (or any other place) what they should be doing. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 18, 2010 20:15:15 GMT -5
really? yet we do it so often: telling Bush to get out of Iraq . . . or telling Ahmadinejad to stop with the nukes . . . or telling Israel how to act towards the Palestinians [or Hezbollah how to act toward Israel] . . . or . . .
|
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Apr 18, 2010 20:36:43 GMT -5
I don't think one's cultural rights should trump anyone else's. Except when it is a minority's cultural right? Like wearing a burqa? Why does her cultural right take precedence over a whole province's cultural right? Whether is hurts anybody (outside the "offender") is irrelevant. A law is a law is a law ... and since Quebec's law is different than Canada's (Napoleonic/Quebec civil code vs Common Law) than you, I and anyone visiting has to abide by the laws of Quebec. Rightly or wrongly, we have no business telling the majority of Quebec (or any other place) what they should be doing. How does anyone wearing a burqa impinge on your cultural rights even in the slightest? As for Quebec law different and everyone having to abide by it/having no right to tell them what they should be doing - that's hogwash. I can most certainly tell them when I think their law is unjust - as is the case here - just as I can criticize any other province (or any other country) all I want. Or would you have just said "Ah what odds - it's the German's country, let 'em kill all the Jews they want"? |
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Apr 19, 2010 13:08:51 GMT -5
For clarity purposes, since this thread is swaying in all sorts of direction, bill 94 is not a "Burqa Ban". The bill itself is to establish guidelines to reasonable accommodations in government services.
There are 2 basic parts to the bill
#1: Uncovered face when dealing with government agencies. For security, identification and communication.
#2, any granted accommodations must be in line with the charter of rights and freedom, noticeably respecting:
Equality between men and women.
Religious neutrality of the state.
Simple and clear.
Taking the classroom example, knowing who is in your class at all time, is a minimum. If 16yrs old Kaisha is registered and accepted in a class, I do not want to end up with 37yrs old Rashid there in her place because I have no way of knowing who's who at all time in a class. As a parent, I find this one particularly important.
Take TNG's battered women example, clear identification at all time is key for the security of the people they protect. Again, do I want to end up with a men in there, wearing a veil and his mother's ID, who just wants to access his wife that I'm trying to keep him away from. All that because I can't easily know who he is.
I know you can give me examples of how you would address these issues with this and that trick, but that is just creating holes and wedges that weakens the rule for everybody. A clear, simple guideline is much easier to implement and uphold than a bunch of ifs and buts driven by everyone's religious choices.
Identification and security is not smoke and mirrors to hide an anti-muslim bias. There are more and more private companies, as part of their ISO and CITIPAT complying, that require wearing photo ID on their employees to be able to clearly identify anyone at all time in their premises. No ifs and buts. No matter your religion, if you can't comply you're not allowed on the premises.
TNG raised a valid issue in regards to receiving essential health services, it's an issue but hey, it's their choice. And that is just the tip of the iceberg because anyway most of them will refuse to be attended by doctors of opposite gender. If covering their faces is more important than their health what can I say. Mormons would rather die than receive blood transfusion. Choices. And it won't get any easier world wide on those who chose to cover their face: traveling, working, getting public services, even simply appearing in public in some countries...
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 19, 2010 14:01:18 GMT -5
[OK, I'm being picky, but it's Jehovah's Witnesses that will not allow blood transfusions. just my "gotta get it right" side]
|
|
;D
