|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 19, 2010 14:53:44 GMT -5
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"? I did not say you could not tell them how you think ... I said we can not dictate to them. Like it or lump it, it will be law and we will have to live with it. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Apr 20, 2010 8:46:19 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. That depends on your definition of ban. Sure, women will be allowed to wear it in their own homes and when going about their day to day business (although that's debateable, as the law currently as written could easily slide from 'any agent of the provincial government' to 'anyone') but will be forbidden to access certain provincial services (some would say certain 'necessary' provincial services) while wearing it. Some would call that, for all intents and purposes, a ban. It's aslo debatable that it establishes reasonable accomodation, since this bill does not address anything other that head-covering wearing Muslims. It does not, for instance, address the wearing of the kirpan. How many people in Canada have been harmed by burqa wearing Muslims? How many have been harmed by dagger wielding Sikhs (not to draw unwanted attention to the Sikh community here - just to point out that there are a great many more dangerous situations out there that this law does not address) 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. And I don't think anyone debates that #2 is fair and just, or that your overarching statement (simple and clear) is a fair assessment. The main point of contention is #1 - the burqa ban (while dealing with provincial government agencies). It says for security (possibly, but not in all cases), identification (see security) and communication (not sure what this has to do with the price of tea in China - unless you are positing that facial expressions are key to communicating properly. If that's the case then there's a whole new avenue of weaknesses that you have opened up - as I doubt the average provincial employee in Montreal would be all that adept at reading the facial expressions of an Inuit who has come to the city). 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. Debatable. First off, this rule also extends to Universities, where attendance is not always mandatory and students frequently attend lectures that interest them (without prior permission from the professor on occasion - so long as they are not disruptive). In these case, where identification is not mandatory for anyone else a Muslim student will be expect to reveal herself from beneath her head covering. Secondly it's debatable that this is needed in a high school setting. What is Rashid doing sneaking into your class anyway? Watching to see if you are teaching his daughter/wife something un-Muslim I suppose, but the second part of the law takes care of any legal concerns there (he has no recourse even if he disagrees with what you are teaching unless you are teaching something inflammatory). I suppose he might be illegally benefitting from education his daughter is to recieve or keeping his daughter truant, but there are likely easier ways for him to do either of these things. Same with the final possibility - that he's there to kill you and the other students. As fearsome as that might be, there are probably easier ways to do that too. So long as Kaisha/Rashid behave in the classroom and are non-disruptive, what is gained by forcing them to identify themselves. Further what is gained period by forcing them to remove the burqa (rather than just identify themselves once to the instructor and then sit quietly and class and learn)? 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. Again, what is gained by forcing them to remove it permanently (versus a single point of identification and then allowing the woman to remain in the shelter clothed in a burqa)? 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. True. But creating a simple blanket rule is just as bad a solution. If there are security, health and welfare concerns then they need to be addressed, but the cost in this case is too high and may, in fact, be unconstitutional (although the national assembly in Quebec might ignore such implications, given that I believe Quebec did not recognize our consitution to begin with). 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. Wonderful. Except (a) private companies are not supported by the taxpayer (and, further, are not supported by the burqa wearer herself) and (b) do not provide (at least universally) and critical (need) service. 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... Actually - a rereading of the bill twigged a clause that emergency medical services are exempt, so that reason is actually invalidated. However your "it's their choice" comment is rather callous. How would most Quebecers feel if they were all denied federal government services because they (by and large) spoke French and could not communicate properly with non-francophone government officials. Nevermind that not all Quebecers speak French as a first language and not all non-Quebecers speak English as a first language (to say nothing of the fact that not all Anglophones in Canada speak English in a manner that is more understanable than french-accented English). "It's their choice" I say. They choose to live in Quebec. And cue the lynch mobs any minute now. Of course I would never suggest such a thing, despite the safety and security implications (yes, yes - I know their faces are uncovered - but it's already been conclusively proven that in a great variety of situations where this law applies identification is unneeded, or needs only to be done once at which point the burqa wearing woman might then re-cover he face). That would be racist and exclusive. Just like this law. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Apr 20, 2010 8:49:26 GMT -5
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"? I did not say you could not tell them how you think ... I said we can not dictate to them. Like it or lump it, it will be law and we will have to live with it. Nor can we affect (on here) how Canada treats Newfoundland, or how society treats the white man, or how much Gainey is willing to pay to keep Ryder on board, or how the Canadiens play hockey. What's the point of this discussion board again? (Sorry about the sarcasam - it just seems like a silly thing to say. Of course I know that what I say here will not influence the national assembly. However if I can influence one or two voters, and they can influence one or two voters and so on then perhaps I can impact how long this atrocious law stays on the books. At the same time very little of what we do here has any affect on the real world outside of those who read this site, that does not stop us from commenting) |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 20, 2010 11:06:41 GMT -5
Wonderful. Except (a) private companies are not supported by the taxpayer (and, further, are not supported by the burqa wearer herself) and (b) do not provide (at least universally) and critical (need) service. Public employees too. I am sure that NL is not the only province in Canada that requires their employees to submit to photo identification, and wear their IDs. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 20, 2010 11:14:11 GMT -5
What's the point of this discussion board again? An exchange of ideas and opinions, not telling people they are misguided or wrong. I see your points, and I respect your stance on these well thought out arguements .... however, it apparently is a big enough issue in Quebec that they feel they must address it. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 20, 2010 11:40:18 GMT -5
Wonderful. Except (a) private companies are not supported by the taxpayer (and, further, are not supported by the burqa wearer herself) and (b) do not provide (at least universally) and critical (need) service. Public employees too. I am sure that NL is not the only province in Canada that requires their employees to submit to photo identification, and wear their IDs. try living in Ottawa. heck, I have to wear a badge walking through a hospital even when I'm there during visiting hours! |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Apr 20, 2010 12:30:41 GMT -5
Wonderful. Except (a) private companies are not supported by the taxpayer (and, further, are not supported by the burqa wearer herself) and (b) do not provide (at least universally) and critical (need) service. Public employees too. I am sure that NL is not the only province in Canada that requires their employees to submit to photo identification, and wear their IDs. Okay - I can accept that conclusion. Of course the question is do you think denying them employment with the government (or any company) is equal to denying them access to important/critical/necessary services? |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Apr 20, 2010 12:42:24 GMT -5
What's the point of this discussion board again? An exchange of ideas and opinions, not telling people they are misguided or wrong. I see your points, and I respect your stance on these well thought out arguements .... however, it apparently is a big enough issue in Quebec that they feel they must address it. Well, I tend to feel strongly when someone is taking away the rights of another. And I tend to be very passionate and polemic when I get involved, which doesn't help. That doesn't change the fact that this law is an out and out travesty that violate every moral fibre of my being. A big deal has been made (by some) about how our women are forced to wear head coverings while visiting that part of the world. This law is no different than that. It makes us no different from them - tyranny is tyranny is tyranny. Safety and security is one thing, but the law as written goes beyond that. There is no safety issue when a Muslim burqa-wearer drops her son or daughter off for preschool child care. There is no security issue when a 15 year old girl wants to honour her upbringing and wear a headcovering to school (Doc's protestations about knowing who is in your class aside, I don't believe that it's that much of an issue). And yet all of these things are forbidden. No one's rights deserve to be trod on. Not without damn good reason. I have yet to hear a good reason as to why allowing someone to wear a head covering is accomodation - is it accomodation when we allow teenagers to wear their pants around their ankles or their hats on sideways? Is it accomodation when we allow immigrants to open up a restuarant that serves Chinese/East Indian/West Indian/Whatever food? No. And this isn't accomodation either. It's raciscim in its most insidious form - institutionalized for the good of the "people". It was for "safety and security" that the Nazi's made the Jews wear armbands too. |
|
