|
|
Post by jkr on Oct 19, 2017 6:58:49 GMT -5
I was born in Quebec but have lived in Ontario for many years & I still follow the news there with interest. There's been a lot of talk this morning about the law that passed yesterday re: face coverings. This caught me by surprise. It wasn't that long ago that the premier was talking about fighting xenophobia.
There's already been backlash, even outside of the province. The Ontario attorney general has said that he believes it violates the charter of rights. The Toronto star printed a critical editorial accusing Couillard of political pandering. The estimates of women wearing face coverings are very small. The last report I saw said there were less than 100 women province wide. I'm at a loss as to why they would even do this. It seems discriminatory and almost unenforceable.
The cynic in me thinks the premier knows all this. There will be challenges to the law & who knows, maybe it doesn't happen. But then the premier can go to the public & say "hey, I tried".
Any thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Oct 19, 2017 7:29:32 GMT -5
as to the backlash outside the province, the answer is "Canada may be multicultural, but Quebec isn't, stay out of it, we will do what we want". and if say Saskatchewan enacted a law and Quebec stepped in wouldn't the reaction be the same?
be that as it may, of course it is political pandering. the opposition parties say the law doesn't go far enough [though I'm not sure how much further they could go -- outlaw face coverings on the street? altogether? and what about winter ski masks . . . what then?
actually the answer to "what then?" and even "what now?" is "we don't know". consultations and meetings will be held to figure things out. "what if someone with a face covering steps on to a bus?" who is going to enforce the law -- bus drivers? they don't know, but there are going to be consultations. "what if someone with a face covering needs medical assistance/goes to a hospital?" who is going to enforce the law -- nurses? ER admissions clerks? they don't know, but there are going to be consultations.
you're right about the challenges, though . . . Supreme Court, here we come!
you'll notice that I said nothing about paper bags being worn at Habs games
|
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Oct 19, 2017 8:02:47 GMT -5
The law has a pretty narrow focus - it's about face coverings when getting or giving services on behalf of the state, not in everyday life.
I actually think it's a tolerable compromise, in that it can reassure the xenophobes without actually having much of an impact on actual immigrants. It will only have an impact on niqab-wearing muslim women, and frankly, I don't see many people who want to defend their right to be oppressed by their religion.
"Canada may be multicultural, but Quebec isn't, stay out of it, we will do what we want". I'd say that it's more that Quebec is secular and wants to stay that way.
Quebec took forever to free itself from the catholic church and doesn't want that kind of influence to reassert itself in any way, shape or form.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Oct 19, 2017 8:21:03 GMT -5
The law has a pretty narrow focus - it's about face coverings targeting one group, though the powers that be would say "no, all groups . . . noone is allowed face coverings" . . . only one group wears them (albeit a small number within the group). any state run activity . . . provincial or municipal . . . hospitals, schools, transportation . . . well, it's a compromise that does cater to xenophobes, but it does still impact some (albeit that small number -- 100, some have suggested?). one might say that all religions "oppress", in different ways. and this is merely secular oppression. as well, some women (I don't get it myself) wear the niqab and burqa willingly, gladly, and as a sign of power. in that case all religious symbolism should be outlawed, not just one minor part of one religion. I don't think Quebec is totally free from the Catholic Church . . . and again I'd suggest that secularism is nothing more than the new religion of the province. ah, fun times. |
|
|
|
Post by duster on Oct 19, 2017 12:43:45 GMT -5
Simply for the sake of argument, one could say that women wearing the niqab or any other device that conceals their identity are choosing to exclude themselves from mainstream society. Why should they get special consideration? Why is it unreasonable to reveal their faces when getting a picture for a passport or driver's license, for example?
One of the reasons France enacted the law banning the niqab is due to several bank robberies that took place where the criminals were dressed as fully covered women and could not be identified.
To be clear, I have no dog in this fight since it has no effect on my every day life, but I do see the point behind it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Oct 19, 2017 16:46:52 GMT -5
I'm upset that Quebec wants to ban the naquib. By declaring it a religious right, a man keep a custom that was born out of tagging and bagging to protect ones property into the 21st century.
We can keep the good old days that started when pashas castrated man and put woman in bags to make sure his concubines only served him. Then it progressed into general society where man were afraid that the young and pretty ones of his many wives would be attractive or draw attention from other man so on went the veils and the bags to protect the property. Far easier to do that then portable barbed wire fences. Besides, woman in general better know who was boss amd who is property.
What the heck, as a 60 something guy, i can see the logic of covering up a 20 something bride.
I think the SC of Canada would be progressive and responsible in protecting that tagging and bagging right...errr religious right.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Oct 19, 2017 17:04:15 GMT -5
It seems discriminatory and almost unenforceable. Squashing a custom born from enforcing oppression and subjugation is discriminatory? October 19, 2017 |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Oct 19, 2017 17:37:46 GMT -5
Simply for the sake of argument, one could say that women wearing the niqab or any other device that conceals their identity are choosing to exclude themselves from mainstream society. Why should they get special consideration? Why is it unreasonable to reveal their faces when getting a picture for a passport or driver's license, for example? One of the reasons France enacted the law banning the niqab is due to several bank robberies that took place where the criminals were dressed as fully covered women and could not be identified. To be clear, I have no dog in this fight since it has no effect on my every day life, but I do see the point behind it. I see it as a small step to keep xenophobia in check without having much of an impact. World politics are going to the right and I see this small concession as a way to stop Quebec from falling prey to those who'd want something much stronger (ie, worse). I don't like it, but I don't like what it is banning even more. |
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Oct 19, 2017 17:45:54 GMT -5
It seems discriminatory and almost unenforceable. Squashing a custom born from enforcing oppression and subjugation is discriminatory? October 19, 2017 I did see an interview with a woman that claimed it was her choice to wear a niqab. Not everyone is forced to wear it. I just think the government shouldn't be telling people what to wear. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Oct 19, 2017 18:26:48 GMT -5
I'm upset that Quebec wants to ban the naquib. By declaring it a religious right, a man keep a custom that was born out of tagging and bagging to protect ones property into the 21st century. as much as I don't like the practice, we in Canada allow people the right to choose . . . many things. if wearing a spaghetti strainer on one's head or a balaclava on cold days is a right, then why not this? |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Oct 19, 2017 21:12:40 GMT -5
I'm upset that Quebec wants to ban the naquib. By declaring it a religious right, a man keep a custom that was born out of tagging and bagging to protect ones property into the 21st century. as much as I don't like the practice, we in Canada allow people the right to choose . . . many things. if wearing a spaghetti strainer on one's head or a balaclava on cold days is a right, then why not this? Are you really comparing someone acting crazy with a sector of society perpetuating the very means of oppression and subjugation? Are you ok with a black person wearing a dog collar? How about black person wearing a dog collar and held by a white person? Because frankly, a burqa is EXACTLY that. The issue here is selling a despicable act as "personal and religious" freedom, which is utter bullcrap. It's a social custom born from oppression and subjugation. Full stop. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Oct 19, 2017 21:29:37 GMT -5
Squashing a custom born from enforcing oppression and subjugation is discriminatory? October 19, 2017 I did see an interview with a woman that claimed it was her choice to wear a niqab. Not everyone is forced to wear it. I just think the government shouldn't be telling people what to wear. I also saw interview with a young woman justifying a barbarous custom. Nowhere in that interview was there any mention of the origins of the custom or what it represented. It was a puff piece to sell it as "religious freedom". I was waiting for the even a tiniest implication of what a burqa represents, but nothing. Nowhere. Only that the evil government wants to control her life......which given what the burqa is, one of the the most saddest disconnects one can make. I doubt the interview that you was was any different from what I saw. Just for the record, I'm disgusted by it but it's nothing compared to what my Muslim friends think of it. Barbarous, backward, disgusting social custom that is on the same level as genital mutilation....their words. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Oct 19, 2017 22:17:52 GMT -5
as much as I don't like the practice, we in Canada allow people the right to choose . . . many things. if wearing a spaghetti strainer on one's head or a balaclava on cold days is a right, then why not this? Are you really comparing someone acting crazy with a sector of society perpetuating the very means of oppression and subjugation? Are you ok with a black person wearing a dog collar? How about black person wearing a dog collar and held by a white person? Because frankly, a burqa is EXACTLY that. The issue here is selling a despicable act as "personal and religious" freedom, which is utter bullcrap. It's a social custom born from oppression and subjugation. Full stop. I am saying "freedom to choose". nothing more. I may find a black person wearing a dog collar repugnant, but if that black person wants to wear that dog collar -- his or her free choice -- I will express my disgust but that's as far as I can go. however, if it a forced action I will fight it. Sadomasochism offends me. To be honest, I don't get it, don't understand how pain would be a positive experience, but if someone wants to willingly participate who am I to stop it? however, if it a forced action I will fight it. The niqab and the burka offend me. I think that it is subjugation at its core. it is not, afaics, a religious requirement (nor is the hijab); however, if it is freely chosen/freely worn even if I think that it is a form of oppressive/suppressive slavery then how can I argue against someone's freedom to choose? The issue is of government intervention and interfering with freedom of choice. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Oct 19, 2017 23:56:41 GMT -5
Are you really comparing someone acting crazy with a sector of society perpetuating the very means of oppression and subjugation? Are you ok with a black person wearing a dog collar? How about black person wearing a dog collar and held by a white person? Because frankly, a burqa is EXACTLY that. The issue here is selling a despicable act as "personal and religious" freedom, which is utter bullcrap. It's a social custom born from oppression and subjugation. Full stop. I am saying "freedom to choose". nothing more. I may find a black person wearing a dog collar repugnant, but if that black person wants to wear that dog collar -- his or her free choice -- I will express my disgust but that's as far as I can go. however, if it a forced action I will fight it. Sadomasochism offends me. To be honest, I don't get it, don't understand how pain would be a positive experience, but if someone wants to willingly participate who am I to stop it? however, if it a forced action I will fight it. The niqab and the burka offend me. I think that it is subjugation at its core. it is not, afaics, a religious requirement (nor is the hijab); however, if it is freely chosen/freely worn even if I think that it is a form of oppressive/suppressive slavery then how can I argue against someone's freedom to choose? The issue is of government intervention and interfering with freedom of choice. Have you tried to marry your sister lately? Heck, they wont let me marry more then one woman even though it's freely her choice. Bloody government interference! I am all for freedom of choice, it's a foundational right, but when that right perpetuates a barbaric wrong, I'm all for a little bit of bending. Wear the niquab, but i can refuse you service and i don't want to be served by you. I'm not going to force a dress code on you, but i can certainly make you aware that you are no longer in a country were a bunch of man can whip oppression and subjugation into you. Including your husbsnd. I'm fine with what Quebec did. If the core of their intent was xenophobia, it's contemptable. If it was based on recognizing that it's a barbaric custom, then i cheer them on. |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Oct 20, 2017 0:23:52 GMT -5
I am saying "freedom to choose". nothing more. I may find a black person wearing a dog collar repugnant, but if that black person wants to wear that dog collar -- his or her free choice -- I will express my disgust but that's as far as I can go. however, if it a forced action I will fight it. Sadomasochism offends me. To be honest, I don't get it, don't understand how pain would be a positive experience, but if someone wants to willingly participate who am I to stop it? however, if it a forced action I will fight it. The niqab and the burka offend me. I think that it is subjugation at its core. it is not, afaics, a religious requirement (nor is the hijab); however, if it is freely chosen/freely worn even if I think that it is a form of oppressive/suppressive slavery then how can I argue against someone's freedom to choose? The issue is of government intervention and interfering with freedom of choice. Have you tried to marry your sister lately? Heck, they wont let me marry more then one woman even though it's freely her choice. Bloody government interference! I am all for freedom of choice, it's a foundational right, but when that right perpetuates a barbaric wrong, I'm all for a little bit of bending. Wear the niquab, but i can refuse you service and i don't want to be served by you. I'm not going to force a dress code on you, but i can certainly make you aware that you are no longer in a country were a bunch of man can whip oppression and subjugation into you. Including your husbsnd. I'm fine with what Quebec did. If the core of their intent was xenophobia, it's contemptable. If it was based on recognizing that it's a barbaric custom, then i cheer them on. Maybe we make a Niqab possible, but in the same way as a woman can take her husbands name: with a lot of difficulty. There was a long thread about this on a facebook page for residents who came from outside the province (mostly army) and many women were complaining about the hoops they had to jump through to take their husbands name when they got married. It's legal, it's just a massive pain. If a woman can show that she wants to wear a burqa because it's her own true belief, and she can express that in French or in English with no one else present, then go ahead and let her. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Oct 20, 2017 1:51:28 GMT -5
Have you tried to marry your sister lately? Heck, they wont let me marry more then one woman even though it's freely her choice. Bloody government interference! I am all for freedom of choice, it's a foundational right, but when that right perpetuates a barbaric wrong, I'm all for a little bit of bending. Wear the niquab, but i can refuse you service and i don't want to be served by you. I'm not going to force a dress code on you, but i can certainly make you aware that you are no longer in a country were a bunch of man can whip oppression and subjugation into you. Including your husbsnd. I'm fine with what Quebec did. If the core of their intent was xenophobia, it's contemptable. If it was based on recognizing that it's a barbaric custom, then i cheer them on. Maybe we make a Niqab possible, but in the same way as a woman can take her husbands name: with a lot of difficulty. There was a long thread about this on a facebook page for residents who came from outside the province (mostly army) and many women were complaining about the hoops they had to jump through to take their husbands name when they got married. It's legal, it's just a massive pain. If a woman can show that she wants to wear a burqa because it's her own true belief, and she can express that in French or in English with no one else present, then go ahead and let her. Over here, in the center of the universe, I'm detached from Quebec politics. I sincerely hope the liberals have launched an all out assault on what and why this barbaric social custom is not acceptable in our Western society. The last thing they should do is let the pseudo righteous and hypocrites falsly define this barbarous "tag them and bag them" social custom as a "religious right". |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Oct 20, 2017 6:21:54 GMT -5
Have you tried to marry your sister lately? actually . . . no. but then again, define marriage. I still hear it: "I don't need a piece of paper". interestingly, gays were fighting for the right to marry while non-gays are merely living together. I'm surprised that there hasn't been a legal challenge to that. seriously. if the traditional definition of marriage ("one man one woman") is not held, what's wrong with polygamy or polyandry . . . if people in love agree. shared households, that's the key. but I digress. in my line of work I hear "what's wrong for you isn't wrong for me -- you're being judgmental". yes I am. you are free to do what you want. I am free to disagree, though. but I can't refuse to sell you a wedding cake because you are gay (I think refusal, by the way, is stupid: you're going to turn down making money?). you again discount the possibility that it might be a choice to wear the thing. does it not seem that way? (here's me being judgmental again, unsure though) it is an attempt at appeasement Maybe we make a Niqab possible, but in the same way as a woman can take her husbands name . . . If a woman can show that she wants to wear a burqa because it's her own true belief, and she can express that in French or in English with no one else present, then go ahead and let her. that's where I am. prove that you want to wear it. btw, if it is a stand against a religious symbol then it needs to be extended to all religious symbols: hijab, kirpan, crosses . . . if you are going to ban it because it is a barbaric religious symbol then it needs to extend to all barbaric religious symbols (beyond FGM): circumcision . . . |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Oct 20, 2017 9:01:07 GMT -5
just thinking . . . maybe this is the governments way of trying to distract people from how badly the Habs are doing . . . after all, worshiping at the throne of Les Glorieux is the real religion in the province, no?
|
|
|
|
Post by blny on Oct 20, 2017 23:57:35 GMT -5
just thinking . . . maybe this is the governments way of trying to distract people from how badly the Habs are doing . . . after all, worshiping at the throne of Les Glorieux is the real religion in the province, no?  |
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Oct 21, 2017 6:33:56 GMT -5
I don't agree with this law but I am wondering why premiers from other provinces like Notley & Wynne are taking time to condemn it. Don't they have enough to do in their own Provinces?
Do they want other premiers weighing in on their legislation? For example, what do other politicians think about the fact that Ontario is considering a law that would prohibit employers from requiring people to wear high heels?
Like it is not, provinces can pass their own laws. There are ways of challenging them if necessary.
|
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Oct 21, 2017 10:14:35 GMT -5
Have the feds weighed-in on this topic, yet?
Motion M-103 (which spotlights the bogus, non-defined term "Islamophobia") is in the process of becoming a Bill.
One of the first Motions tabled by the Libs, who seem to be in a real hurry to push it through. There are existing laws on the books that protect against religious, racial, etc. discrimination. Islam does not need its own.
Hate crimes against Canadian Jews are higher than crime rates against Canadian Muslims.
Why not a special "Jewophobia" motion?
If Motion M-103 becomes binding legislation...then people who suggest "niqab bans for public service security reasons" will be labelled "racist, bigoted Islamophobes"...and there will be federal, legal consequences...which would make it an Islamic blasphemy law. i.e. part of shariah (strict Islamic theocratic law).
Let's be clear....Islam is NOT a race. It is an ideology. The Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira are filled with hegemonic political directives. Women, homosexuals, "People of the Book" (Christians and Jews), polytheists...again, the directives are not good. See Al-Quaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram, Al-Shabaab, etc. to find the strict application of Allah's words and Muhammad's examples.
Thankfully, the majority of Muslims do not adhere to these teachings...in fact, they suffer the most under shariah, and are overjoyed to be free from it. There are a few videos on YouTube featuring Canadian Muslims speaking out against the Motion. They know of which they speak. Are these Canadian Muslims racist, bigoted "Islamophobes"...or speaking from first-hand experience?
Slippery slope.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Oct 21, 2017 18:23:09 GMT -5
A decision generated by fear ... it's no way to live ...
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Oct 21, 2017 18:50:15 GMT -5
Have the feds weighed-in on this topic, yet? Motion M-103 (which spotlights the bogus, non-defined term "Islamophobia") is in the process of becoming a Bill. One of the first Motions tabled by the Libs, who seem to be in a real hurry to push it through. There are existing laws on the books that protect against religious, racial, etc. discrimination. Islam does not need its own. Hate crimes against Canadian Jews are higher than crime rates against Canadian Muslims. Why not a special "Jewophobia" motion? If Motion M-103 becomes binding legislation...then people who suggest "niqab bans for public service security reasons" will be labelled "racist, bigoted Islamophobes"...and there will be federal, legal consequences...which would make it an Islamic blasphemy law. i.e. part of shariah (strict Islamic theocratic law). Let's be clear....Islam is NOT a race. It is an ideology. The Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira are filled with hegemonic political directives. Women, homosexuals, "People of the Book" (Christians and Jews), polytheists...again, the directives are not good. See Al-Quaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram, Al-Shabaab, etc. to find the strict application of Allah's words and Muhammad's examples. Thankfully, the majority of Muslims do not adhere to these teachings...in fact, they suffer the most under shariah, and are overjoyed to be free from it. There are a few videos on YouTube featuring Canadian Muslims speaking out against the Motion. They know of which they speak. Are these Canadian Muslims racist, bigoted "Islamophobes"...or speaking from first-hand experience? Slippery slope. This is politics and nothign more. The Fed-libs are trying to bury the barbaric foundation of some of these practices under "protecting minorities"...which of course they want to isolate the vote from them. The Fed-libs are protecting woman from oppression and subjugation.....by attacking anyone who calls tagging and bagging by what it really is? And where and how it came about? The Fed-libs think there are more votes in selling it as a "freedom" to to their tribe to keep criticism at bay while sucking in the fundamentalist vote. Identity politics at it's very worse. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Oct 21, 2017 19:17:55 GMT -5
Nothing to do with gays.
This isn't "judgmental". It's quashing a barbaric practice that has no room in our society. There are no shades of gray when a practice was founded and is perpetuated on subjugation.
Nothing to do with wedding cakes. This is not a religious issue or social acceptance issue. This is straight up a barbaric practice that needs to be squashed out of anyone advocating it in our society.
Have you seen anyone wearing a cloth bag as a fashion statement? The "choice" is NOT a choice if there is pressure from a particular group. To make it socially unacceptable in OUR society then puts pressure on that particular group to move into the 21st century.
Is it? Do you have proof or is it conjecture?
First, its NOT a religious symbol. It's a SOCIAL custom that is now sold as a religious symbol to anyone who buys it. I read the Koran (yes, out of curiosity) and I read a passage about woman (and man) dressing modestly, nowhere did I read about putting them in bags or covering their faces.
Even if you want to make the argument about religious symbols, are you really comparing a cross to cloth bagging a woman?
As for the pole chopping thing, I believe that one physical being is solely the right of that person and no one has the right to alter/modify without the adult consent of said person. Therefore, I'm fine with banning it's practice.
EDIT....Wait a minute....I thought we agreed that it's a barbarous relic of oppression and subjugation, what are we arguing about?
|
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Oct 22, 2017 17:03:53 GMT -5
Here is Chantal Herbert's take. I usually find her viewpoint sensible and realistic. Obviously she has a grasp of Quebec's complicated politics. While The Star is busy fulminating, she points out some interesting facts. The Liberals know this is likely to fail. And, while people are busy bashing Quebec, Patrick Brown of the Ontario Conservatives received backlash from Ontarians that support Bill 62. Rather than knee jerks condemnation, people need to take a breath and wait for this to play out. www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/10/20/quebecs-bill-62-declares-war-on-sunglasses-hbert.html |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Oct 23, 2017 7:14:40 GMT -5
Just for the record, I'm disgusted by it but it's nothing compared to what my Muslim friends think of it. Barbarous, backward, disgusting social custom that is on the same level as genital mutilation....their words. Our Muslim friends have different thoughts ... they're not so much worried about Bill 62 as they are about the attention this legislation brings to them as Muslims ... a short story ... we have good Muslim friends originally from UAE ... for our first visit, the family put out Middle East sweets, homemade baked goods, juices and tea ... only after we'd stuff ourselves did we realize that the family wasn't eating with us ... the kids went about their routines (playing) but they were fasting for Ramadan and they still entertained us ... second short story ... the last time we went over to their house I noticed their oldest child wasn't wearing her hijab ... this is very unusual because the only time they wouldn't wear it is if they had female visitors into their home or if the male visitors were family ... so if my wife goes over by herself, the women don't have to don their cultural headwear ... on this day I went over I thought allowing their daughter to shed the hijab was pretty progressive thinking on the parents' part ... it was and it wasn't ... they opted to make this decision because their daughter was being bullied at school and for her own protection she didn't have to wear it ... THAT put a lot of things into perspective for me ... as an aside, I've also met Muslims who do not practice their religion any longer ... they don't celebrate leaving the barbarity behind, because a lot of them don't come from that background ... they've simply moved on similarly the way I have from the Catholic church ... if I were to practice Catholicism it would be far too stifling for me ... I suspect this is why many Muslims have left Islam, as well, but I can't speak for anyone other than myself ... as for Bill 62, well, here's the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ... also, here's the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms ... para 1 covers "Provisions" that clearly states social freedom ... anyway, I suspect Trudeau-Trudeau-on-the-wall will not get involved in this ... I don't know what his family name is like in Quebec these days, but Trudeau-the-Elder didn't do him any favours ... Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Oct 23, 2017 20:33:16 GMT -5
Just for the record, I'm disgusted by it but it's nothing compared to what my Muslim friends think of it. Barbarous, backward, disgusting social custom that is on the same level as genital mutilation....their words. Our Muslim friends have different thoughts ... they're not so much worried about Bill 62 as they are about the attention this legislation brings to them as Muslims ... a short story ... we have good Muslim friends originally from UAE ... for our first visit, the family put out Middle East sweets, homemade baked goods, juices and tea ... only after we'd stuff ourselves did we realize that the family wasn't eating with us ... the kids went about their routines (playing) but they were fasting for Ramadan and they still entertained us ... second short story ... the last time we went over to their house I noticed their oldest child wasn't wearing her hijab ... this is very unusual because the only time they wouldn't wear it is if they have male visitors into their home ... so if my wife goes over by herself, the women don't have to don their cultural headwear ... on this day I went over I thought allowing their daughter to shed the hijab was pretty progressive thinking on the parents' part ... it was and it wasn't ... they opted to make this decision because their daughter was being bullied at school and for her own protection she didn't have to wear it ... THAT put a lot of things into perspective for me ... as an aside, I've also met Muslims who do not practice their religion any longer ... they don't celebrate leaving the barbarity behind, because a lot of them don't come from that background ... they've simply moved on similarly the way I have from the Catholic church ... if I were to practice Catholicism it would be far too stifling for me ... I suspect this is why many Muslims have left Islam, as well, but I can't speak for anyone other than myself ... as for Bill 62, well, here's the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ... also, here's the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms ... para 1 covers "Provisions" that clearly states social freedom ... anyway, I suspect Trudeau-Trudeau-on-the-wall will not get involved in this ... I don't know what his family name is like in Quebec these days, but Trudeau-the-Elder didn't do him any favours ... Cheers. Moving on from the fundamentalist social barbarity is exactly what I want and love to hear. Unfortunately, this is taking life and morphing into "sunglasses" instead of getting dealt as a practice of a tiny hardline religious minority that needs to be buried. There is absolutely nothign wrong on any level for people to practice their cultural heritage that celebrates civil behavior and friendship. Not only do I applaud it, I love to participate. As for religious practices, I am a devout atheist, but have yet to see a mosque or a church or a temple collapse upon my entry. Absolutely no one has the right to question civil religious beliefs and practices. My one and constant argument is that the burqa/niqab is not religious practice, but born of a time that woman were treated and measured in value along with goats and donkeys. They were nothing more then property that needed to be bagged lest it was attractive to other man.....and risking the loss of property. There is no redeemable social or historic or religious value in such barbarity. Calling it out is the right thing to do. Unfortunately, politics is turning this into a mess of hypocrisy and vote sucking. The Fed-liberals are showing a disgusting side of themselves with siding and selling it in what is clearly fundamentalist views. Something that they as progressive should stand tall and square again it. Worst yet, fed-libs are re-selling it as "womans right" when in fact, it's foundation and practice is exactly opposite to that. There are probably several hundred thousand Muslims in Ontario, the burqa and niqab are a rare sight, but I wont buy that there are a "hundred" in Ontario. I have seen multiples on a single drive in a Muslim neighborhood. I would put the fundamentalist practice into the several thousand in the GTA Still, several thousand is a tiny portion of several hundred thousand. Unfortunate part as you said is that it's highlighting and perpetuating a negative stereotype of Muslims. From those I know, what I see (and I like to believe) that the vast majority of Muslims in Canada deliberately want to leave the worse of these tiny minority practices far behind them. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Oct 23, 2017 21:50:34 GMT -5
In a truly free society, all ideologies (religious or otherwise) must be open to unfettered investigation and honest, warranted criticism.
Law-abiding religions and cultures are ensured the same protection under our current laws.
No special treatment is necessary.
The National Council of Canadian Muslims has heavily influenced a 170-page teaching guide to be used in the Toronto District School Board--not just for Islamic Heritage Month (October)--but throughout the year.
Even though Ottawa is still trying to define "Islamophobia" for the purposes of Motion M103, the guidebook has no trouble telling Toronto's children what the NCCM thinks it means:
From the Toronto Star, Oct. 2nd, 2017.
The guidebook defines Islamophobia, in part, as “fear, prejudice, hatred or dislike directed against Islam or Muslims, or towards Islamic politics or culture.” B’nai Brith Canada had complained earlier Monday that the reference to “politics” could lead to students or staff being punished for expressing dislike for the Republic of Iran’s persecution of LGBTQ people or restrictions placed on women in Saudi Arabia. The board said it would amend that section.
If not changed, it would be taught that being critical of Islamic theocratic law (political control under sharia) is to be "Islamophobic"--i.e. a bigot or a racist. Nonsense. An ideology is not a race.
As mentioned above, there are plenty of peaceful Muslims against any semblance of sharia in Canada. They certainly don't endorse the doctrines embodied by ISIS et al.
Again, videos on YouTube re: Muslims against M103.
|
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Oct 24, 2017 7:29:53 GMT -5
There's going to be a PC today to discuss the details which have been lacking.
Also, the opposition parties in Quebec want to debate removal of the crucifix in the house saying Quebec can't be truly secular if their laws are made in a chamber with that contains an obvious religious symbol.
|
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Oct 24, 2017 9:32:58 GMT -5
An Oct. 22/17 Toronto Sun article by a prominent Muslim man who speaks and writes publicly about--and who receives death threats for--his views on radical, political Islam. BY TAREK FATAH
Just over 11 years ago, then-British foreign secretary Jack Straw wrote about his discomfort with the Islamic face-covering niqabs and burkas his constituents chose to wear while meeting him.
What followed his article in the Guardian was a raging controversy around the Islamic World and the West in 2006-07 that is an illustrative guide to how far western society — led by its liberal and left-wing politicians, feminists and academics — has regressed.
Has the fear of Islamic terror made them all into latter day Chamberlains who dreaded Hitler’s Nazi Wehrmacht?
Eleven years ago, the times were a bit less politically correct. Even the liberal Toronto Star allowed for criticism of the Islamic veil. Its columnist Rosie Dimanno wrote this on Oct. 25, 2006:
“Bible-thumping is repellent, whether applied to women or children or homosexuals or any other group whose behaviour is construed as sinful. Qur’an thumping should be no less unsavoury. So spare me what that holy book has to say about veiling women, especially when even Islamic scholars are divided on it.”
Today, a dozen Islamist MPs in the prime minister’s caucus are in the driving seat while the NDP — under a new leader — has a desire to accommodate medievalism as the new modernism. Both would consider such writing as “Islamophobic.”
Dimanno went on to write:
“(L)et’s not be disingenuous here. There is ample evidence, overwhelming evidence, of religious and cultural pressures, those steeped in a firmly patriarchal code of conduct, for the marginalizing of adult (Muslim) females, practices that are fundamentally at odds with basic concepts of gender equality.”
How could a piece of cloth used as a facemask — declared not to be Islamic and unnecessary by no less a figure than the head of the Al-Azhar University in Egypt — become the rallying cry of white feminists, gay activists, left-wing academics and even Premier Kathleen Wynne of Ontario?
I raised this question with two Muslim women from Quebec, one a Saudi refugee in Sherbrooke, and the other a Bangladesh-born academic in Montreal.
Ensaf Haider arrived in Quebec in 2013 escaping the Arab world and its tyranny hoping to find freedom in Canada. Her Saudi husband, Raif Badawi, is still serving a 10-year jail sentence and awaiting 1,000 lashes on charges of Islamophobia.
Reacting to Premier Wynne’s denunciation of the anti-Burka law of Quebec, Haider said:
“I am shocked that Ontario’s premier and women from Ontario’s NDP and (Progressive) Conservative Party attacked the new Quebec law banning face-covering, particularly the burka that was passed near unanimously by the Quebec National Assembly.”
Haider told me that on Wednesday when she heard the news of the passing of Quebec Bill 62, she was thrilled with joy. “I felt all of Canada had finally recognized the tyranny that is the niqab and burka and would follow Quebec’s courage in standing up to oppression of women.”
“But listening to Anglophone men and women attack Quebec’s new law shocked me,” she added. “Are Kathleen Wynne and NDP women like Nikki Ashton and Andrea Howarth plain anti-Francophone or guilt-ridden white feminists?” she asked.
Seeking other voices, I got in touch with Montreal resident Professor Roksana Nazneen, a Muslim Quebecker of Bangladeshi origin, who is currently working on her husband’s municipal election campaign in Notre Dame de Ile Perrot.
I asked her if she felt Quebec’s new law was discriminatory against Muslims. “No, not at all. As a Muslim woman, I applaud Quebec’s Bill 62.”
“Niqab or Burka should have no place in a civil society. It is neither religious nor cultural. It is an anti-west political statement introduced by radical Islamists all over the globe,” she added.
But what about the right to choose, I argued.
“Nonsense. burka is not a choice. If a person chooses to be a cocaine addict, will our society sit still and do nothing to stop him or her from the addiction?” she asked. “What next? Will we allow suicide jumpers to jump to their death just because they made the ‘choice’ to take their lives?”
Back in 2007, the doyen of Indian English journalism Khushwant Singh nailed it best when he wrote:
“Burka is (the) single most reprehensible cause for keeping Muslims backward … it is synonymous to ‘jahalat’ — ignorance and backwardness. The sooner it is abolished, the better.”
They don’t make men like Jack Straw and Khushwant Singh anymore. Vote-banks, expensive suits, coloured socks and ethno-religious identity, not policy, drive today’s politics.
Tarek Fatah, Ensaf Haider, Roksana Nazneen, and countless Muslims of the same mind....are they bigoted, racist Islamophobes....or do they know what they're talking about? |
|
