Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > We Want to See Your Face...The new Burqa law in Quebec      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 51
We Want to See Your Face...The new Burqa law in QuebecPage 3 of 5    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5)
There isa reason for this growing move towards banning the burqua worldwide, in both Islamic and non-Islamic countries, and it's got litle to do with xenophobia or hatred of Muslims.

It's got far more to do with woman's rights in secular society

This is actually one of the biggest reasons why it is the wrong move to ban the niqab in an open society... It does as much to deny women their right to choose as it does to protect it...

Again, I fall back to the example of "Christian Domestic Discipline" and its tenet of a husbands Christian duty, even right, to discipline his wife, physically if necessary... Some women's rights advocates would argue that this practice should be wholely illegal... That it diminishes women's rights because someone, somewhere, may be coerced (by threats of divorce, etc) to accept it without choice... This, however, is every bit as "paternalistic" as any attitude which would demand it... It assumes an inherent inability on the part of any woman who would choose it to make a choice and that the choice must be made for them... something which is no different than making such discipline the law of the land...

We have laws which protect women from having this practice forced on them, but which do nothing to restrict her right to choose such a relationship... As free agents, it falls upon each individual to assert their right to choose for or against such a practice... The entire notion that we MUST remove the right to choose for all in order to protect any one from potential coercion is completely at odds with fundamental principles of human rights and common law... The purpose of any law on a matter of choice which does not infringe on the rights of others MUST be to protect the right to choose and offer recourse for those whose rights might be violated by being forced to make a choice they do not wish...

As far as the issue of "power struggles" in any given community... That is an issue for that community... Banning the niqab as a means of "derailing the fundamentalists" who might use social coersion to force women to wear it would be no different than banning "Christian Domestic Discipline" in order to "derail" Christian fundamentalists who might use social coersion to force women to accept it...

They will be the first targets of that increasing power base, and we owe them some backing to prevent that.

And the "secret" to accomplishing that in an open and democratic society is to provide legal recourse to those who choose to not wear it... Of course, "secret", is in quotes because it really is no "secret"... It's exactly what we do now with similar issues that, while now no longer particularly controversial, once rended at the very garment of open and democratic society, like universal sufferage (where women now have the right to vote but may choose their candidate or choose not to vote at all and have legal recourse against those who would seek to coerce that choice)... The issue was solved by enshrining the right to choose rather than forcing a particular choice (as in, you MUST vote) while offering legal protections from having that choice coerced...

As far as security issues go, I think I have already made my position clear on that... Where a real, measurable and immediate safety/security issue is involved (and that means a REAL safety issue, not an IMAGINED or "I feel uncomfortable" one) then, of course, the safety/security issue should prevail... but that doesn't mean we can't do so in a manner which addresses the safety issue while still respecting a right to choose...

I hate to say it (and I can scarcely believe I am) but... This is one issue where we should be following Egypts lead as below...
{quote]In 2001, a woman wearing the niqab was prevented from using the library at the University of Cairo. She took her case to the country’s Supreme Court, which ruled that a total ban on the niqab was unconstitutional. The court did, however, recommend that women wearing the veil be forced to reveal their faces to female security guards for the sake of identification.
With the exception that, where the safety issue is immediate and pressing, a male will have to do... Much as we do with full-body searches now...
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 52
We Want to See Your Face...The new Burqa law in Quebec
Posted: 4/7/2010 11:19:17 AM
quebec has a huge muslim minority, these people of peace, had bombs going off every week during the war between iran and irak, i know i remember hearing them go off on rue maisoneuve


Muslim bombs...? Every week...? For 8 years...? On Maisoneuve (as in Montreal)...?

You're going to have to back that one up with at least a 52 x 8 real examples, dude... Are you sure you aren't thinking of the Quebec "biker wars" of the '90's (I wonder how many, beyond next to zero, Rock Machine or Hell's Angels are muslim?)...?
 want to travel
Joined: 7/29/2006
Msg: 53
view profile
History
We Want to See Your Face...The new Burqa law in Quebec
Posted: 4/7/2010 11:48:49 AM
believe me , there was at least one bomb going off a week, several fast food placed where also hit, at least two high rise buildings had to be torn down, because, two of the bombing during this period, i will grant you this... it was not done for religious reasons, it was done because of the war,, my bad it had nothing to do with the muslim religion
 wildcat99
Joined: 8/28/2007
Msg: 54
view profile
History
We Want to See Your Face...The new Burqa law in Quebec
Posted: 4/7/2010 12:10:55 PM

Again, I fall back to the example of "Christian Domestic Discipline" and its tenet of a husbands Christian duty, even right, to discipline his wife, physically if necessary... Some women's rights advocates would argue that this practice should be wholely illegal... That it diminishes women's rights because someone, somewhere, may be coerced (by threats of divorce, etc) to accept it without choice... This, however, is every bit as "paternalistic" as any attitude which would demand it... It assumes an inherent inability on the part of any woman who would choose it to make a choice and that the choice must be made for them... something which is no different than making such discipline the law of the land...


Bullshit. The fact is that physical discipline is a physical assault and is already illegal. To say that we need to respect women's right to choose whether they want to follow the religious tenet of Christian Domestic Discipline by not making a physical assault illegal is beyond ridiculous. She can choose to follow this religious practice by not reporting her husband's assault when he disciplines her. That is her right and her choice. But to say that this practice should be allowed because it's protected by freedom of religion is just plain wrong. So it's only illegal to physically assault and discipline someone if it's not in the name of religious practices? Talk about a slippery slope.

The fact remains that this country has passed numerous laws to protect women's rights throughout the years. The burqa is used as a way to diminish women and keep them as second class citizens in the Muslim community. It is not a religious practice therefore not protected so I do not understand what rights are being violated by banning the burqa from government buildings, goverment documents and security checkpoints. We are a country built on freedom and equality and now we want to protect a culture's desire/right to curtail those freedoms for women?

The Muslim women can still choose to wear the burqa or not as long as she removes it at certain times and in certain places. There is nothing unreasonable about that.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 55
We Want to See Your Face...The new Burqa law in Quebec
Posted: 4/7/2010 12:28:16 PM
Bullshit. The fact is that physical discipline is a physical assault and is already illegal. To say that we need to respect women's right to choose whether they want to follow the religious tenet of Christian Domestic Discipline by not making a physical assault illegal is beyond ridiculous.

Your going to have to remove that knee from your chin and go back and read the statement again... Of course, this is exactly the "paternalistic" aatitude I was referring to earlier... I would guess that you do not believe that ANY woman would EVER choose to be in such a relationship and, therefore, must be under unlawful coersion so we must protect the poor dear from her own misguided choices...

It says ABSOLUTELY ZERO about "not making physical assault illegal"... The fact is, "Christian Domestic Discipline" is 100% legal among consenting adults... Just as sado-masochistic bondage and spanking is 100% legal between consenting adults...

It is not a religious practice therefore not protected so I do not understand what rights are being violated by banning the burqa from government buildings, goverment documents and security checkpoints.

What's being violated is the right to choose... Just as it would have been if opponents would have been successful in permanently banning bikinis (some places tried and the laws were overturned) or mini-skirts (the failure to legally ban bikinis kept this one from ever getting off the ground)

The burqa is used as a way to diminish women and keep them as second class citizens in the Muslim community.

For some it is... And THAT'S why we have laws protecting individual rights... So people who ARE COERCED have a legal recourse... For others it is a choice based on their OWN truly held beliefs... And THAT'S ALSO why we have laws protecting individual rights...

The Muslim women can still choose to wear the burqa or not as long as she removes it at certain times and in certain places.

Nope, the law does much more than that... It deprives women of benefits and employment opportunities WHICH HAVE NO BEARING on her choice to wear a niqab (the veil part of the burkha) and DO NOT present ANY real, immediate safety/security risks... If it were related only to real, immediate safety/security risks then you might have a point...
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 56
We Want to See Your Face...The new Burqa law in Quebec
Posted: 4/7/2010 12:57:09 PM
It is not a religious practice

Neither is "Christian Domestic Discipline"... At least it isn't directly supported by the Bible... The logic used to arrive at that conclusion (the discipline, especially the physical part) is very convoluted and, well, "iffy"... But, it is still 100% legal, even in public places in most locales...

We are a country built on freedom and equality and now we want to protect a culture's desire/right to curtail those freedoms for women?

What about protecting a woman's right to choose her own beliefs...? What about the women who ACTUALLY DO believe that the niqab is "Allah's wish" for them...? Are we to deny them THEIR right to choose in an open and democratic society under threat of a loss of other accepted rights and privileges which have no bearing on any real, immediate safety/security issue...? Is that REALLY the hallmark of a society based on freedom and equality...? Or is the TRUE hallmark one where we accept the rights of others to choose those things with which we disagree as long as it does not directly violate another's rights or the real and immediate safety/security of society at large...?
 Alli_oop
Joined: 6/30/2009
Msg: 57
We Want to See Your Face...The new Burqa law in Quebec
Posted: 4/7/2010 12:58:47 PM
Seeing as i think the things people do in the name of religion are stupid, I couldn't care less if quebec bans face towels.
 wildcat99
Joined: 8/28/2007
Msg: 58
view profile
History
We Want to See Your Face...The new Burqa law in Quebec
Posted: 4/7/2010 12:59:03 PM

What's being violated is the right to choose

No it's not. She still has the right to choose to wear it, just not in certain buildings and in certain circumstances. Try wearing a baclava in a bank or in a government building. If there is a security guard there, he will tell you to remove it or leave. Why is that any different than a burqa?


The burqa is used as a way to diminish women and keep them as second class citizens in the Muslim community.

For some it is... And THAT'S why we have laws protecting individual rights... So people who ARE COERCED have a legal recourse... For others it is a choice based on their OWN truly held beliefs... And THAT'S ALSO why we have laws protecting individual rights...


The burqa is not subjective just like the swastika is not subjective (Don't bother trying to confuse the issue with what the swastika originally meant. I only care what it means now). I have no problem banning something in government buildings that is designed to diminish people just like I have no problem banning swastikas. You can do whatever you want in the privacy of your own home. That is your individual right. These women can also wear the burqa everywhere else if they want. That is their right.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 59
We Want to See Your Face...The new Burqa law in Quebec
Posted: 4/7/2010 1:08:36 PM
The burqa is not subjective just like the swastika is not subjective

Well, I never expected Godwin's Law to rear IT'S ugly head here... It really is amazing how people will surprise you with the convolutions in logic...

The burkha, at least in this country, absolutely is subjective... NO woman may, by law, be forced to wear one... And EVERY woman, no matter her place of origin has the ABSOLUTE RIGHT to refuse to wear one... ANY person who attempts, by force or coersion to make a woman wear one can be dealt with legally... ANY woman who finds herself under such coersion has numerous legal remedies available to resolve the issue, from divorce to criminal assault charges (where physical force, or the threat of physical force, is involved)... Her choice to pursue those remedies is just that, HER choice...

There is ABSOLUTELY ZERO legal compulsion for her to acquiesce to ANY such demands...

How on God's green earth does that make it anything other than subjective...?

No it's not. She still has the right to choose to wear it, just not in certain buildings and in certain circumstances.

So, what you are saying is that you are 100% cool with any other woman being denied the same benefits and employment rights you enjoy because she doesn't meet your personal definition of a 'real, self-respecting woman'...?

How "committed to equality and equal rights" of you...
 wildcat99
Joined: 8/28/2007
Msg: 60
view profile
History
We Want to See Your Face...The new Burqa law in Quebec
Posted: 4/7/2010 1:21:09 PM
Obviously I did not make myself clear. What I meant was that the meaning of the burqa is not subjective and it is used by the Muslim community as a way to diminish and subjugate women. I do not have a problem with our country banning something that is considered a symbol of oppression in government buildings.
 wildcat99
Joined: 8/28/2007
Msg: 61
view profile
History
We Want to See Your Face...The new Burqa law in Quebec
Posted: 4/7/2010 1:29:35 PM

So, what you are saying is that you are 100% cool with any other woman being denied the same benefits and employment rights you enjoy because she doesn't meet your personal definition of a 'real, self-respecting woman'...?


Really? I don't recall giving you my personal definition of anything so I'd appreciate it if you just stuck to the facts and stop trying to put words in my mouth. That's not what I'm saying and you know it but you go ahead and twist my words to suit your arguments.
 SaharaM
Joined: 4/9/2009
Msg: 62
view profile
History
We Want to See Your Face...The new Burqa law in Quebec
Posted: 4/7/2010 1:52:55 PM
The burkha, at least in this country, absolutely is subjective... NO woman may, by law, be forced to wear one... And EVERY woman, no matter her place of origin has the ABSOLUTE RIGHT to refuse to wear one... ANY person who attempts, by force or coersion to make a woman wear one can be dealt with legally... ANY woman who finds herself under such coersion has numerous legal remedies available to resolve the issue, from divorce to criminal assault charges (where physical force, or the threat of physical force, is involved)... Her choice to pursue those remedies is just that, HER choice...

There is ABSOLUTELY ZERO legal compulsion for her to acquiesce to ANY such demands...

...

How "committed to equality and equal rights" of you...


It's awfully easy to toss in "can be dealt with legally" to pretend to address very complicated social issues such as the one you describe. Charging off to divorce court or to the prosecutor's office doesn't "resolve an issue" except in very rare circumstances.




And a woman's choice TO wear it? That's the rub. We should probably focus on that instead of tangents and insults related to HOW a woman makes the choice.
 want to travel
Joined: 7/29/2006
Msg: 63
view profile
History
We Want to See Your Face...The new Burqa law in Quebec
Posted: 4/7/2010 2:14:33 PM
the person that keeps bringing up ' christian domestic discipline' is really living in the past, and not at all in touch with reality
there is no such thing, and has not been accepted for a century, for most people in the western world, and has not been in any church doctrine for decades now
his arguments are simply put, fantasy,devoid of any sense of reality
here in canada, someone who lives next door to a woman that is being hurt physically , and the police are called, the man is cuffed, and arrested, and now is charged, regardless of if the woman presses charges or not, the only thing the woman has any say is to do wheather the man goes to jail, or prison,in the case that she does not want him in jail, the man has to go to anger managment courses
the only exception to this is the islamic community, and that is because they pull the discrimination card
 SaharaM
Joined: 4/9/2009
Msg: 64
view profile
History
We Want to See Your Face...The new Burqa law in Quebec
Posted: 4/7/2010 2:53:27 PM
^^That is pretty dismissive of an entire community, eh? Yikes.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 65
We Want to See Your Face...The new Burqa law in Quebec
Posted: 4/7/2010 3:38:49 PM
there is no such thing, ... his arguments are simply put, fantasy,devoid of any sense of reality

And if you TRULY believe that... Well, I'm not the one living in fantasy... There IS a movement specific to that... It HAS a dedicated following... A following MUCH larger than you might imagine...

Perhaps you should simply Google "Christian Domestic Discipline" and, perhaps, learn something about the real world...

Actually, I'll save yopu the trouble... Here's the first two links to pop up out of 738,000 hits (of course, some of those are sites opposed to it)

http://christiandomesticdiscipline.com/

http://www.christiandd.com/
here in canada, someone who lives next door to a woman that is being hurt physically , and the police are called, the man is cuffed, and arrested, and now is charged, regardless of if the woman presses charges or not, the only thing the woman has any say is to do wheather the man goes to jail, or prison,in the case that she does not want him in jail, the man has to go to anger managment courses

Oh really...?!? So I guess there are NO couples who engage in S&M...? And, if there are, they are jailed for it...?

I wasn't aware that S&M was illegal here...? Oh, wait, that's because it isn't as long as it's consensual... And neither is a consensual "Christian Domestic Discipline" marriage...

Life is not as you appear to see it...
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 66
We Want to See Your Face...The new Burqa law in Quebec
Posted: 4/7/2010 6:28:47 PM
Really? I don't recall giving you my personal definition of anything so I'd appreciate it if you just stuck to the facts and stop trying to put words in my mouth. That's not what I'm saying and you know it but you go ahead and twist my words to suit your arguments.

OK, then let's look at the statement which prompted the comment...

You said:

The burqa is not subjective just like the swastika is not subjective (Don't bother trying to confuse the issue with what the swastika originally meant. I only care what it means now). I have no problem banning something in government buildings that is designed to diminish people just like I have no problem banning swastikas.

You have said that the burkha is not subjective... That it is a symbol of the diminishment of women and compared it with the swastika, as used by the NAZI's, with a clearly expressed dismissal of it's other meanings or uses (and, BTW, it still used by several religions practiced by close to a billion people, such as Hindus and Jainists)... In your dismissal you expressed a clear feeling that its use by others is anathema based solely on what it means to you today without any regard for what it means to those who use it with absolutely NO connection to your perception, who have used it for centuries before your perception ever existed... Your statement expresses a clear position that ONLY your impression of its meaning and use is important, that its meaning and use by others is irrelevant...

Now, if this statement:

the swastika is not subjective (Don't bother trying to confuse the issue with what the swastika originally meant. I only care what it means now)

means something other than what I have described, please feel free to clarify...

You have made it clear that this law is perfectly fine, even though it denies others of the same benefits and privileges you enjoy...

And by connecting the two statements as you did here:

...just like I have no problem banning swastikas.

You have connected your feelings regarding the burkha to denying its wearers the same benefits and privileges you enjoy...

In short, you have no problem denying other women the same benefits and privileges you enjoy simply because they wear something you don't like...

So, please tell me where this comment of mine:

So, what you are saying is that you are 100% cool with any other woman being denied the same benefits and employment rights you enjoy because she doesn't meet your personal definition of a 'real, self-respecting woman'...?

How "committed to equality and equal rights" of you...

Fails to accurately summarize your position on this...?

Now, let me directly address your assertion that the only purpose of the burkha (with niqab) is to diminish women... I'll do this by relating MY direct experience with women who wear the burkha in this country...

I know exactly three women who wear it... One only wears it on particular occasions... She and her husband are Saudi and she only wears it on occasions where traditional national dress is called for (her husband wears the Saudi equivalent of a burnous-style robe with headcovering), other than that they both wear traditional western styles...

The second claims it is by her own choice according to her beliefs... She has NO male relatives in the country other than her children (her husband was killed in Afghanistan and she and her children came to Canada alone as refugees) so it is highly unlikely that she does so as a result of coersion... Particularly as no-one else in her neighbourhood or mosque wears the niqab (though some wear the jilbab (the cloak) and hijab (headscarf)) and this too I can attest to as I walk by the mosque often (it is on my way to work) and I have never seen anyone other than her wearing the niqab...

The third is a teenage girl of 18... She too claims that she wears it according to her beliefs, though I doubt this is entirely true... She does not wear it all the time and her parents are completely opposed to her wearing it... for a time they tried to forbid it as not being truly muslim and because they feel it attracts the wrong kind of attention... But, like many teen girls, she would simply hide it at a friends and put it on after leaving the house... In her case, I believe she wears it as a form of rebellion and simply for what she perceives as "shock value" (like so many other teens do with other items of clothing)...

Now I do know some women (adults and teens) who wear the hijab only because their husbands/fathers/communities pressure them to, but none of them are burkha/niqab wearers...

I have no doubt that, in some muslim countries there are tremendous social and legal pressures to wear the burkha and that in THESE countries its primary purpose is clearly sexist in nature... But THESE countries are NOT Canada and they are NOT free and democratic societies like Canada... It is the height of hubris for us to think that we can force these countries to change by denying the benefits and privileges that other women enjoy to the women who choose to wear the burkha here... It certainly doesn't work on the US with gun control even though the majority of the world has it and I seriously doubt it will work on them with the niqab...

If this law was JUST about the expectation to reveal their faces when real, immediate security/safety issues were involved, with at least some effort to provide privacy WHERE PRACTICAL... then I would have ZERO problem with it... But that is not just and simply what it does... It also denies them benefits and employment opportunities over a personal choice to wear a piece of cloth where that cloth presents NO real, immediate safety/security risk...

In short, we are punishing women over a choice of clothing, in THIS country, under THIS countries laws... This is no different than if we were to demand that those Mennonite women who choose to wear them, remove their bonnets and aprons (which serve essentially the same purpose, the apron is no mere accident... it relates directly to the expected traditional role of women in their view)... I guarantee you that, even though this dress is NOT required by the Bible, that there would be "holy hell" (pun intended) to pay for trying...
 Sweet_Le_Senza
Joined: 6/1/2007
Msg: 67
view profile
History
We Want to See Your Face...The new Burqa law in Quebec
Posted: 4/7/2010 6:46:23 PM
I read through this thread and it reminds me of a journal article I had to read for Social Justice and Human rights. "Security and Liberty: The Image of balance~ Jeremy Waldron

Very interesting article.

This whole 'burka' thing I assume is from a security perspective? Waldrom discusses how, post 9/11 ,there is a shift now in the balance between security and liberty.

For more security we must give up some liberty. Most of the time according to Waldron, it's Muslims that are being denied liberty in order for our security.

Is this making any sense?
What forum is this?
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 68
We Want to See Your Face...The new Burqa law in Quebec
Posted: 4/7/2010 7:01:49 PM

For more security we must give up some liberty. Most of the time according to Waldron, it's Muslims that are being denied liberty in order for our security.

Is this making any sense?

It makes absolute sense to me... But then that is the perspective I'm approaching it from...

Just call me Ben...
 De Adra
Joined: 8/29/2009
Msg: 69
We Want to See Your Face...The new Burqa law in Quebec
Posted: 4/7/2010 8:01:04 PM
Any man inflicting Christian Domestic Discipline on me is going to be pushing up Christian Domestic Tomatoes in my back yard.
 SaharaM
Joined: 4/9/2009
Msg: 70
view profile
History
We Want to See Your Face...The new Burqa law in Quebec
Posted: 4/7/2010 8:21:14 PM
For more security we must give up some liberty.
This is a dangerous position which Bush clearly believed in; it's important to move away from this.

 puppet master
Joined: 10/12/2007
Msg: 71
We Want to See Your Face...The new Burqa law in Quebec
Posted: 4/8/2010 4:42:57 AM
in some muslim countries there are tremendous social and legal pressures


but not religious......


over a personal choice to wear a piece of cloth


personal choice....again not religious


You have connected your feelings regarding the burkha to denying its wearers the same benefits and privileges you enjoy...

In short, you have no problem denying other women the same benefits and privileges you enjoy simply because they wear something you don't like...


i don't have the benefit and privilege of walking around tending to any or all of my daily businss with my identity obscured; nor do you, or the vast majority of canadians!

so when we are all allowed to walk around with or identities obscured if we so choose[, then by all means allow the wearing of burqa's; otherwise we are simply affording rights to a specific group of canadians.

canada as the receiving country of an immigrant has the right to dictate what is acceptable social or cultural behaviour within our borders, just as most countries do.
and we have the responsibility to ensure that all canadians enjoy the same rights and privileges when they arrive here.

there are many groups that are required to modify their social, cultural, and dietary customs when they arrive here, to allow one group the privledge of retaining a cultural custom or choice in public that is widely unacceptable and/or not afforded to all, directly contravines fair and equitable treatment of all canadians.


perhaps we should allow female circumcision as it is a broad cultural custom in the home country of my childrens paternal family.

perhaps we should allow the binding of our girls feet, it is still an accepted practice in much of rural asia.

perhaps we should allow our asian community to sell dog meat in their markets, which i believe is against the law in canada, after all it is socally and dietary acceptable in many of their home countries.

and of course perhaps we should allow the wearing of klu klux clan hoods as well...because other than the color they are really no different than a burqa.

in all cases, and i am sure there are many more, these are unacceptable personal, social and/or cultural choices that we do not allow in canada. they have no basis in the argument of religious freedom, nor does the wearing of the burqa.


This is no different than if we were to demand that those Mennonite women who choose to wear them, remove their bonnets and aprons (which serve essentially the same purpose, the apron is no mere accident


and this is totally different; as everyone of us could if we wished attend to our daily lives wearing an apron........even you!
 wildcat99
Joined: 8/28/2007
Msg: 72
view profile
History
We Want to See Your Face...The new Burqa law in Quebec
Posted: 4/8/2010 7:29:01 AM
Mungo, you do have quite the imagination. Nowhere in my posts did I express my personal opinions about what a real woman is, but rather just expressed what the burqa does mean in Muslim countries. It is a symbol of oppression, regardless of what the original purpose of the burqa was. I do know that some women wear it for other purposes and by choice. However, that does not negate that Muslim communities recognize it as a sign of oppression and as montrealguy so kindly pointed out, even Muslim communities are trying to banish the burqa.

Therefore, I do not have a problem with our government banning in government buildings what is considered in muslim communities a symbol of oppression towards women . It has nothing to do with what I consider a "real, self-respecting woman."


But THESE countries are NOT Canada and they are NOT free and democratic societies like Canada... It is the height of hubris for us to think that we can force these countries to change by denying the benefits and privileges that other women enjoy to the women who choose to wear the burkha here


I didn't realize that banning the burqa here in government buildings was an attempt to force these countries to do anything. I agree that it would be arrogant to think we could force another country to do anything so I'm not sure where you're getting this connection. However, these countries are not free and democratic like Canada and do oppress women by forcing women to wear burqas and you're naive if you think that most women who have emigrated from those countries are wearing it for any other reason. So, again, I do not have a problem with Canada saying (in a very small way because muslim women can wear burqas everywhere else) that we do not support this oppression.


In short, we are punishing women over a choice of clothing


Bottom line, it is a personal choice and not protected by any laws that protect religious practices. I guess I'm being punished if I decide to apply for a job wearing no shoes and socks or ripped clothes, and I don't get the job. I should be allowed to wear whatever I choose according to you. But there are bylaws that don't allow me to enter government buildings and malls etc. barefoot. I don't see this as a punishment. I recognize that I am not completely free to wear whatever I want in public and I'm fine with that. So I put my shoes on when I go into those buildings and am afforded all the same rights and privileges as everyone else. Simple.


i don't have the benefit and privilege of walking around tending to any or all of my daily businss with my identity obscured; nor do you, or the vast majority of canadians!

so when we are all allowed to walk around with or identities obscured if we so choose[, then by all means allow the wearing of burqa's; otherwise we are simply affording rights to a specific group of canadians.


Exactly.


This is no different than if we were to demand that those Mennonite women who choose to wear them, remove their bonnets and aprons (which serve essentially the same purpose, the apron is no mere accident... it relates directly to the expected traditional role of women in their view)...


Big difference between a bonnet or an apron and a burqa. The bonnet/apron does not completely obscure your identity like the burqa.


I guarantee you that, even though this dress is NOT required by the Bible, that there would be "holy hell" (pun intended) to pay for trying...


I doubt that since there is a very small portion of the population that would disagree. Muslim communities are trying to ban the burqa themselves so I really cannot understand your objections.
 Montreal_Guy
Joined: 3/8/2004
Msg: 73
view profile
History
We Want to See Your Face...The new Burqa law in Quebec
Posted: 4/8/2010 9:41:18 AM

I recognize that I am not completely free to wear whatever I want in public and I'm fine with that. So I put my shoes on when I go into those buildings and am afforded all the same rights and privileges as everyone else. Simple.


Imagine what will happen in ten years, or more, if something like the burqua is allowed to flourish. If the numbers of wearers increases, as it most probably will, then Canadian society may face some interesting problems.

Any photo based ID used for access , like bus passes, becomes something that poses a problem. As my friend saw at Concordia, student cards for such women had photos of them in the burqua.... defeating their purpose. This means that such a women boarding a bus (or going to a university) mandates having a female there if identity is to be verified, as well as a private area in which to view their uncovered face - on every bus.

Shopkeepers can refuse someone access with a " no shirt/no shoes" policy - but would be subjected to a possible legal complaint for religious discrimination if they refused access to a burqua wearer.

Any store with a camera system for security has it rendered useless. If a women is in a burqua, there is no way to verify her identity in the case of potential check fraud, or shoplifting - unless a female employee (and private viewing area) is available all the time. Imagine the problem in a Mom and Pop type of shop with this situation.

Any business that refuses to hire a burqua wearing woman might face the same. We've seen a related version of this in the Netherlands already, where women ( on welfare ) were saying they were discriminated against because no one would hire them.

If a crime is committed, and police are searching for someone (or suspect someone) and stop such a woman they are also limited in their ability to have a quick ID of who they are. Do we require every patrol car to have a male and female officer ? If not...then everyone just has to wait until one shows up ? There's also that "private viewing" area again.

This impacts on both innocent people ( what if it's the wrong person ?) , as well as the police officers involved, not to mention public security.

The one thing about any fundamentalist group is that they are doing God's will. They won't back down, and once a "right" is granted then they will use it as a power in any situation possible. They cannot be negotiated with. They will also try to increase their power base, inside their community.

Women in that community will be pressured to conform, and that will be hard to report to authorities. Anyone trying such an action will be branded a heretic to the crowd supporting it. That will create a dangerous situation, as these women typically will have little self-sufficiency in things with a lack of job and income.

This is the road we are embarking on, if we refuse to address this issue now, when small numbers of people are involved.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 74
We Want to See Your Face...The new Burqa law in Quebec
Posted: 4/8/2010 12:39:51 PM
Ok, I think it is time to address some of the misconceptions and red herrings being thrown around here in defense of the "burkha restriction"...

The below are all the same basic red herring so I'll lump them together...

i don't have the benefit and privilege of walking around tending to any or all of my daily businss with my identity obscured; nor do you, or the vast majority of canadians!

so when we are all allowed to walk around with or identities obscured if we so choose[, then by all means allow the wearing of burqa's; otherwise we are simply affording rights to a specific group of canadians.


look, the police would stop your car, or you on the street if you had your face covered with a balaclava,(with say a loose long overcoat)
without exception,and i for one am perfectly happy about this


As a point of law, there is ABSOLUTELY NO LAW that prevents you from wearing ANY face covering you choose. Any contention that this is not a freedom you have is patently false

The only element of obscuring one's face that is covered under the criminal code is doing so for the SPECIFIC purpose and intent of committing an indictable offense... Below is the ONLY element covered under the criminal code...


351 subsection 2

Disguise with intent

(2) Every one who, with intent to commit an indictable offence, has his face masked or coloured or is otherwise disguised is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.

As far as the contention that police will stop you WITHOUT EXCEPTION for walking around in a balaclave... Utter BS... There are not enough police around to even come close to this, nor do they have the necessary authority to do so simply because you are wearing it...

If this were true then no-one would be able to keep their face warm in the winter...

Further, all the neurotics who were running around in surgical/particulate masks this past flu season would all have been stopped constantly...

No shoes, no shirt, no service

This has been stated several times in different ways... I've consolidated them in this way to retain the meaning and intent without having to quote each one...

This too is an utter red herring and has no bearing on the issue... This is not an issue of sartorial taste in anyway... It IS a public health issue, not an issue of "we don't want to see your feet" and is not relevant as a burkha does not present a public health issue...

The bonnet/apron does not completely obscure your identity like the burqa.

This was not presented as an issue of ID... though the argument shown is covered under the point above that there "is no such law"... It was presented as a point regarding the objection that "Islam doesn't demand it"... All manner of religious clothing choices are permitted under our democratic system which have no clear and direct connection to religious teachings... We cannot merely pick and choose which we like and which we don't...

my son however is not allowed on the bus with his hoodie, hat or balaclava covering his face. he is not allowed to enter a bank with his face obscured.......he's actually been denied entry into a movie theater pending removal of his hoodie.


Shopkeepers can refuse someone access with a " no shirt/no shoes" policy - but would be subjected to a possible legal complaint for religious discrimination if they refused access to a burqua wearer.

Any store with a camera system for security has it rendered useless.

These again are red herrings... The "no shoes/no shirt" ios addressed above, as to other "subjective" bans the following is the case according to law... In each case, these are private businesses subject to private property laws... There could be NO rights complaint upheld under current human rights legislation as long as the restrictions are applied evenly and non-discriminately (though it would behoove any proprietor to post a visible notice at the door to establish proof that all are refused)... Private businesses are not held to the Charter and are ONLY subject to relevant human rights legislation... Any business which chooses to refuse people whose faces are obscured are legally protected as long as it applies to ALL cases... They just can't pick and choose, say refusing burkhas but allowing those who wear surgical/particulate masks, have a scarf wrapped around their face in the dead of winter, etc... either all are allowed or all are refused... They could just as easily and legally refuse all exposed religious symbols and dress as long as they don't pick and choose... If they refuse crucifixes they also have to refuse stars of david... if they refuse hijabs they also have to refuse yarmulkes...

As far as banks kicking one out for having their face obscured... This is BY NO MEANS a universal policy... a great many bank branches have NO security guards on duty and do not automatically refuse people with obscured faces... MANY make absolutely NO issue of it at all... It is an individual decision and is ONLY subject to human rights legislation where it is done in a discriminatory manner... As long as ALL face obscuring articles are prohibited it is entirely within their private property rights...

We then come to the issue of things like surgical/particulate masks... these obscure the face from the bridge of the nose to the chin and from cheek to cheek, the same as a niqab... A niqab of sufficient fabric weight (as most are) will accomplish the same purpose... If we allow these in gov't buildings (which we do) to prevent indiscriminate spread of virii, despite the fact that they obscure the face, then we must also allow niqabs under the same conditions as they are just as capable of accomplishing this goal (and offer superior protection to sneezing/coughing into your sleeve)... There is nothing particularly special about surgical masks, they are simply medium weight fabric and most particulate masks are nothing more than wood pulp... Neither offer any real superior advantage over a niqab... If we are to allow hospital staff to present and deal with patients while wearing a mask which offers no particular advantage over a niqab (and we do) then we must also allow them to present and deal with patients while wearing a niqab... If we are to allow any employees to present and deal with clients while wearing such a mask (and we do) then we must also allow it for niqabs... To not do so would be prima facie evidence of discrimination...

If a women is in a burqua, there is no way to verify her identity in the case of potential check fraud, or shoplifting - unless a female employee (and private viewing area) is available all the time. Imagine the problem in a Mom and Pop type of shop with this situation.


If a crime is committed, and police are searching for someone (or suspect someone) and stop such a woman they are also limited in their ability to have a quick ID of who they are. Do we require every patrol car to have a male and female officer ? If not...then everyone just has to wait until one shows up ? There's also that "private viewing" area again.

Again, a red herring... Human rights legislation DOES NOT require this... It only demands reasonable effort and only where reasonably practicable (this includes real and immediate safety risks)... There is NO requirement to "go above and beyond", only a requirement to make reasonable effort...

The one thing about any fundamentalist group is that they are doing God's will. They won't back down, and once a "right" is granted then they will use it as a power in any situation possible. They cannot be negotiated with. They will also try to increase their power base, inside their community.

Women in that community will be pressured to conform, and that will be hard to report to authorities. Anyone trying such an action will be branded a heretic to the crowd supporting it. That will create a dangerous situation, as these women typically will have little self-sufficiency in things with a lack of job and income.


It is a symbol of oppression, regardless of what the original purpose of the burqa was. I do know that some women wear it for other purposes and by choice. However, that does not negate that Muslim communities recognize it as a sign of oppression and as montrealguy so kindly pointed out, even Muslim communities are trying to banish the burqa.

If this is the case then it would be discriminatory to apply this ONLY to the burkha without applying it to ALL forms of religious/quasi-religious dress that implies the same goal... This includes much of the dress worn by certain fundamentalist Protestant groups, like Amish and Mennonites whose standards of dress for women are much more restrictive towards women than men... The apron and bonnet I mentioned for instance... Have you ever seen or heard of how "old school" Amish and Mennonites treat and pressure the women among them who refuse to wear traditional clothing...? It ain't a pretty sight... Anything less is clearly and patently discriminatory...

This is the road we are embarking on, if we refuse to address this issue now, when small numbers of people are involved.

We have already walked that road as clearly demonstrated by our tolerance of similar practices by Christian groups... Again, I refer back to my examples of our tolerance of such fundamentalism among Amish, Mennonites and those who practice "Christian Domestic Discipline"...

It is a fundamental element of liberty and democracy that we either tolerate such things equally for all or refuse to tolerate them equally for all.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 75
We Want to See Your Face...The new Burqa law in Quebec
Posted: 4/8/2010 1:25:25 PM

Muslim communities are trying to ban the burqa themselves so I really cannot understand your objections.

I believe I have made the basis for my objection completely clear... but, if it helps you out I'll restate it... It's a fundamental issue of liberty in a free and democratic society...

As to the "even many muslims want to ban it" argument... that is absolutely irrelevant... Many Christians wanted to ban Mormonism wholesale because their beliefs were not sufficiently rigourous in their view of Christianity (or as SPECIFICALLY detailed in the Bible)... Same with Jehovah's Witnesses... And Amish... And Mennonites...Yet that is something that we would never allow in a democratic society, so why would we entertain allowing it for some muslims on the basis of the objections of other muslims...?
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > We Want to See Your Face...The new Burqa law in Quebec