dialamah

Here let me quote you what I said to DoP: Let me repeat: People interpret their holy books however they want. So we can have hardline Christians like Betsy, or gentle ones like my very devout Catholic friend who offers acceptance even to gay people. We can have Christians who think they should not bake cakes for gay weddings, and Christians who will perform gay marriages, celebrate and honor them. In the same way, we can have Muslims who think that women must cover and Muslims who think they don't need to. We can also have Muslims who believe gays cannot be Muslims and Muslims who open gay mosques and gay Muslim women who wear hijab. People interpret their holy books however they want and that doesn't change no matter how often DoP chooses to quote the quran in his ongoing attempts to paint Muslims as extremists.

So you are kind of like a talking doll, your string gets pulled and you recite the Koran with no sense of how it applies in the lives of Muslims today. Got it.

I don't know why you think I, or anyone reasonably sane, would be persuaded by what the Quran says Muslims should do any more than anyone sane is persuaded by what the Bible says Christians should do. People interpret their holy books however they want, and Muslims are not bound by your interpretation, extremist as it is. A Muslim woman who decides not to cover is a Muslim just as much as a woman who does.

Is this any less of a "slap in the face" to the women who freely exercise their right to wear the hijab as a symbol of their faith and the value they put on it. Where I live, I see Muslim women in groups, bare headed and with hijabs, ocaasionally a woman in a niqab is with them. I can't tell from that grouping if they are family or friends, or if covered women are trying to persuade the uncovered woman to change or if the one uncovered is explaining to the others why covering is wrong. Neither can you. Belittling the covered ones as either "slapping" the face of those who don't have choice, or assuming they are oppressed based on nothing more than what you think should be universally true makes no sense to me. Supporting laws that essentially remove choice for women, while claiming its to "save" them is one of the hallmarks of paternalism and patriarchy, whether the choice removed is to cover or to uncover. Especially when neither option provides benefit to the women who really are oppressed.

You state here, often, that you believe women who wear the hijab are almost universally coerced to do so, either directly through family or indirectly through social pressure within the Muslim community. You also have said you support the State limiting the wearing of the hijab. You have been quite articulate about what you believe the hijab means, and how inappropriate it is in a Western country. This doesn't mean you would go around and rip hijabs off women's heads. I would never expect that of you and have never even come close to suggesting you would do such a thing. So why did you twist around what I said? Yes. Do you?

Agreed. That I consciously resist doing this doesn't mean I don't anyway. I am always catching myself making assumptions about people before knowing anything about them. Pretty human trait, I'd say, but not necessary. "Shut the truth out". I have heard and seen Muslim women say they "choose" to wear hijab and I am willing to respect that, at an individual level, regardless of how I view the hijab in the context of Islamic female oppression. Perhaps the people shutting the truth out are those who see the hijab as proof positive that the wearer is oppressed and/or an extremist, regardless of what she herself might say, if she was asked. Nah, you are just a little confused is all. Not trying to convince you of that. At most, I object to you making assumptions about these women and apparently deciding it is your duty, and your right, to dictate to these women what they may or may not wear, and expecting or wanting the government to impose your beliefs on them. There are enough women who "choose" the hijab that doing anything but accepting them seems wrong to me. That doesn't mean I am unaware or do not wonder if a woman is "choosing" or not. Aware of the potential of coercion is why I would likely support legislation limiting them to adult women, or at least age 15 or 16. Younger than that and the "freedom" from parental influence seems too suspect, to me. Same reason why I give Khadr the benefit of the doubt on his terrorists activities, by the way.

Probably not. And I repeat: Muslims have a much broader range of beliefs than Nazis or KKK members. Attempting to define them all according to the most extreme example does not work. It makes as little sense as assuming that wearing a crucifix means someone believes exactly as Betsy does - abortion is wrong, gays are evil and liberals are going to hell. A crucifix would likely indicate the wearer has a strong religious faith, but beyond that you'd have to talk to them to know just exactly what that means to them. That is the benefit of the doubt I give to Muslims.

What other group, specifically?

The difference being that I say "She could be forced, she might want to wear it, she might be very progressive or even gay, even in a hijab. More information is needed". Others say "She is wearing a hijab, I have all the information I need, she and/or her husband is an extremist, cannot be progressive, cannot be gay."

Yup, I did. Doesn't mean that any individual IS being forced, however, just as its not a guarantee that a woman with a black eye got it from her husband, despite the prevalence of domestic abuse. However much one might suspect, they aren't going to send the cops around to arrest her husband without at least "talking" to her to find out exactly what is happening. Why would we treat a woman in a hijab any differently? KKK is a group that was specifically formed to combat the government policy of reconstruction at the time, which included elevating the rights of Black people. Its belief system is simple and limited to a belief in the supremacy of the White race. Islam is a religion with a huge variety of beliefs, many sects and 1.5 billion adherents running the gamut from pacifist to violent extremist; from socially progressive to socially conservative. Attempts to compare the two groups fail.

By some people's standards a woman in a hijab is an extremist and it is inconceivable that she might herself be 'progressive' or gay. Why would I trust such flimsy criteria? Their speech might give one a better idea of where their heart is, so I agree ... Talking to someone can help determine how extreme they are. It also can provide an opportunity to present counter arguments to extreme positions held. And one's actions are by far the best way to determine how extreme they are. Thats why I believe that an individual should be held responsible for his or her crime, rather than many people responsible for an individual's crime.

Where have I said ALL Muslims would never be extreme in their beliefs? I have posted here for 3 years, and you'll not find a post from me claiming that at all. You will find posts where I have said the following: °Muslims are generally more conservative than Westerners; °Islamic countries are especially poor at human rights. °Islamic countries and culture is patriarchal; °extemism is a problem around the world; °Worldwide, Muslims are over-represented among terrorists, °Muslims condemn terrorism just as we do. °Authorities in Canada and the US consider rightwing terrorism a more significant threat in Canada than Islamic terrorism; Tell me, how does a left-of-center like me know which rightwingers, such as you and DoP, are murderous and which rightwingers aren't?... playing wait and see seems inadvisable. Therefore, I propose that the government screen all right wingers for security risks.

If these women were wanting government to take action against virtually all men, then yes. I agree, women do take precautiins against being raped by men, based on their personal assessment of risk. But when a man shows up on the news because he's raped someone, women do not go on social media saying "Where are all the men condemning these rapists?" or "Here is more proof that men are prone to rape. The government must do more! Men must not be allowed in bars and clubs where women are, unless they pass a special security screening." If my daughter, granddaughter, sister, friend were to start dating a Muslim I would advise them to be particularly aware of the cultural and religious norms that may make them poor relationship material. I would advise them the same should they start dating a South Asian, certain Christian sects, obsevant Jews etc. I would do this in the same spirit as I would advise them to watch their drinks while out in public, and to be aware of their surroundings at all times. That is the difference, in my opinion, between taking reasonable precautions based on understood group behaviors and tipping over into fear-mongering and phobia.

Nope. And you can't tell me, either. Still, you would subject all Muslims to extra security and limit their freedoms due to the actions of a few, while I would not. Some men rape. Do you support the assumption of all men as potential rapists and therefore support extra security and the limiting of male freedom?

In that spirit, which man is going to spike a woman.'s drink and rape her next week? Which man is going to kill his wife and children next week? We know some men, somewhere, is going to those things. Therefore I think men should be prevented from walking free and if you don't agree with me, that means you are willing to risk the lives of women and children to protect rapists and killers.

In other news, millions of Muslims in Western countries fail to lift a hand in violence last week. Never mind that; the one who did clearly represents all Muslims, everywhere.

Men are more likely to be charged than women for similar crimes. Men are also more likely be given longer sentences than women for similar crimes. Which is wrong, in my opinion: why should anyone be prosecuted and sentenced based on who they are rather than what they did?

If it didn't still carry weight, racists would not scream like scalded cats when their racism was called out.

I have always thought those kinds of government statements referred to publically reminding people not to "punch them", and to running information/education campaigns aimed at humanizing a group that has been targetted. I have never taken those kinds of statements to mean "special" laws be enacted for adding different or increased punishment if Jews/Muslims/LGBTQ/other were attacked. Or at least not beyond the current "hate crime" designation, which does have to meet certain criteria beyond assaulting someone from those groups.

My bad. I had a different source, but decided I didn't like it and went with one that showed a smaller decline, but forgot to update what I'd already typed.

I agree; removing information about those unacceptable practices is a mistake. What better way to inform newcomers than by having the information presented right up front?

Another accusation/insult. Do you want to try a discussion about what Canada needs to do to address the issue of FGM and why we are failing? What are some strategies we could employ to reduce the incidence among at risk populations? Egypt has reduced the incidence of FGM on ages under 15 to about 60%, from previous highs of over 90%, and its expected that this decline will continue. They've achieved this through a combination of education and laws (though they haven't done a lot to enforce those laws either as far as I can tell). Do you think a similar approach would be successful in Canada?

The phrasing "Your Muslims are quite safe from being charged with it." is not a neutral comment. I will take this is as backtracking. Because Canada needs to up their game in this regard. Why do you think there is lack of enforcement/prosecution for the crime of FGM in Canada?