dialamah

Yes it would. At the same time it would send a message that we will compel women to stay home rather than accept their choice of what to wear.

Honestly, I find it difficult to see much difference in them when they have power over people. Unfortunately, Islam rules over more people at the moment, so of course they look worse. I used to have hopes that Buddhists were less bloodthirsty, but no such luck.

Wouldn't want to be gay in Uganda, either, even if you are just 8 years old, because Ugandans love Jesus.

Bet some of you are sad you missed this event - Punish-A-Muslim day Of course The Rebel, that bastion of fake news, claims it was a hoax.

Are you saying that a niqab ban would help women who are being oppressed and abused in their home?

The two arguments are not mutually exclusive. There are two groups of women who wear the Niqab. One group *chooses* to wear the Niqab. One group wears the Niqab due to family/religious pressure. Thus, there are two arguments to oppose banning the niqab. 1. It removes the right of women who "choose". 2. It does nothing to help the women who are forced.

The thing is, we've managed to move past our own "barbaric" culture, dragging fundamental Christians kicking and screaming along with us, even when Christians comprised well over half of our population. I fail to see how 3.2% of Muslims are going to be able to 'drag us backwards", especially given that the 'extreme' ones are a small percentage of that 3.2%. Unless perhaps they join forces with the fundamental Christians, Jews and White Nationalists, who all have a similar ideology when it comes to women. That might give them a resounding 5%. I know there's some kind of notion out there that Muslims, when they get to some tiny percentage of the population (10%?) they take over. In my opinion, its a little far-fetched to imagine that 10% of any group could simply take over the rest of the group.

I wouldn't call myself "pro-niqab", more like "pro-freedom". When someone says to me that we should ban someone's religious symbol, I don't think that fits into Canadian culture of "freedom of thought/worship". However, @Goddess has provided the clue that I was lacking: they aren't concerned about the woman, or about freedom of thought/worship, only seeing the niqab as a symbol of extremism. And that is the issue. From my perspective the conversation has gone like this: Anti-Niqab: Ban the Niqab! It's oppressive and women are forced to wear it, and that's not a Canadian value! Pro-freedom: "What about the women who aren't forced to wear it? Shouldn't they have the choice? Anti-Niqab: No, because the women who are forced to wear it matter more! If the niqab is banned, they'll be able to stop wearing it! Pro-freedom: How will that work, if they are forced to wear it by religion/family, and forced to not wear it by secular law? Anti-Niqab: It will prove that we won't accept the oppression of women! And so the argument has gone on and on. (But finally, @Goddess has explained it's not the niqab or the women at all, it's the extremism it represents so it doesn't matter if she chooses to wear it or not.) So, it's not that the 'Pro-Freedom" rationale keeps changing at all, it's that there are really two groups of women: those who *choose* to wear it, and those who do not. There is that.

Well, as an explanation, that at least makes a lot more sense than "ban the niqab, save the women". What exactly do you mean by extremists in this context? I'm thinking violent extremism, but maybe I'm wrong about that.

My question is, always has been essentially: how does erecting an additional barrier to access resources help women escape abusive relationships? I am not trying to make "you all look stupid", I am trying to demonstrate why I think a niqab ban is ineffective in the stated goal of helping women escape oppressive relationships. Keeping extremism to a minimum is a laudable goal. Punishing women for wearing a niqab, their choice or not, isn't the way to do it, in my opinion.

Ok. Sorry I misunderstood your "othering" references. Have a nice day.

She only has to reach out for them? How does she do that, again, if a law is enacted that punishes her for leaving the house wearing a fave veil? She cannot leave the house without her veil because there is a man there with a "club" to make sure she is wearing it. There is another "club" outside her door ensuring her face is uncovered if she should step outside. Where are the consequences for the man, the abuser, the one who in the scenario holds the "club"? You say there are many resources for her, which I agree with, more or less. You then gloss over the difficulties women have to access those resources at the best of time, without the added barrier of not being permitted to leave the house without their face covered, or leaving the house and being targetted by authorities and angry Canadians because their face is covered. I know that it can be done, of course. But I do not understand why putting an additional barrier to accessing resources to escape an abusive relationship seems like a good idea to anyone. Vague "there are resources" is not an answer to my question.

Other than being offended, how are the rights of general society reduced by women in face coverings? Is there a right to not be offended that I was unaware of?

Such as? Because I have asked before how a woman, confined by her abuser to her house *unless she is veiled* is helped by a law that criminalize her if she leaves the house veiled. What are such a woman's options? 1. Defy her abuser and leave the house uncovered? How likely is that? Would she be safe at home? 2. Defy the law (likely at her abuser's insistence) and leave the house covered, which means she is now a criminal - not her abuser, but her. Not to mention facing abuse from Canadians who dislike seeing a woman veiled and will be extra incensed at seeing a woman in (perceived) defiance of both Canadian culture and the law. 3. Obey the law and stay home, out of sight and out of mind and certainly out of the reach of women and services who might be able to help her escape her abuse. 4. Leave her abuser, and possibly children, or siblings or parents. How likely is that? If the secular law and the religious decree has prevented her from making contacts outside her home to find support, how would she be able to do that, do you suppose? Even women who are not criminalized for walking outside their home dressed incorrectly find leaving an abusive relationship exceedingly difficult. Is there an option for her here that I have missed? I have no doubt that veiled women can and do leave abusive relationships. I just don't see any point in making it harder for her by enacting a law that makes her a criminal for something her abuser forces her to do. Do you? Rape is abuse, and plenty of people do believe that a woman is complicit in her own rape if she dresses a certain way or if she drinks too much, or goes to the wrong places. I notice you skipped right over non-veiled women who get beaten/killed: are they not complicit in their own abuse in some way? If they are not, then why is a veiled woman complicit?

Don't think so. Seems to me you are the one that suggested a woman was complicit in her own abuse.

Oops, almost missed this. I suppose then that a woman who wears revealing clothing is complicit in her own rape? Or a non-shrouded woman, Muslim or not, beaten or killed by her intimate partner, is complicit in her own beating/death since she "chose" to be or stay in a relationship with him?

Well, I would rather have them shrouded and able to leave the house, than have a secular law that forbids them to leave the house while shrouded, while their religious "law" forbids them to leave the house unshrouded. Shrouding is not required in Egypt; it is frowned on socially and forbidden in some places. Nonetheless, many women report being victims of domestic abuse: last report I saw was in the neighborhood of 65%. The issue of domestic abuse goes a lot deeper than whether or not a woman wears a niqab.

I am sorry, but the wearing of a niqab does not cause abuse, and removing it will not prevent abuse. Polygamous marriages also do not cause abuse and having them outlawed does not prevent it. A woman wearing a niqab *may* indicate that she is in an abusive relationship, or it may not. If she is in an abusive relationship, removing the niqab makes her invisible, either because she is now confined to her home or because she looks just like the other abused women who do not wear a niqab. And if an unmarried woman converts to Islam and, against the wishes of her family and society at large, dons a niqab, who shall be abusing her? You can say "its the religion, she's brainwashed" and I might agree with that - but that still wouldn't give either of us the right to tell her we know what's best for her, and that she cannot be allowed to make her own choice about what to believe or how to express her belief - however much we might disaprove. I will grant you that abuses abound in religious communities which practice plural marriage, but its not "because" of plural marriage, that is merely a symptom of a deeper issue. And please note that despite polygamy being illegal it is still practiced - but hidden. The illegality of plural marriage makes it harder to reach and help those woman who are "married" by God. I see no benefit to following the same path with more women, as a way of "helping" them.

True, and I personally find that an uneccesary law. In my opinion, *adults* should be able to choose the kind of relationship they want. Perhaps I feel this way because of women I know who choose poly relationships, either multiple females to one male or multiple males to one female. (Although more usually its men and women each with multiple partners). Canada may well ban face veils too; I still wouldn't agree its a necessary or good law, at least not without some actual evidence that it made Canada safer and that it actually helped women in Canada escape oppressive family situations.

1. Yes, they do. There are some excellent criticisms to be made about Islam. I've posted my own criticisms, and also posted the criticisms of others. Islam can be criticized for its unequal treatment of women, for promoting or condoning practices that are harmful to women, for the contradiction in the claim that the "Koran is the perfect word of God", while also adhering to hadiths and fatwas that may or may not be consistent with what is written in the Koran. Terrorists can be (and are) criticized for using certain and out-of-context scripture to support their terror activities. There is plenty to criticize. Many Muslims criticize these things; many ex-Muslims criticize them, many Westerners criticize them. And, especially in Western countries, Muslims are criticizing the outdated tenets of Islam, and are creating progressive communities that support gender equality, accept gay people and non-believers, condemn extremism of all kinds. 2. What they do not do, in their criticisms, is use words that describe Muslims as a monolithic subhuman group, unable and unwilling to change. They do not say things like: "their backward, brutal, violently intolerant and barbaric culture"; "Muslims not only cling to antiquated, barbaric social values but they demand everyone else around them adopt those same values." Claiming that Muslims are pedophiles because "Mohammed married a 9-year-old" and ignoring mores of the time, as well as denying the conflicting evidence as to Aisha's age, is not criticism of Islam. Criticism of Islam does not involve denying any 'progressive' tendencies as un-Islamic, and proclaiming that only terrorists/misogynists have the correct interpretation of Islam. it's not a legitimate criticism to deny any progressive sentiment by Muslims as "a lie" because "taqqiya". There is a lot of things that are claimed to be 'legitimate criticism' which is simply bashing Muslims. 3. Islam isn't special; what is special is the lack of ability of so many people to recognize the difference between simply spewing insults and legitimate criticism. What is special is that any time a Muslim person engages in a violent act or hateful speech, all eyes turn to every single Muslim in sight to accuse and to demand an apology and explanation. And regardless of Muslim leaders on the news condemning these acts, or Muslims raising money for victims, or groups of Muslims standing outside a courthouse to condemn the Muslim murderer within, or even the vast majority of Muslims who never run afoul of the law, it's never enough for certain people: the cry is always "why don't they condemn such things if they really don't agree with them?" In the meantime, non-Muslims can go on any kind of rampage at all, and nobody expects any kind of mass condemnation to 'prove' we non-Muslims condemn those acts. 4. Yes, please criticize away! Point out that FGM is an unnecessary and dangerous practice that is not supported by the Koran and is a barbaric practices dating from well before Christ; it has nothing to do with Islamic teaching. Also, it's illegal almost everywhere and Mohammed specifically instructed his followers to follow the law of the land. Criticize the scriptures that specifically disallow women an equal share of inheritance on the assumption that male relatives will take care of her; that's not the modern world at all. Criticize governments and clerics who use religion to impose inhumane and oppressive policies or to lead their followers into violence. If people take the time to look, they can find and repeat plenty of legitimate criticisms, phrased in a way that doesn't accuse and condemn virtually every Muslim in the world. 5. Yes, and that process took something like 500 years, did it not? Our society has made more progress in terms of human rights and gender equality in the last 100 years than they did in the previous 400. My mother told me that when I was a baby, she had to get her husband's permission to get birth control. If her husband slapped her around, or beat her silly, well - it was her bed, she should lie on it because the cops weren't going to do much. It was legal to rape your wife in Canada until the 1980s. Yet, some people expect Islam to achieve that level of secularism in what - 50 years? - and when it doesn't happen that fast, well - they'll never change, those misogynistic barbaric bastards! How soon we forget, eh? Of course, pointing out that we haven't left those days all that far behind is very much resented by those who prefer to insult and call it "legitimate criticism". 6. Of course. And if we want our secular values of human rights, equality and tolerance to spread around the world, we should model them. Telling women, whether they choose to cover their face or are required to by their family, that we will not tolerate them on our streets is not a very good model of either tolerance or belief in gender equality, in my opinion. If a woman decides she *wants* to wear a niqab and we, in our Western progressiveness, inform her that it's a symbol of female oppression and we won't allow it, we are no different than a man (husband or cleric) who tells a woman that the veil is a symbol of her purity and devoutness, and so her face must be hidden from the public. Just as the man has appointed himself as the parent of the woman, the one who knows best, who has the right and the responsibility to direct her behavior, so have we relegated women to a child-like state, in which we know what is best for her and will impose that on her, regardless of her preferences or situation.

@Goddess Is it any less dismissive to tell me I am unpatriotic, hate Canada, and can't wait till Canada is a third world country, that I support misogyny? Things are said sometimes in the heat of a discussion, I get that, but at some point people should realize the slings and arrows don't travel in just one direction.

"Islamophobia" is defined as an irrational fear and dislike of Islam or Muslims, yes? I have not called anyone irrational; I have attempted to present my views fairly and reasonably. "Security risk" is about fear. I have noted in my response to Army Guy that I agree there is a security risk in religious exemption from photos on gun licences. This is because I believe there is a legitimate reason to fear the wrong person getting a gun, and photos may help mitigate that risk. I have also said I, along with other posters, dislike burkas and niqabs. Having expressed my own "fear" and "dislike" related to face coverings in this discussion, do you think I am calling myself an Islamophobe? Yes, you are going by past comments, albeit mischaracterizing them. And yes, sometimes people do think past behavior does not need to continue.

I have tried hard in this discussion to avoid personalizing my comments. I have not called anyone an Islamophobe in this discussion. So, I am not reading beyond this falsehood from you.

Personally I think it's more likely that ultimately, in three or four or five generations we'll all be more uniformly colored in a slightly darker shade. Sure, there may be a different economic system in play, who knows? Maybe it'll be an improved system, maybe not. It's a sure bet that even 50 years from now, Canada will be very different from today, regardless of immigration levels, Muslims or burka bans. But I think before even that happens, we'll all have to band together to survive climate change. I'm sad that I can't find it, but I watched a documentary a while ago investigating the demise of one early human race and the success of a different race. This was way back when humans numbered in the thousands instead of the billions, around the time of an ice age. Anyway, the evidence suggested that the surviving race connected with other humans and rather than fighting for resources, they traded and joined forces and this was the key to their survival.

1. Muslim women who wear a niqab do show their faces for things like driver's licences, passports and citizenship documents. They will also show their face in a bank if asked to. What they do not do is show their faces in public. 2. Apparently wrong, as Muslim women do show their faces for identification purposes. Just because you can't see their face doesn't mean police, or judges or government clerks do not. 3. You are correct; there is a religious exemption for photos on gun licenses, due to the Hutterites, and Muslim women could use that exemption. There are currently 1,182 gun licenses which do not have a photo and I'd lay money none of them are Muslim women. Now, I personally agree a photo on a gun licence is a good idea given the increasing use of guns in crimes; that to me is a legitimate security concern that justifies limiting religious freedom. 4. Yes, a white guy shoots up a Mosque and kills six Muslims. Do you know why? Because of right-wing rhetoric such as spouted on here about Muslims, immigrants, niqabs, Islam. He decided he wasn't going to accept Muslims in his country, that he had to 'do something'. So he did. 5. Yes, I posted links yesterday about the research around how things like niqab bans in Western countries provide rich propaganda material to recruit terrorists, right here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2018/04/18/quebec-city-mosque-shooter-scoured-twitter-for-trump-right-wing-figures-before-attack/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.b7e63d981c15 6. Yes, nobody is forcing them to immigrate here. I guess they must want to. And, I bet they already know - before they come - that things are done differently here. I understand it's hard for some people to understand that Muslims are human too, and even if most of them who come here live quiet, peaceful and lawful lives, some few of them will not. Just like some few of us non-Muslim Canadians fail to live quiet, peaceful and lawful lives because, surprise, we're human. Fortunately, we have laws and when someone fails to live a lawful life (Muslim or otherwise) we almost always find them and introduce them to our justice system. 7. Westerners have considered the imposition of laws in other countries dictating what women may or may not wear in public as oppressive for quite a long time. But suddenly, when we consider doing it we're on the side of angels. Sorry, I'm not gonna drink the kool-aid. 8. Agreed, a lot of women are forced to wear them. But banning niqabs and burkas in Canada is not going to help the woman in Saudi Arabia, or even the women in Canada who wear it. As a matter of fact, it may make their situation worse: