dialamah

http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/.premium-1.591640 There are also protests against veil bans http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/04/18/208661.html The point being that they object to government legislating what they can or cannot wear. And, the degree of discipline they may suffer is dependent on which country they are in. Nobody denies that these people come from repressive regimes and that the cost of disobedience can be high, but that doesn't make it ok for us to start our own repression to 'save' them. Finally, merely as a result of this being in the news, two women in Canada have been assaulted for wearing a niqab - even though there is no law against it. This is no different than what happens to women in Egypt who are free to choose not to cover their face, but are physically attacked by those who think they should. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/muslim-convert-attacked-while-wearing-niqab-in-toronto/article26646425/ http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/montreal-police-muslim-woman-1.3253668 And one more link, in case knowledge might modify your viewpoint. http://www.culturaldiplomacy.org/academy/content/pdf/participant-papers/2011-12-cdac/Running-Head-Modern-Middle-Eastern-Women-and-their-Rising-Impact-on-Society-Tiffany-Reed.pdf

As does focusing on a single group of men. And even then, education is the best way to address it, though certainly penalties for criminal behavior should be enforced. I've yet to see a anyone change their mind because someone "forced" them to do things differently. Most people find it hard to change change their mind when presented with facts, or even scientific studies replicated dozens of times. Just consider the anti-vaxxers. (Unless you are one, in which case you can assume I said 'vaxxers').

Misogynists exist all over the place in Canadian culture; it's not limited to any one ethnicity or religious affiliation. Why are they still getting a 'free pass'?

The thing is, people who *insist* that women should wear the niqab or veil appear to be a minority of Muslims; do you have information that contradicts that? The majority of Muslim women choose, of their own free will and sometimes over the objections of their family, to wear the niqab according to any credible resources I can find. So an immigration form that asked if the applicant felt it was a religious requirement for a woman to cover her face in public would be most likely to get an answer of "No", but we'd still end up with niqab wearing women here. And even those applicants who were inclined to force women to cover their face would pretty quickly figure out how to answer the questions "correctly" in order to pass their citizenship test or obtain PR status. There are governments in other parts of the world who legislate the wearing of the niqab, and Muslim women protest that because it's removing choice. We could also legislate what women cannot wear, but that just makes us the same as those governments that legislate what women must wear.

I don't care for my local LPC candidate, but prefer the Libs plan overall. If my riding was close in terms of NDP and Cons, I'd vote NDP.

Why not just have all babies born in Canada assigned a second citizenship, based on parents' origin. You know, just in case.

I didn't see that in the link you posted. In the original act, citizenship could only be revoked for misrepresentation. Treason/terrorism etc were added in 2014. That act also allowed for people committed of other offenses resulting in life imprisonment to be deported. Harper is pushing his tough on crime agenda, including mandatory minimums. It seems to me the stage is set for easily expanding the law to include offenses other than terror acts.

Exactly. Education and exposure will be much more effective at releasing women from subjugation than will government imposed dress codes, or even sending out pamphlets telling them it's wrong. Just like partisans, the people we most want to reach will look at those kinds of things and think ... "Those people don't know what they're talking about." The following quote is from a discussion on reddit, specifically asking Muslim women about their experience wearing niqab. Many women answered, few wore the niqab, all felt it was a personal choice - except in those countries that made it a law. Also mentioned was that the niqab was very useful in the desert for protection from the sun, though not necessarily in black. . https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/2hbl8v/muslim_women_of_reddit_what_are_your_opinions_on/ The next quote is from a study of 122 niqab wearing women in Britain. According to the study, niqab-wearing became much more common after 2000; prior to that it was relatively rare - this is not a 14th century tradition. All of these women had taken it up of their own free will - albeit many of them in the context of a strong belief in Islam, through their own study or through their family. Of the women interviewed, almost half were single and 4 were divorced. Women who are single/divorced cannot be said to be made to wear the niqab by their husbands. The assumption that niqab-wearing women is forced to do so by family/husband appears to be the least likely reason, if this sample is representative. https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/sites/default/files/behind-veil-20150401.pdf

Funny that, I keep revising his age downward too.

In the case of each individual woman, you can't know what her particular situation is. There are men who insist their wives/girlfriends dress as skimpily as possible as often as possible. If the women object, they are punished. They are few and far between, relative to the entire population, but they outnumber women who wear the niqab in Canada. I suppose if you saw a woman in a modest one-piece, you wouldn't assume that she's only wearing it because her male relatives would punish her for wearing a bikini, which is what she'd really like to wear. Or if you saw a woman in a modest dress; for all you know, she'd like to wear jeans and a tank top - but her male relatives do not consider that 'appropriate' so she wears a dress she hates. You cannot make assumptions about individual women. If you are really concerned about women being oppressed by male relatives, look at all women in Canada - not just the ones who happen to wear a niqab.

Yes, corruption can be found in all parties to some degree, sometimes more and sometimes less. That is the nature of politics and politicians, I agree. Nonetheless, as the leader goes, so go the followers. No matter how much Harper tries to distance himself from election fraud or payouts by saying "I didn't know", it's just not believable generally, and certainly not from a man who seeks to control so much of his staff and disseminated information. No, it's more like Joe Smith is tried and convicted of a heinous crime, and 20 years later, people point to Bill Smith and said "You are guilty, because your uncle was convicted of this crime 20 years ago." Anyway, the Conservative party has been convicted of election fraud once; they've demonstrated their willingness to lie, they've demonstrated their willingness to cheat. They themselves, in this time period; not different people, 20 years ago. If we're concerned about corruption in political parties, why would anyone vote for them?

That was 13 years ago. It's not like the same people are running, eh? And the Liberal party got well and truly spanked for their sins. Perhaps they've learned their lesson, perhaps not. In any case, what happened 13 years ago doesn't excuse current misbehavior/stupidity by the Conservatives, so the whole historical finger-pointing is about as useful as a five-year-old whining "But how come he never gets in trouble?"

Here's one that I think is both disgraceful and embarrassing - abortion is specifically excluded from Canadian-supported maternal and child health initiatives in developing countries. Harper, to appease his base, imposed his own personal preference on women around the world. Recently, he claimed he's trying to avoid creating 'divisive' issues, which only makes me laugh considering the niqab and the 'barbaric practices' hotlline. http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/stephen-harper-says-canada-wont-fund-abortions-in-developing-countries-because-its-a-divisive-issue http://www.queensu.ca/sps/qpr/issues/vol5issue5/poirier.pdf http://globalnews.ca/news/1359880/whats-changed-for-moms-and-babies-since-the-2-8b-muskoka-initiative/

Its a pretty small industry, and this is a public board. So yah, I'm not going to provide any more identifying information. You can call me a liar because of it if you want, but what some partisan moron such as yourself chooses to think is of little importance to me, compared to the respect and privacy I owe my employer. Anyway, Argus, you are pretty lame so this'll be the last time I respond to you.

There is exactly one university in Canada that provides graduates in the field that we hire. I don't know what the overall value of this particular industry is, but our medium sized company has offices in Canada and the States, with net profit in the millions. We are not the only company in this industry. We aren't allowed to pay less to immigrants than to Canadians (and we don't in case you are now going to claim that we do, anyway). We have to apply through the government, we have to demonstrate where we advertised for the positions within Canada, we have to list the Canadian applicants (if any) and if we decided not to hire them explain why not. We have to identify the skills we're looking for to fill the position, we have to demonstrate that the immigrant has those skills. Bringing in a foreign worker, temporary or otherwise, through the temporary foreign worker or immigration process takes months, sometimes up to a year, and requires a great deal of paperwork and money. Believe you me, we'd rather hire Canadians than have to pay for the immigration of the skills we're looking for. Sorry if that bursts your anti-immigrant bubble, but the whole notion that's its easier/cheaper for employers to bring in immigrants is wrong.

Whether I disowned him or not it would be the same as I'd do for my 'blood' brother. No difference. That's the point.

Half the staff in my workplace are immigrants, because Canada cannot supply the educated, skilled personnel we need. These people make better than middle-class wages. The company spends money to both support young people coming up who could work in this field, as well as spend money to bring in the needed skillset from other countries.

My adopted brother is also my brother for life, butthead ot not.

All these countries stripping citizenship and deporting terrorists --- who is most likely to welcome these people? How hard is it to get a new identity or steal someone's identity and just return -- perhaps with better bomb making skills, more entrenched radicalism, a desire to sacrifice your life with as many as you can take with you. This does seem like a remarkably short-sighted policy. But hey, if history has proven anything, its that humans aren't really that bright.

Fifteen minutes without a niqab isn't going to allow these women to experience "true equality". On the contrary, they are much more likely to be extremely uncomfortable, and wonder why their new country would put them through this ordeal. If you think they're going to suddenly belt out Helen Reddy's "I Am Woman" and go forth in feminism, you will be sadly disappointed. If a woman's husband/family are the ones insisting she wear the niqab, and the citizenship ceremony requires removal, you can pretty much bet that woman will remain a permanent resident, permanently. Or maybe she'll be married off to some deserving Muslim back in the mother country ... so yeah, niqab ban helps her a whole lot. If there was a compelling reason why she needed citizenship, you can bet the family would be there in the audience, watching her every move, every expression. A family truly invested in the niqab and what it means in terms of family honor and female modesty would feel dishonored, even if they were forced into it by the government requirement. The woman would feel both the family's anger, and her own humiliation. She may have to face some kind of penance for that fifteen minutes of "equality" forced upon her by the government. This isn't freedom, this is being the pawn between two oppressors. As for the woman who chooses the niqab, and is under no pressure from family to wear it, or even wears it against their wishes - who is the government to inform her it's an oppressive symbol, therefore she's being oppressed and for her own good, she will have to remove it during the ceremony - for a 'taste of equality'. Nobody feels 'equal' with jackboots on their neck. You and Kenney and the Conservative government can stop pretending this is about 'saving the woman from oppression'. For them, it's purely a political ploy, to play to their "old stock" base. Framing it as saving the woman just makes people such as yourself feel good about their bigotry. Now, if someone in the Harper government really gave a shit about ensuring women aren't oppressed by men, they'd refund the women's centers that were closed, and ensure that women had advocacy and support when they wanted to leave their oppressive husbands, whether Caucasion, Middle Eastern, South Asian, Chinese, Korean, Christian, Muslim, Baptist or atheist. They'd make laws that put men in jails for ignoring no-contact orders; they'd have some substantive response to the missing aboriginal women.

As far as her family is concerned, she is free to remove the niqab. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/niqab-row-canadas-government-challenges-ruling-zunera-ishaq-can-wear-veil-while-taking-oath-of-a6674151.html http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2015/03/16/why-i-intend-to-wear-a-niqab-at-my-citizenship-ceremony.html http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/zunera-ishaq-the-woman-who-fought-to-wear-a-niqab-during-her-citizenship-ceremony

Its certainly not a policy that is actually going to help these women. The Conservative government shut down 12 of 17 Womens' Centers and cut funding to advocacy and lobby groups. They also won't fund third world clinics if those clinics perform abortions. So, the whole "Kenney/Conservatives are out to save women from a life of debasement by making a few of them take off their niqab" argument doesn't really fly.

*laughing* Did you stop reading after that and missed my (admittedly sparse) examples of Christian violence? I entirely agree, Christianity is no more or less peaceful than Islam, regardless of what they claim. In my perfect world, all humanity would agree on giving up religion of any kind.

That's a good question. I personally don't like the niqab, so my *preference* would be that they not wear it. Niqab wearing women look strange to me, I am uncomfortable with what it implies about that woman's culture and by extension, my own - we aren't that far from a completely male-dominated, patriarchal society. I think it would show respect on their part to remove it given that we are a different culture; on the other hand, why am I more entitled to respect for what I believe, than they are for what they believe? I also support the idea that people should have as much freedom to make their own choices as possible. I worry that a niqab-ban in *some* places will lead naturally to a niqab-ban in other places and that these womens' freedoms would become more and more limited not just by legal means, but also by societal disapproval. Even just the "discussion" of this issue emboldened some boys to attack a woman in order to remove her niqab. How much worse would it be if niqabs were banned sometimes, in some places? So, in the end, I'd support their right to wear a niqab during the ceremony, despite my personal preference that they do not.

Again you prove my point. The *victim* does not take action to help themselves until they are ready to do so. It doesn't matter if their mother tells them how bad the spouse is, or if the cops arrest, charge and jail the spouse - until the victim decides not to be a victim, he/she will just take the spouse back over and over and over. Every Canadian in Canada could carefully explain to the niqab-wearing-woman exactly why she shouldn't wear the niqab; we might even be right in our reasons. We could ban it in government offices, in workplaces and on the street. She'll ignore our good advice, and she'll simply refrain from leaving the house, unless it's a dire emergency. She might even decide to wear her niqab through this dire emergency, despite whatever laws or societal disapproval she faces. Until SHE decides to remove the niqab any action WE take to do so is pointless, other than to make OURSELVES feel better.