Goddess

I hear you on this. I'm just not sure which I find more offensive - husbands/the religion telling their wives they can't leave the house without a burka or governments saying they can't leave the house with one. If I had to choose based on motives though, I'd go with the government. Especially becaue the government is only banning them in public places.

If ordinary citizens were to lobby the government to make this kind of oppression against women legal, people here would be totally against it. But because it's done in the name of a religion, we are required to "accomodate" it and argue in favor of it.

This law may be regressive and exclusionary but burkas and niqabs are regressive and exclusionary.... **shrug**

It's very confusing here. I've received warnings for posting something without my opinion on it and now scolded for including my opinion. I'm starting to feel like I can't win here.

Would this be just my opinion that is not needed, or your opinion, or any and all opinions or just opinions that you don't agree with? Sorry, I thought we could speak our opinion on a discussion forum. My apologies.

I don't think it's any ONE concern in particular. Not "security" and not "playing into prejudices." I think there's a combination of concerns. I'm not sure how you balance the right to religious freedom, with the principle of equality between the sexes when the two are so blatantly at odds with each other in this case.

As I said, I'm not sure how I feel about this. I see both sides.

1. I think it is. At least part of it. No one wants a burka'ed lady (or man, they're starting to disguise themselves in burkas in Europe, too) getting on a bus, pulling out a knife and stabbing people in a confined space. 2. Sort of agree. Canada was founded on the Christian religion, so.....but at the same time - Yes, if we're going to be secular, then be secular and ditch the crucifix. Also don't force our women MP's to use the side entrance of a mosque, hijab up and sit seperate from the men. It works both ways. 3. Or maybe they're finally listening to people's concerns. And learning from Europe. Either way, there's going to be growing pains on this one. On both sides.

http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/bill-62-would-mean-no-face-coverings-on-the-bus-minister-confirms/ar-AAtF1TF?li=AAggNb9 I'm not sure how I feel about this - on the one hand it irritates me that how women dress is a subject of legislation and I understand the religious freedom aspect of it and the issue of personal choice. On the other hand, I also understand the communication, identification and security aspects involved. A burka'ed woman in Alberta went into a Canadian Tire store with a huge knife to stab people and had to be restrained. Fortunately no one got stabbed in that incident. I dont' like the "separation" and "otherness" of the burka/niqab and how it makes the woman into a non-entity, barely human or the denigration of women messages inherent in it. I sometimes think if it's truly a "choice", then there should be no problem with not wearing it at inappropriate times, or when asked not to for security and ID purposes. It's not like these women are left without a choice - They have options, they could switch to hijab if they feel it's necessary. If it's not a choice and the woman is being held captive in her home because her family refuses to let her out without the burka, then I think we should be prepared to prosecute the families who do this. We can't put forth this kind of legislation and not follow through on prosecuting, that would be unfair to the women. And sometimes I think we have to regulate stupidity. Like we did with seat belt laws.

I don't think he ever did that. Maybe because doing so just screams, "My religion comes before everything else."

This point from the article has never been answered for me:

Cite for the planned assassination, please.

For our townhouse complex, in a very short time, 60% of the unit were bought up by Boardwalk and rented out to mainly immigrants. I sat on the condo board before, during and after the sale of the units. So I was able to see the changes from the influx of immigrants and it was not good - little boys immediately started trashing anything they could - breaking limbs off the trees, vandalizing the playground, ripping out anything that was planted, like the flower beds leading into all the entrances to the complex. When asked to stop destroying things, the boys told us they didn't have to listen to "women". When we talked to the parents, we were berated for.....I don't even know what, it was just a bunch of screaming and yelling and threatening us.....they were just furious that we had dared to discuss the problem with them. They then informed us that they would sue us if their boys fell from a tree or on the playground and broke an arm or something. End result - the board (I didn't agree with the decision but was out-voted) cut down ALL the trees on the property, removed all the playground equipment and stopped planting anything in the flowerbeds. So yeah - we went from a looking like a nice complex to looking like a 3rd world hellhole within about 3 years. So I left. I doubt anything like this is included in the "studies" but I imagine we're not the only neighborhood in Canada who has experienced this. So I guess the studies can say one thing, but in real life, I would totally disagree that immigrants reduce crime rates.

Shouldn't this be the title of this thread? Do you wear the burka in public?

Your questions show that you dont understand the differences in the procedures. Male circumcision removes skin and is done with the idea of "cleanliness in mind. Female circumcision removes an organ from the body. An organ that is vitally important to a women enjoying sex. A circumcised male can still orgasm. A circumcised female will have no enjoyment from sex. It is not done for cleanliness, it is done to control women and their sexuality. For women, it's also done much later in life with no anaesthetic, so much more of a trauma. Maybe a little research is in order. And Yes, I'm aware there is lesser forms of FGM where not so much is cut away. Doesn't change the motivation for a useless, painful, humiliating, dangerous procedure. I'm against both, as elective procedures. Sometimes the male one needs to be done for medical reasons.

When people break the law and commit crimes for non-religious reasons, they know what they're doing is wrong. (Barring mental illness.) When I speed or jaywalk, I am well aware that what I'm doing is wrong/illegal and I accept that if I get caught, there will be consequences, justly deserved. I know WHY these things are wrong/illegal and I agree they should be, even if I occasionally speed or jaywalk. That is not the case when breaking the law is done for religious reasons. When people break the law for religious reasons they are putting their religious beliefs above the law, they are saying, they do not agree with the law and are saying they don't agree it should be illegal. They don't agree it is wrong and they don't care about the consequences because in their mind, they've done the RIGHT thing. When those religious beliefs are based on stone age interpretations of ancient books written by people who had no knowledge of modern advancements in medicine, this is especially egregious. As Sapper as said before, it is especially a waste of humanity. This is why many make the distinction between crime and religiously motivated crime. You see no difference. You feel religious rights are a nobler reason to break the law and many feel it is the worst reason to break the law, especially non-religious type people. I can understand someone who steals to feed their family if they are in dire straights. I don't understand someone who breaks the law because a religion tells them to. This is a lot more preventable. Its just sad and pathetic.

I was speaking of the procedure of FGM. It's done with no anaesthetic.

And dont use any anaesthetic.

Thank you! You, too

What would "halfway" be between wearing it or not wearing it? I agree it's a two-way street. Do you think the burka-wearing community would go along with not wearing it into public places? Like malls, schools, banks, airports, etc? I kind of doubt they would......would they meet halfway and switch to hijab for those kinds of things?

How is that working for them, do you think? I'm not sure it's a good response to fears of Muslim extremism - becoming more extreme.

I waffle on burka banning, but I sometimes wonder if banning it would give women at least one more weapon in their arsenal against it. If the vast majority of Muslims are against the burka, as you say, then those who wear it by choice shouldn't have a problem with a ban. A certain percentage of those who are forced to wear it, their family will think twice about continuing to enforce wearing it, if it's against the law and that law is enforced. But I agree with you that a certain percentage of those who are forced to wear it will be held captive by their family. This is where the law would be able to step in and start charging them with forcible confinement or something. By your own admission, this percentage would be miniscule. I say that, even though even one woman being forcibly confined by her family for not wearing the burka is still wrong. But they would at least gain a bit of strength by knowing they have the law on their side. It would suck for them, yes. And I do understand the personal fortitude it takes to defy family and culture. You mentioned women who had been kidnapped and held captive sometimes for years because no one knew they were being held anywhere. (I'm thinking of the Cleveland girls, maybe you were too.) They had to finally rescue themselves. But when they did, the outpouring of support and resources from others was there. I'm confident that if a woman was being held captive in her home for refusing to wear the burka, if she is able to get out or let someone know the situation, it would be the same.

WHO lists 9 things governments can implement to reduce crime: "Bringing in more immigrants" doesn't even make the list.