Ban the Burka?

[Michael Hardner]

I already explained to you that the post I asked the question in response to put forward the idea that there always be guaranteed service from a female for burqa wearing women. The gender inequality arises when discrimination against men is permitted merely to satisfy some women's highly unusual personal preferences, unrelated to either religion or common ideas of modesty.

How is discrimination against men happening here ? This isn't clear at all.

[g_bambino]

How is discrimination against men happening here ? This isn't clear at all.

Your proposal was that burqa and niqab wearing women be guaranteed service from a woman. What about a woman refusing to be served by a man simply becuase she doesn't want a man looking at her face isn't discriminatory against men?

[+]

Edited March 29, 2010 by g_bambino

[ToadBrother]

How is discrimination against men happening here ? This isn't clear at all.

I dunno. If a man came into a government office and demanded that only another man serve him due to his religious and cultural convictions, just imagine how much a sh-tstorm would arise from that.

[Michael Hardner]

Your proposal was that burqa and niqab wearing women be guaranteed service from a woman. What about a woman refusing to be served by a man simply becuase she doesn't want a man looking at her face isn't discriminatory against men?

[+]

Sure, but that right is guaranteed to her any more than I have the right to take off Yom Kippur.

[Michael Hardner]

I dunno. If a man came into a government office and demanded that only another man serve him due to his religious and cultural convictions, just imagine how much a sh-tstorm would arise from that.

But I expect that this does happen now. There are sects of the other two of the 'big 3' religions that declare women unclean, and do not allow contact with them.

[g_bambino]

Sure, but that right is guaranteed to her any more than I have the right to take off Yom Kippur.

Sorry, your English is garbled and I don't understand what you're saying.

[ToadBrother]

But I expect that this does happen now.

I expect it does not.

There are sects of the other two of the 'big 3' religions that declare women unclean, and do not allow contact with them.

Of course there are, but the State, being pretty much a-religious, has no duty to honor any such request. I think that's rather the point of what's happened in Quebec. You're perfectly free to hold any religious or traditional beliefs you like, but you're not free to impose them on anybody else. How this would be any different from a Christian Fundamentalist demanding only to be served by heterosexual government employees, or any other absurd demand of that kind is quite beyond me.

[Michael Hardner]

Of course there are, but the State, being pretty much a-religious, has no duty to honor any such request. I think that's rather the point of what's happened in Quebec. You're perfectly free to hold any religious or traditional beliefs you like, but you're not free to impose them on anybody else. How this would be any different from a Christian Fundamentalist demanding only to be served by heterosexual government employees, or any other absurd demand of that kind is quite beyond me.

There are lots of examples - both reasonable and unreasonable.

If authorities demand a strip search, then you can request an officer of your gender - that's an example of the government respecting individual preferences for modesty, irregardless of religion.

Universities don't schedule exams on religious holy days.

Hospitals negotiate around issues of religion, as well as gender, orientation and what have you in the best ways they can.

None of these institutions slams the gauntlet down on any group just because they can - that action is in the exclusive (or exclusif) domain of politicians who want to flaunt their patriotic colours like the red-and-white Beaver-peacocks they are.

[Michael Hardner]

Sorry, your English is garbled and I don't understand what you're saying.

Should be: Sure, but that right is NOT guaranteed to her any more than I have the right to take off Yom Kippur.

[ToadBrother]

There are lots of examples - both reasonable and unreasonable.

If authorities demand a strip search, then you can request an officer of your gender - that's an example of the government respecting individual preferences for modesty, irregardless of religion.

Strip searches by the same sex as the person being stripped is not justified on religious grounds, but on grounds of the risks of liability.

Universities don't schedule exams on religious holy days.

On some religious holy days, and mainly those coming from the Christian tradition. Believe me, as an atheist, I wish there was a little less formalized religious recognition, but I'll take the Easter long weekend off happily.

Hospitals negotiate around issues of religion, as well as gender, orientation and what have you in the best ways they can.

Hospitals will try, but at the end of the day, if the only nurse is female and the only doctor is male, your particularly religious objections to having someone of the wrong sex look at your naughty bits is going to be ignored. Practicality trumps personal wishes. Are you seriously asserting that if a Fundamentalist Muslim woman is admitted to hospital with blood spurting out of her chest that any hospital in this country is going to spend time finding an all-female trauma team before they cut open her clothes and reveal her breasts?

None of these institutions slams the gauntlet down on any group just because they can - that action is in the exclusive (or exclusif) domain of politicians who want to flaunt their patriotic colours like the red-and-white Beaver-peacocks they are.

None of these institutions can possibly allow every theoretical restriction, nor should they have to. There are certain reasonable requirements like license photos, where someone is going to have to show their face. I don't see how banning this sort of face covering entirely could ever stand up to a court challenge, but when it comes to certain government services, their use will require some sort of identification.

Edited March 29, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Michael Hardner]

Strip searches by the same sex as the person being stripped is not justified on religious grounds, but on grounds of the risks of liability.

How is that ?

On some religious holy days, and mainly those coming from the Christian tradition. Believe me, as an atheist, I wish there was a little less formalized religious recognition, but I'll take the Easter long weekend off happily.

Oh, you're an atheist. Sorry, I had no idea you were religious.

Hospitals will try, but at the end of the day, if the only nurse is female and the only doctor is male, your particularly religious objections to having someone of the wrong sex look at your naughty bits is going to be ignored. Practicality trumps personal wishes. Are you seriously asserting that if a Fundamentalist Muslim woman is admitted to hospital with blood spurting out of her chest that any hospital in this country is going to spend time finding an all-female trauma team before they cut open her clothes and reveal her breasts?

You're not following me. I'm giving examples of how religious or other concerns are adopted by institutions when they can. In no case do those institutions come out and say "we will not accommodate other views". The possible exception would be St. Michael's hospital not allowing abortion, and that's a religious exception that goes the other way - i.e. the institution is religious.

None of these institutions can possibly allow every theoretical restriction, nor should they have to. There are certain reasonable requirements like license photos, where someone is going to have to show their face. I don't see how banning this sort of face covering entirely could ever stand up to a court challenge, but when it comes to certain government services, their use will require some sort of identification.

Nobody is talking about banning the face covering, but requiring women to show their faces to men if called upon to do so for identification. It's ridiculous, as it would be simple to accommodate them in a small way but as I pointed out there Jean Charest, aka Harpo, needs to toot his horn.

[Smallc]

Oh, you're an atheist. Sorry, I had no idea you were religious.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Leave the government in charge of how citizens dress.......NOT!

[ToadBrother]

How is that ?

To put it in blunt terms, having a male police officer strip searching a female can lead to accusations of sexual harassment, sexual touching, etc. From a liability point of view, it's just easier for police forces, airports, heck, even doctors in many cases to either have a woman do the procedure, or at the very least have a woman present. You were actually under the impression that this all started because on religious grouns?

Oh, you're an atheist. Sorry, I had no idea you were religious.

I had no idea that atheism was a religion. Would you care to provide your operating definition of religion so I can better understand how a disbelief in something is now a religion?

Oh I get it. It was an idiotic cheap shot. You could try to ignore anything I have to say because I'm an atheist.

You're not following me. I'm giving examples of how religious or other concerns are adopted by institutions when they can. In no case do those institutions come out and say "we will not accommodate other views". The possible exception would be St. Michael's hospital not allowing abortion, and that's a religious exception that goes the other way - i.e. the institution is religious.

One of your examples isn't religious, the university example is religious, in that Christian holidays are still generally times when school is out. As to hospitals, so far as I can tell, hospitals may give some consideration, but if there's only a male nurse available to give a catheter to a female patient, it's a male nurse you get.

Nobody is talking about banning the face covering, but requiring women to show their faces to men if called upon to do so for identification. It's ridiculous, as it would be simple to accommodate them in a small way but as I pointed out there Jean Charest, aka Harpo, needs to toot his horn.

Accommodation has its limits. In the case of the Islamist malcontent, there seemed decent justifications for the requests she take off her face covering. Clearly the whole thing was done as a media stunt, and the media, as usual bought into it. The fact that no one is saying "hospitals must have all-female trauma teams", but some folks are saying "it's okay for a male government employee to basically be ordered not to deal with an Islamist female" strikes me as a double standard. Either the government is blind to religion, or it's not.

[Michael Hardner]

Atheism has two sects, sometimes referred to as "no belief in gods" or "belief in no gods". The former group is, to me, almost the same as agnosticism (to which I ascribe) and the latter is a belief-based system akin to religion.

This has been discussed here at length, though not recently. No thread drift intended, so start another thread to discuss this topic.

[Mr.Canada]

Leave the government in charge of how citizens dress.......NOT!

It's the taxpayers money. It's the taxpayers who are demanding this as well and are in full support of it. 80% of Canadians support it so lets do it. As it is now fraud is able to run rampant because a veiled woman can apply for welfare in a number offices not needing to reveal her true identitity by showing her face defrauding Canadian taxpayers for thousands.

This is what you're supporting by not supporting the ban in puiblic service sector.

Not only that but these people are scary, they scare old women and children. When my mother sees one of these people she crosses the road to get away from them as they scare her. This form of dress isn't normal for Canada and completely foreign to us. It isn't normal in Canadian society to not show your face in public at all times. Yes, dressing up like a ghost isn't normal in Canada and needs to be banned. It wouldn't be permissable for me to dress like a bank robber at all times with a disguise so this shouldn't be allowed either.

Edited March 30, 2010 by Mr.Canada

[Michael Hardner]

To put it in blunt terms, having a male police officer strip searching a female can lead to accusations of sexual harassment, sexual touching, etc. From a liability point of view, it's just easier for police forces, airports, heck, even doctors in many cases to either have a woman do the procedure, or at the very least have a woman present. You were actually under the impression that this all started because on religious grouns?

I haven't heard that this has been implemented as a practice. I suspect you just came up with it as an example that would make sense. In any case, it would drag this discussion down for us to investigate if/when this policy has been implemented at government security agencies, and why. ( In Canada, I suspect that political concerns outweigh "liabilities" as in "lawsuits".)

I had no idea that atheism was a religion. Would you care to provide your operating definition of religion so I can better understand how a disbelief in something is now a religion?

See my post to Smallc, and prepare to deploy new thread.

Oh I get it. It was an idiotic cheap shot. You could try to ignore anything I have to say because 'm an atheist.

I confess to taking gentle chides at religious folk. Please don't be offended, since this is a forum. I also defend your right to your religion as well.

One of your examples isn't religious, the university example is religious, in that Christian holidays are still generally times when school is out. As to hospitals, so far as I can tell, hospitals may give some consideration, but if there's only a male nurse available to give a catheter to a female patient, it's a male nurse you get.

Also, leaving out the question of modesty, there's questions of dietary concerns, holy days and so forth.

Accommodation has its limits. In the case of the Islamist malcontent, there seemed decent justifications for the requests she take off her face covering. Clearly the whole thing was done as a media stunt, and the media, as usual bought into it. The fact that no one is saying "hospitals must have all-female trauma teams", but some folks are saying "it's okay for a male government employee to basically be ordered not to deal with an Islamist female" strikes me as a double standard. Either the government is blind to religion, or it's not.

Of course she should identify herself, but the point is that it would be easy to provide some basic facility so that a woman be available in some capacity to perform this duty.

The system, or whatever you want to call it, is too big to conform exactly to religious requirements, but it's also too important to people to be entirely insensitive to religious requirements. So what happens ? People will fight and argue and push and accommodate and work things out through dialogue.

If you and I disagree here, it would be on what constitutes "reasonable limits". I would say that the province can provide a facility whereby they guarantee that women are on duty for identification at certain hours, and it would be up to the religious folk to schedule their time to make use of those hours. Simple and reasonable. Such things are done quietly all through the system today.

It's not reasonable to provide all-female surgical teams, of course.

And it's not reasonable, in my view, for Charest to make an example of one religion because there's a popular sentiment against that religion at this point in time.

So I'm very glad you agree that it was a media stunt, and with that I feel that we're in agreement on the major points here. I feel that Charest is playing the jingoism card to score points in Quebec.

[Smallc]

Atheism has two sects, sometimes referred to as "no belief in gods" or "belief in no gods". The former group is, to me, almost the same as agnosticism (to which I ascribe) and the latter is a belief-based system akin to religion.

I don't agree at all. There are people (like Christopher Hitchens) who call themselves anti theists. That could be a belief system....but atheism....no.

[Michael Hardner]

I don't agree at all. There are people (like Christopher Hitchens) who call themselves anti theists. That could be a belief system....but atheism....no.

New thread... new thread...

[myata]

You may be surprised, but I agree with you for the most part. In pubic, people should be able to see other people's faces.

Making this kind of statements maybe just innocently dumb (why wouldn't they do as I think they should). But legislating it is a different story. Another step in democratic regress of our society.

[Mr.Canada]

Making this kind of statements maybe just innocently dumb (why wouldn't they do as I think they should). But legislating it is a different story. Another step in democratic regress of our society.

So having women wandering the streets wearing masks at all times is in step with Canadian society?

Edited March 30, 2010 by Mr.Canada

[Smallc]

Making this kind of statements maybe just innocently dumb (why wouldn't they do as I think they should). But legislating it is a different story. Another step in democratic regress of our society.

I'm sorry, but I don't feel comfortable with not being able to see other people's faces.

[ToadBrother]

So having women wandering the streets wearing masks at all times is in step with Canadian society?

It is a free country. I can well understand not providing government services, but a general ban? That doesn't seem in keeping with a country where religious freedoms are extended to all.

[Smallc]

It is a free country. I can well understand not providing government services, but a general ban? That doesn't seem in keeping with a country where religious freedoms are extended to all.

I would have to say that despite my own discomfort, I would have to agree. It seems that's true in France as well:

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/03/30/france-council-veil-ban.html

[ToadBrother]

I confess to taking gentle chides at religious folk. Please don't be offended, since this is a forum. I also defend your right to your religion as well.

I asked what your definition of a religion is. You did not provide it.