Face Covering in Public in Canada

[capricorn]

my understanding it has nothing to do with the koran, but just a idea to keep women in check, do you think women enjoy walking around totally covered in 90 degree weather,

In the summer, the men accompanying the tented women I have seen on our city streets are dressed in short sleeved cotton pants or shorts. It's a sight that is difficult not to notice.

And If I do sound like I am rambling , that is because my typing skills are terrible, but I think I get my point across.

I got your point PIK. I don't measure a person's opinion by typing skills.

[capricorn]

Allowing people to wear a certain item of clothing isnt bowing down to them. Tolerating the stupid things religious people do and believe is what sets us apart.

Most Muslim women I have heard speak about the burqa/niqab make the point that the garment has nothing to do with their religion. They say the Koran calls for modesty, not women covering themselves up completely. It looks to me like this is not a religion thing. Something else is at play.

[kimmy]

There are situations where it is entirely legitimate to demand someone provide affirmative proof of identity. When boarding a plane, during a lawful stoppage by law enforcement representatives, when voting, and similar situations. Some moron here on the forum once suggested that feminists should all wear veils to go vote, to show support for their Muslim sisters; I felt insulted at the idea.

There was also a situation (discussed on this forum some time ago) when a defense lawyer insisted that a Muslim woman reveal her face while testifying against his client. I agreed with him, and still do. I believe he won.

Beyond that, I think someone has the right to wear what they wish, for whatever reason they wish.

However, I also think that it's entirely legitimate for people to be less trusting of someone whose face is concealed. And, I think that at some point somebody will commit a crime while using "religious garments" to conceal their identities.

-k

[betsy]

You know... Iv read this kind of "911 changed the world" stuff for a long time now, and Iv never said much about it, because I figured it would offend people.

Youre security obsessed because youre irrational... and your use of the tired "911 changed the world" slogan as an excuse to violate other peoples rights is not gonna cut it.

On one hand you say you kept mum about the 9/11-changed-the-world-stuff for a long time now because you "figured it would offend people,".....yet you never figured calling someone "security-obsessed" and "irrational" as offensive?

Just read your statement again!

Not only did you offend me with your personal attack, but you are also trying to censor me from expressing my own opinion. Your very own statement negated your own argument.

Now, that is irrational!

Anyway, what's so upsetting about stating that fact? 9/11 DID changed the world! You didn't notice? Where were you all this time? Gee, this is like Monty Python....kinda Rip Van Winkle-meets-the ostrich when it came up gulping for fresh air!

But 911 didnt change shit when it comes to how we as Canadians treat people and what rights we afford them.

For starter: The body searches and the new James Bond-like scanners that can show you in your glorious birthday suit for starter! Imagine that! You may not realize it but that's quite an invasion of one's privacy.....so unheard of in this country, or any other freedom-loving countries.... before 9/11!

You have less chance of dying in a terrorist attack than you do of winning the 649. Terroristm isnt even in the TOP 100 things most likely to cause your death.

You notice though that those who buy lotto 6/49 obviously want to win big-time. Ditto with terrorist attacks! Check out how many died in 9/11! In London? In Bali? Etc.,

Why do you think they aim for public places? Why do you think we're having this discussion about covering in PUBLIC?

What we should be tired of is the way some people are not consistent with their reasoning when they invoke "protection of rights" as the reason why they don't support the banning of burquas in public places.

As demonstrated by someone we know.

I bet some of these people wholeheartedly supported the sweeping smoking ban not only in public places but in private properties as well (not to mention tampered with freedom of choice), and also wholeheartedly stamped our freedom to express opinion/belief.

Back to topic. Anyway, I couldn't care less whether Niqab/Burqua is part of religion or not. That's not the point. The point is the kind of concealment that garment could afford....anywhere from a fugitive/terrorist...to high-powered guns and explosives....and maybe even a battle tank! Of course that concern is compounded by the fact that those who wear such garments are very, very likely to be extremists in their religious belief or cultural way or whatever.

Edited August 4, 2010 by betsy

[bloodyminded]

On one hand you say you kept mum about the 9/11-changed-the-world-stuff for a long time now because you "figured it would offend people,".....yet you never figured calling someone "security-obsessed" and "irrational" as offensive?

Just read your statement again!

Not only did you offend me with your personal attack, but you are also trying to censor me from expressing my own opinion. Your very own statement negated your own argument.

Now, that is irrational!

Oh, come on! What is irrational is your summoning Sarah Palin's irrational argument: she said that people were trying to stifle her "free speech"...because they disagreed with her and were criticizing her!

She doesn't understand what "free speech" even means. And if you think Dre was "trying to censor you from expressing your opinion," then you don't either.

You think that someone criticizing your words is an attempt to "censor" you? Really?

If that were so, then you were just now trying to censor Dre from expressing his opinion.

Check out how many died in 9/11! In London? In Bali? Etc.,

Why do you think they aim for public places? Why do you think we're having this discussion about covering in PUBLIC?

So we see that face covering is totally unneccessary and irrelevant for even the biggest single terrorist attack in history.

[Oleg Bach]

We stupid people assume that the woman that cover their faces are poor oppressed creatures who need our liberal salvation from oppression....some of these woman are powerful matriarchs and they do not want expose their faces or emotions...we simply do not understand the culture.

[Mr.Canada]

Actually, British North America was founded out of a desire to separate church and state. I'm pretty sure they didn't envision having the government tell you what to wear.

They didn't envision Canada as importing non whites either. It wasn't until the late the 70's that non whites were allowed to come to Canada en masse. So your reasoning doesn't wash.

Covering ones face like a bank robber on an everyday basis isn't what Canada is about. Nothing anyone here says will ever make me believe that having women walking around in bedsheets from head to toe equates freedom.

Have a look at Saudi Arabia and tell me how much freedom those women have, they cannot even drive a car and the niqab is mandatory state law there.

So it's oppression to wear the niqab/bhurka over there but it means freedom for women in the west? Give me a break.

Edited August 4, 2010 by Mr.Canada

[ToadBrother]

They didn't envision Canada as importing non whites either. It wasn't until the late the 70's that non whites were allowed to come to Canada en masse. So your reasoning doesn't wash.

You missed the point. Anybody else and I'd figure intentionally. In your case, probably not.

Covering ones face like a bank robber on an everyday basis isn't what Canada is about. Nothing anyone here says will ever make me believe that having women walking around in bedsheets from head to toe equates freedom.

Canada is about freedom. Freedom means letting people do, within as limited constraints as possible, what they want. If a woman wants to walk around in a full face veil, other than under limited circumstances, like in banks or getting licenses renewed, it's not compatible with a free society to tell her not to.

Have a look at Saudi Arabia and tell me how much freedom those women have, they cannot even drive a car and the niqab is mandatory state law there.

We're not Saudi Arabia, nor have I seen any evidence that the exceedingly small number of women who do wear such veils are leading a charge to overthrow our freedoms.

So it's oppression to wear the niqab/bhurka over there but it means freedom for women in the west? Give me a break.

No, what it means is that liberty must allow people to do as they would, without a nanny state trying to enforce dress codes.

[ToadBrother]

Anyway, what's so upsetting about stating that fact? 9/11 DID changed the world! You didn't notice? Where were you all this time? Gee, this is like Monty Python....kinda Rip Van Winkle-meets-the ostrich when it came up gulping for fresh air!

It certainly changed the West. Mind you, places like Russia and India have had far more casualties than Western countries due to terrorism.

At any rate, I don't see how our notions of freedom should change because religious maniacs had a few successful strikes, more due to the failure of Western intelligence than to anything else. And you cannot certainly expect any rational person to believe that banning face veils will stem terrorist attacks.

[ToadBrother]

Most Muslim women I have heard speak about the burqa/niqab make the point that the garment has nothing to do with their religion. They say the Koran calls for modesty, not women covering themselves up completely. It looks to me like this is not a religion thing. Something else is at play.

And who are you to say it isn't a religious thing? Just because Baptists don't really buy into veneration of saints doesn't mean that Catholic veneration of saints isn't a religious issue. Islam is a big religion encompassing a considerable variance in region and culture. More to the point, it isn't a monolithic religion, it has no central authority like Catholicism. There are certainly Islamic theologians who will state that such face coverings are not required for practicing Muslim women, but then again, some people clear do feel it is a religious requirement. We can wrap ourselves in theological knots about this sort of thing, but at the end of the day, freedom of religion doesn't begin and end with what the majority of any particular religion or sect believe, but with what the individual believes.

[Mr.Canada]

TB so must applaud the airport security for not checked the faces of veiled air passengers flying to and from Canada, letting them board without showing their faces.

Walking around with a full face covering at all times is completely foreign to our culture and traditions and needs to be halted immediately. It serves no good at all. Canadian traditions are important as well and people need to have some respect for our country or we should return them to theirs. This isn't Saudi Arabia and it never will be so if people aren't happy with Canada they should go someplace else where the niqab is normal.

Thank God I don't live in Toronto any longer. I don't see this crap ever where I live. Everyone is normal here.

[ToadBrother]

TB so must applaud the airport security for not checked the faces of veiled air passengers flying to and from Canada, letting them board without showing their faces.

It's deeply dishonest to attack someone on a point they never made. Are you illiterate? Are you a moron? Is half your brain missing? Because I did say there were reasons why a veil would have to be removed, so clearly you are either a liar or an idiot.

Walking around with a full face covering at all times is completely foreign to our culture and traditions and needs to be halted immediately. It serves no good at all. Canadian traditions are important as well and people need to have some respect for our country or we should return them to theirs. This isn't Saudi Arabia and it never will be so if people aren't happy with Canada they should go someplace else where the niqab is normal.

Canadians live in a free society. What you've written is the antithesis of freedom. It is bigotry, it is abusing a minority, and it certainly will not make us any safer.

Thank God I don't live in Toronto any longer. I don't see this crap ever where I live. Everyone is normal here.

Not everyone.

[Oleg Bach]

It's deeply dishonest to attack someone on a point they never made. Are you illiterate? Are you a moron? Is half your brain missing? Because I did say there were reasons why a veil would have to be removed, so clearly you are either a liar or an idiot.

Canadians live in a free society. What you've written is the antithesis of freedom. It is bigotry, it is abusing a minority, and it certainly will not make us any safer.

Not everyone.

Normal - good for you - wish I could join you - all I see on the lower east side of Toronto are oblivious professionals - tattooed tribal idiots - crack heads...and slowly executed welfare types. It's not fun to be the only "normal" guy on the block..as far as I can see all that is out there is slow decay.

[capricorn]

And who are you to say it isn't a religious thing?

I didn't. I don't know why some Muslim women wear the burqa. It's all the more confusing because so called Islam experts have put forward different interpretations or rationalization as to their motives. I really don't care why they wear the burqa as it is their business.

I'm not for banning it as it would be impossible to enforce and we have better things to do with our law/by-law enforcement resources. It would be very divisive and the last thing we need now is to spearhead confrontation. But, I support logical regulations on the basis of public security, i.e. providing facial identity before boarding a plane.

[Mr.Canada]

It's deeply dishonest to attack someone on a point they never made. Are you illiterate? Are you a moron? Is half your brain missing? Because I did say there were reasons why a veil would have to be removed, so clearly you are either a liar or an idiot.

Canadians live in a free society. What you've written is the antithesis of freedom. It is bigotry, it is abusing a minority, and it certainly will not make us any safer.

The veil is a wonderful tool according to TB who would like nothing more but be surrounded by a sea of niqabs and Bhurkas when he walks on the sidewalk in Canada. Is that what you're saying TB? Why not just move to Saudi Arabia if you enjoy the Muslim lifestyle so much? Oh, they execute homosexuals, I forgot...so they're bad people in Saudi but their ideals of treating women like chattel is welcome in Canada.

I see now that TB dislikes women as he's s supports them being someones property, that is what the Niqab symbolizes. Ownership. Lower standing then men. Chattel. Not to mention the glaring security issues with having large portions of society walking around in a disguise.

Explain to me how a women being forced to partake in some culturally backward practice from the 7th century equates freedom in your mind?

Where I live is easily 99%+ white so yes almost everyone appears to be normal. I live outside of the two main towns here but when ever I go into town I see a black or south asian once in a while but they most likely came from Brampton to shop where people are civilized. Shopping in Brampton is terrible, people behave like animals there.

The minorities that do live here get with the program quickly. They come here the same reason we do, to raise a family in peace without gang violence, the good, safe schools we have and clean air. Unlike the smoggy, polluted, violence laden hellhole that is Toronto.

Edited August 4, 2010 by Mr.Canada

[ToadBrother]

I didn't. I don't know why some Muslim women wear the burqa. It's all the more confusing because so called Islam experts have put forward different interpretations or rationalization as to their motives. I really don't care why they wear the burqa as it is their business.

No different than Christianity, where any number of claims have been countered, and countered again and so on and so forth. Roman Catholicism is rather rare among religions in that it does have a universally recognized leader with pretty much unlimited doctrinal power.

I'm not for banning it as it would be impossible to enforce and we have better things to do with our law/by-law enforcement resources. It would be very divisive and the last thing we need now is to spearhead confrontation. But, I support logical regulations on the basis of public security, i.e. providing facial identity before boarding a plane.

I am in complete agreement. Clearly, where security is an issue (banks, airports, probably even government offices), the argument can legitimately be made that some infringement on liberties is necessary. But to advocate a total ban in public places is absurdly confrontational, and I cannot image it surviving a Charter challenge. I'm no expert on French law, but from what I understand their ban may run afoul of their bill of rights, not to mention the EU human rights legislation. Telling people what they can or cannot wear or what is or isn't the proper expression of their religious beliefs is diametrically opposed to the notion of a free society.

What amuses me is that a guy like Mr. Canada, who would on any other day of the week, be against a nanny state intruding on our lives, is quite happy to create a nanny state to stop a very small number of Muslim women from wearing the full veils. It goes to show that a lot of the social conservatives out there aren't conservatives at all, they're just social reactionaries.

[ToadBrother]

The veil is a wonderful tool according to TB who would like nothing more but be surrounded by a sea of niqabs and Bhurkas when he walks on the sidewalk in Canada. Is that what you're saying TB? Why not just move to Saudi Arabia if you enjoy the Muslim lifestyle so much? Oh, they execute homosexuals, I forgot...so they're bad people in Saudi but their ideals of treating women like chattel is welcome in Canada.

I never said any such thing. Is there some particular reason that you're inventing position for me? Much easier to beat strawmen than real people, eh?

I see now that TB dislikes women as he's s supports them being someones property, that is what the Niqab symbolizes. Ownership. Lower standing then men. Chattel. Not to mention the glaring security issues with having large portions of society walking around in a disguise.

Again, inventing positions for me.

Explain to me how a women being forced to partake in some culturally backward practice from the 7th century equates freedom in your mind?

First, demonstrate to me that all women wearing these veils are being forced. You'll understand if I don't take your word for it.

Where I live is easily 99%+ white so yes almost everyone appears to be normal. I live outside of the two main towns here but when ever I go into town I see a black or south asian once in a while but they most likely came from Brampton to shop where people are civilized. Shopping in Brampton is terrible, people behave like animals there.

Well, at least you're not pretending you're anything but a vile disgusting racist.

The minorities that do live here get with the program quickly. They come here the same reason we do, to raise a family in peace without gang violence, the good, safe schools we have and clean air. Unlike the smoggy, polluted, violence laden hellhole that is Toronto.

They do have to put up with you. I think I'd rather put up with smog than a man of tiny mind but infinite prejudices.

[Oleg Bach]

Rule number one..when it comes to rule - do not let emotions rule or be ruled by them..

Rule number two when it comes to rule............................................................there is no number two.

[g_bambino]

Canadians live in a free society. What you've written is the antithesis of freedom. It is bigotry, it is abusing a minority...

But surely that same free society permits those who disapprove of the niqāb and burqua to freely express their disapproval and, if the definite majority are not permitting of it, the offending person should go somewhere else. Looking at it with a completely opposite example, how long could a stark naked man walk about in publc (excluding the Pride parade, of course)? Why do the rules of consideration, politeness, and etiquette apply to one individual and not the other?

[Mr.Canada]

TB supports the veil thereby supporting women being classified as property and chattel. This is very simple., you cannot have one without the other TB just like the old song goes. At least you've finally come down from your high long enough to say that places where security are a concern like airports, banks and government building the veil should be banned from. I would hope your list includes our courts and schools as well.

If we're to separate Church and State fully as you support then that means teachers aren't allowed to be veiled either. I wouldn't want a veiled teacher teaching my kids. I'd yank them quick from there. However we're Catholic and only Catholics are allowed to teach in Catholic Schools. Thank God, praise Jesus along with our most revered Mother for that one.

Edited August 4, 2010 by Mr.Canada

[g_bambino]

Well, at least you're not pretending you're anything but a vile disgusting racist.

To be fair, Bramptonites aren't a race. And Shopper's World is pretty gross.

[g_bambino]

TB supports the veil thereby supporting women being classified as property and chattel.

That the niqāb's or burqua's sole purpose is to classify women as property and chattel is nothing but your own invention. While there are possibly women who are forced by their husbands to wear them, there are very likely other women, and maybe a man or two, who wear them for their own personal reasons.

[ToadBrother]

TB supports the veil thereby supporting women being classified as property and chattel. This is very simple., you cannot have one without the other TB just like the old song goes. At least you've finally come down from your high long enough to say that places where security are a concern like airports, banks and government building the veil should be banned from. I would hope your list includes our courts and schools as well.

If we're to separate Church and State fully as you support then that means teachers aren't allowed to be veiled either. I wouldn't want a veiled teacher teaching my kids. I'd yank them quick from there. However we're Catholic and only Catholics are allowed to teach in Catholic Schools. Thank God, praise Jesus along with our most revered Mother for that one.

Look, you're clearly a very dishonest individual, or a deeply confused one. I in fact find these veils deeply disturbing, abusive and indeed a sign of women as chattel. What I'm not going to do is to support a blatantly bigoted law just because of my personal misgivings. Appreciating and supporting liberty means accepting that some people will do things I do not personally approve of. That's what it means. Enemies of liberty aren't always mad Stalinesque figures marching people off to Gulags, they are often people like you who let your prejudices and shortsightedness blind you to the fact that today it's the Muslims, tomorrow maybe it will be you.

I do not support these veils, but I do support the notion of a state that does not have the power to tell people what to wear or what the religious orthodoxy is. Now maybe you don't have the wits to appreciate my position, but that's my position. But damn it all, you foolish little man, quit inventing strawmen for me. It is depraved and immoral.

[bush_cheney2004]

...I do not support these veils, but I do support the notion of a state that does not have the power to tell people what to wear or what the religious orthodoxy is.....

..but the "state" does have the power to tell us what to wear in several other contexts, from safety to indecent exposure. It is not clear to me why religious practices would be immune from such public regulation.

[fellowtraveller]

The only circumstances where exposing your face is mandatory is where there is a security aspect that requires that your identity be positively confirmed: boarding planes, banking, traffic stops and so on.

Everyhting else is just racist claptrap.

If you ban head coverings for Muslims, you'd also have to ban anything with a hood like a parka or sweatshirt.