Face veils banned for citizenship oaths

[Guest American Woman]

I see you still didn't watch the 8 minute Miss Representation trailer, nor did you go through the links provided on their website that explains the argument.

I'm not refuting what they are saying - I'm refuting what YOU are saying.

I'm not even going to bother replying to the arguments in your post, which I've addressed and shown to be wrong many times in this thread already.

You've done no such thing.

If you don't care about the ways that women are oppressed in your society that's fine, but for you to sit here and claim that it's not happening is not only wrong, it reinforces those attitudes.

Yeah, that's the ticket. More proof that you have no idea of the reality of what I'm saying or the reality that both men and women in our societies are judged and feel pressure and feel "discrimination."

By ignoring the clear fact that women are not treated equally in our society and the way that they are treated is indeed as being inferior to men (rather than equal, not superior)

Women are not oppressed in our society - that is a fact, not something I am "ignoring." You show stats that do not prove what you think they prove. You think because women aren't represented equally in every matter, every job, every issue that it's because they aren't treated equally, ignoring the fact that women's choices have a lot to do with the statistics too.

Women have the same rights as men in our societies, and that is a fact. They have the right to be involved in politics, but they also have the right to choose not to be.

Being equal does not necessarily result in everything being the same. Freedom of choice has a lot to do with it and the choices both men and women are factors in these statistics.

But do keep insisting that women are only valued for their looks and sexuality. Keep pushing the idea that only women are judged on these things. And as you do, you yourself are being sexist.

you are allowing the kinds of insidious sexism that exists today to continue.

I am doing quite the opposite as you are perpetuating the idea - by insisting that women are only valued for their looks and only value looks in themselves. It's your mindset that you are pushing - and it's sexist.

You keep wanting to push your sources at me - I keep telling you that many white males in our society feel as if they are the ones being discriminated against. You are fine with ignoring that - as you expect me to buy into whatever beliefs you are pushing.

Quite frankly, your insistence that women are only valued for their looks in our society, and even more ignorantly claim that women place their value only on their looks, comes across as disgustingly sexist - especially as you use "the oppression of women in our countries" as an excuse, as a distraction, as to why we shouldn't be concerned with actual legal harmful oppression of women in other nations, that we don't want to see here in our nations.

But I hope you are done with this - because YOUR claims, your viewpoints, the statements YOU have made, are disgustingly sexist to this woman. And it's YOUR claims that I've been addressing.

Edited December 17, 2011 by American Woman

[cybercoma]

And for that matter you continue to ignore the fact that corporate leadership and politicians are the powerbrokers in our society and women only make up 3.4% of Fortune 1000 CEOs and still make up less than 25% of the MPs in Parliament here (they're equally excluded from politics in the US and you've never even come close to having a woman President). You ignore the fact that 1 in 4 women have been raped according to the CDC and have done nothing to address the Virgin-Whore Complex that is exhibited by pop culture. Academics were discussed earlier and while enrollment is higher for women, they're still making less than 80% the wages of men (ironically, Michigan has one of the highest disparities). You ignore the fact that female distribution in the disciplines is highly skewed in favour of low-paying and under-appreciated Arts programs. You haven't touched the fact that women tend to drop out at the graduate level because they're expected to raise families and take care of the kids when they get pregnant, while the men are allowed to continue pursuing their educations and careers. You seemingly glossed over the fact that women are surpassing men as physicians nowadays, but for that gain, there's a greater number of higher-paid specialists out there, which is predominantly male. You claim that the study on the sexualization and objectification of women in the movies, even when and particularly when they're below the age of consent, doesn't reflect reality. Meanwhile, it wasn't until a couple years ago that a woman won Director of the Year at the Oscars for the first time. Yet you claim the media doesn't reflect reality. I'm sorry, but it not only reflects reality, it creates reality. A reality which you continue to ignore because your limited experience seems to tell you otherwise. I'm very happy that you haven't had to experience rape, job discrimination, or having to give up a career to raise a family. It's great that society has had no oppressive influence on you as a female, nor limited your choices through socionormative pressures. I really wish it were like that for all women. It's not and you ignoring that fact only serves to reinforce their discrimination.

[Scotty]

You mean "you dont know" but the author of the report you highlighted , and really should have read if it mattered , disagrees .

Wait a sec, how 'bout shreds your thoughts to pieces.

Why do you feel it necessary to act like a juvenile bully in almost every post? You trumpet your own presumed prowess and never let a moment pass by where you think you can put down and denigrate whoever you are discussing an issue with. Are you this mean-spirited and nasty in real life?

As to your point, which, as usual you feel incapable of putting in any but a sneering, mocking tone: Are you saying the author himself, through your interpretation of that long section you posted, disagrees with his own quoted words which I posted? I mean, really? That is your position? That you can interpret a further, very complex passage to disagree with his specific statement earlier? And that somehow this "shreds" my argument?

Edited December 17, 2011 by Scotty

[Scotty]

Yeah Id rather see data on how much crime they commit, how much money they make, and how much taxes they pay.

So would I. Unfortunately, we do not keep such statistics.

[cybercoma]

I'm not refuting what they are saying - I'm refuting what YOU are saying.

Obviously you didn't watch it because I'm reiterating their claims about the way they're treated by society.

But I hope you are done with this - because YOUR claims, your viewpoints, the statements YOU have made, are disgustingly sexist to this woman. And it's YOUR claims that I've been addressing.

I point out the sexism in society, showing you all of the research and empirically verifiable data, but I'm the sexist one? I'm the one fighting against it and trying to get people like you to see our society for what it is, but you choose to pull the wool over your eyes and allow it to continue. I'm fighting against sexism and here you're calling me sexist. You owe me an apology, but I won't hold my breath.

[Scotty]

This is incredibly insulting and wrong. Back that up with evidence or kindly stfu.

I think the overall behavior of Muslims around the world backs my statement up more than amply.

And you don't get to tell anyone to stfu, Mr. Trudeau. Do you cut your facial hair like a pirate, too?

You know how much "Muslims" hate democracy? They risked their lives to line up at polls in the Middle East. Protesters are being killed by tyrants for the right to vote. Give me a break.

They're fighting for change, but they did that in Iran years ago too. They did that in Indonesia too. What kind of societies have they built in those 'democracies'? How about in Malaysia? Another 'democracy'. And who is winning these elections? Severely religious parties, every time. What will they make of those democracies? We even see this in Turkey, where as the military's power to force a secular society has eroded the religious parties have gained more and more power and set out to transform the nation into more of an Islamic republic. Their version of democracy is very little like ours.

Moreover, if you actually read the conclusion of that study you found, as was pointed out above, they decidedly see themselves as Canadian.

Yes, but do they see themselves as Canadians first or Muslims first? That is the real question.

Its this kind of stuff that makes people call you bigoted.

No, Cyber, it's what causes stupid people to call me bigot. And why should I care what stupid people think or say?

Edited December 17, 2011 by Scotty

[Scotty]

Cyber,this is the same guy in the summer who felt it was'nt bigotted to admit all he really knew of black people was what he ahd seen on TV and the limited times he had had any social interractions with black folks were with a few with "thick accents"...The intimation being that his stereotypical view was enough to go on...

You have, of course, paraphrased things in your own inimitable way. Nevertheless, If ones life experience is of no value, then why do you place such vast import on yours? Statistically speaking the majority of Blacks in Canada are immigrants. That means they do have thick accents, they do come from third world countries, and retain much of their third world values and cultures. Why does stating that outrage you so?

[Guest American Woman]

Again, getting back to Canada's citizenship law, I admire Kenney for the things he's said, for speaking of the value Canada places on gender equality. I do see where women taking the oath under the cover of a burka can be perceived as counter to Canada's stance on equality; for women who are being forced by the men in their lives to wear the burka to have to start their lives as Canadian citizens with the government sanctioning such behavior sends mixed messaged, IMO.

And for those who insist on trying to distract from actual oppression by saying it exists in our countries:

Family matters in countries as diverse as Iran, Egypt, Israel, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia are governed by religion-based personal status codes. Many of these laws treat women essentially as legal minors under the eternal guardianship of their male family members. Family decision-making is thought to be the exclusive domain of men, who enjoy by default the legal status of “head of household.” These notions are supported by family courts in the region that often reinforce the primacy of male decision-making power.

Here are ten of the most extreme examples of gender inequality you can find currently practiced, often state-sanctioned, in the world today.

Ten Extreme Examples of Gender Ineuality

I will say once again how fortunate women in our countries are to have the law on our side; to live in countries where women are equal to men.

[eyeball]

Again, getting back to Canada's citizenship law, I admire Kenney for the things he's said, for speaking of the value Canada places on gender equality. I do see where women taking the oath under the cover of a burka can be perceived as counter to Canada's stance on equality; for women who are being forced by the men in their lives to wear the burka to have to start their lives as Canadian citizens with the government sanctioning such behavior sends mixed messaged, IMO.

Using the force of the state against these women to counter the force men are bringing to bear on them sends a really weird message don't you think? If our Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism minister was a woman this message would have been perverse.

As I said before, forcing the men in these women's lives to wear blinders would send a far more direct message to the people who most need it.

If Kenney intends to force women to lift their veils at citizenship ceremonies the very least he should do is make blinders available for any husbands, fathers, brothers etc that might come unglued.

[Guest Peeves]

Again, getting back to Canada's citizenship law, I admire Kenney for the things he's said, for speaking of the value Canada places on gender equality. I do see where women taking the oath under the cover of a burka can be perceived as counter to Canada's stance on equality; for women who are being forced by the men in their lives to wear the burka to have to start their lives as Canadian citizens with the government sanctioning such behavior sends mixed messaged, IMO.

And for those who insist on trying to distract from actual oppression by saying it exists in our countries:

Family matters in countries as diverse as Iran, Egypt, Israel, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia are governed by religion-based personal status codes. Many of these laws treat women essentially as legal minors under the eternal guardianship of their male family members. Family decision-making is thought to be the exclusive domain of men, who enjoy by default the legal status of “head of household.” These notions are supported by family courts in the region that often reinforce the primacy of male decision-making power.

Here are ten of the most extreme examples of gender inequality you can find currently practiced, often state-sanctioned, in the world today.

Ten Extreme Examples of Gender Ineuality

I will say once again how fortunate women in our countries are to have the law on our side; to live in countries where women are equal to men.

That is the crux of the matter, our western culture has over the last century accorded women (near) equal rights, but they had to be fought for by courageous women. The rights of women didn;t come easy.

Rights of all are threatened in a theocracy. Gays, women, our outspoken media can quickly be shut down or locked up.

We have little to be proud of beyond the fact that we have become more enlightened, more attuned to rights and freedom that many countries living with draconian laws and anachronistic 8th century social

governance aspire to once they comprehend that there is another way. Hence the Arab spring.

Still those living under sharia still are subjugated. The burka ( dress codes)has only in recent history been imposed on women in most Arab..Persian..Turkish regimes and even these Arab countries require conditions where the 'veil' niqab etc. must be lifted. (Hajj)

There are few women in Western countries that would wear attire that would completely mask their identity.

Unfortunately there are those that miss the reason such are worn. That can be to either subjugate a woman, or,a political message to the West, that "we" are here." Certainly there are those wearing a veil by choice and I have few objections to just a veil, many cultures wear a type of head covering. In our country where 'face to face' contact and social intercourse, testimony and the like is traditional over centuries, those wearing masks are presenting as distrustful and to be hiding or ashamed or to be cautious of.

Still there is no denying that in some countries, some religions, a woman is not equal to a man as it was here 100 years ago.

An example at the risk of again hating Muslims is this. Koran,,,

and call upon two of your men to act as witnesses; and if two men are not available, then a man and two women from among such as are acceptable to you as witnesses... (2:282)

The verse goes on to explain the reason for seeking testimony from two women in place of the testimony of one man, by saying "...so that if one of them should make a mistake, the other could remind her" (2:282).

Thus, the verse indicates clearly that there are differences in the ability of women to serve, under the prevailing social conditions, as competent witnesses and givers of testimony in cases involving financial transactions. The relevant wording implies, that in general, transactions were not often matters of concern to women at that time. It also indicates that the actual witness would be one woman, even though her testimony might require the support of another woman who would "remind" her if necessary. Thus, one woman acts as a guarantor for the accuracy of the other's testimony.

I thought this letter to Ed. today was a perspective we might consider.

Re: Niqab Compromise, letter to the editor, Dec. 16.

Seeking a compromise, letter-writer Andrea Jomha writes: “Rather than banning the niqab during the citizenship ceremony, why not request the women remove the veil during the ceremony in a room where there are only female government officials?”

This question is not rhetorical: It has an answer. During the citizenship ceremony, segregation by sex or age or colour or religion would misrepresent the legal community into which each individual is being inducted.

Citizenship today requires an oath of loyalty to the Crown, currently a woman. A couple of my American-born friends never took Canadian citizenship because, as lifelong republicans, they could not bring themselves to swear allegiance to any monarch. They took Canadian citizenship seriously, and declined it.

A candidate who demands special treatment unknown to Canadian law and tradition disqualifies herself as someone unwilling to adopt Canadian values.

Donald Phillipson, Carlsbad Springs, Ont.

Edited December 17, 2011 by Peeves

[cybercoma]

Again, getting back to Canada's citizenship law, I admire Kenney for the things he's said, for speaking of the value Canada places on gender equality.

And for those who insist on trying to distract from actual oppression by saying it exists in our countries

Lovely example of how they're worse in other societies. Nonetheless, saying Canada values gender equality by banning Niqabs for 8 seconds in a citizenship ceremony or suggesting that the Conservatives are working towards an end of equality, while defunding Women's Advocacy groups, voting against a bill that would require equal pay for men and women, doing nothing about the nearly 600 aboriginal women that have been killed or gone missing, and scrapping the child-care program, is pretty hypocritical. Edited December 17, 2011 by cybercoma

[Guest American Woman]

Using the force of the state against these women to counter the force men are bringing to bear on them sends a really weird message don't you think? If our Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism minister was a woman this message would have been perverse.

Why would it be any different if Kenney were a woman? I don't get that at all. I also don't see the state's requirement that all citizens begin their citizenship "openly" as a "force of the state." I think waiving such a requirement, allowing Muslim women to be veiled - sometimes under the force of the men in their lives, is what sends the mixed message: 'yes, we believe in gender equality in Canada - unless the men in your lives don't - then they overrule.' If I were a woman oppressed in this way, I would wonder where the equality was if I were forced to begin my citizenship this way.

As I said, a number of countries have banned the burka. Why do you think that is?

As I said before, forcing the men in these women's lives to wear blinders would send a far more direct message to the people who most need it.

I would say allowing women the freedom to be seen is a pretty clear message. Expecting the men to abide by Canada's laws sends a direct enough message to them.

If Kenney intends to force women to lift their veils at citizenship ceremonies the very least he should do is make blinders available for any husbands, fathers, brothers etc that might come unglued.

That's their problem if they can't handle it, but since most women in Canada are not veiled/covered from head to toe, they best learn to deal with it. Fact is, they are choosing to become a citizen in Canada. If they can't handle it without becoming "unglued," the question is - why?

[cybercoma]

The problem is using the state to dictate to a woman how she should dress. It's not right when Muslims theocracies do it and it's not right when you try to force your notions of proper dress on others either. The problem obviously isn't verification of identity, since many examples have been given for reasonable accommodation. It's like if you were arrested and strip-searched by the cops. They would go out of their way to ensure you weren't strip-searched by a male officer. However, the argument here about the niqabs is like saying, once a person is arrested they lose their rights and shouldn't expect the cops to provide reasonable accommodations to avoid your humiliation. If you don't want to be humiliated, don't get arrested.

What's going to happen with the citizenship deal is that many women are just not going to get their citizenship. They're going to feel like they are excluded from our society and have nowhere to turn when their husbands or families are abusive because they won't want to be deported for being here illegally. All because you want to use the law to legally force a woman to humiliate herself in public when there are clearly ways of providing reasonable accommodation for a woman who's not yet comfortable exposing herslef in public in this way.

[eyeball]

I would say allowing women the freedom to be seen is a pretty clear message.

Mr. Kenney is forcing women to be seen against their will.

Expecting the men to abide by Canada's laws sends a direct enough message to them.

You'd make a wonderful Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism minister.

That's their problem if they can't handle it, but since most women in Canada are not veiled/covered from head to toe, they best learn to deal with it. Fact is, they are choosing to become a citizen in Canada. If they can't handle it without becoming "unglued," the question is - why?

Why is obvious enough, they're from a backward culture where force rules the day instead of individual human rights, kind of like here.

[Guest American Woman]

Lovely example of how they're worse in other societies.

More like a lovely example of how women are actually oppressed, and legally, in other countries.

It's not a matter of being "worse," it's a matter of actually being the reality of their existence - by law.

Your response is a lovely example of how anything and everything linked to what you and your ilk support is 'excused' on the premise that nothing is perfect. Something terrible, horrific going on in the world? One is a hypocrite for speaking out against it, for doing what they can to diminish it, because their country isn't perfect - so that's what they should be concerning themselves with.

I tell you how thankful I am to be a woman in my country rather than countries such as I described, and rather than see that it is ONE HELLUVA LOT BETTER, you dismiss it as a "Lovely example of how they're worse in other societies." How easy to make light of it as a man, eh? I'll stop there because if I told you what I really think, I'd be banned for life - so let's just say that the ignorance of such a mindset speaks for itself.

[Guest American Woman]

Mr. Kenney is forcing women to be seen against their will.

Against their will - or the men in their lives will? Furthermore, since he is not forcing them to become a citizen, he isn't forcing them to do anything. Citizenship is a choice.

You'd make a wonderful Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism minister.

Thank you.

Why is obvious enough, they're from a backward culture where force rules the day instead of individual human rights, kind of like here.

Honestly, that men can speak so easily of the terrible oppression that women face in those countries as "kind of like what happens here" is too ignorant for words. Perhaps if men faced the same oppression, were subjected to the same terrible inequalities in far too many nations, you wouldn't be so flippant about it.

Edited December 17, 2011 by American Woman

[Guest American Woman]

That is the crux of the matter, our western culture has over the last century accorded women (near) equal rights, but they had to be fought for by courageous women. The rights of women didn;t come easy.

Rights of all are threatened in a theocracy. Gays, women, our outspoken media can quickly be shut down or locked up.

Rights have been hard fought for, so to see them diminished under the guise of religious freedom is difficult to see and it shows just how fragile these rights can be; therefore, in a country where these rights exist, they should apply to all.

We have little to be proud of beyond the fact that we have become more enlightened, more attuned to rights and freedom that many countries living with draconian laws and anachronistic 8th century social governance aspire to once they comprehend that there is another way. Hence the Arab spring.

I think we ultimately do have a lot to be proud of in that we have done the right thing in the end. We do have equal rights, and we protect those rights by law. I believe this equality should apply to all, regardless of what some men might think and impose on the women in their lives. If we make allowances for such a mindset, where does that leave us?

Still there is no denying that in some countries, some religions, a woman is not equal to a man as it was here 100 years ago.

Exactly, and we should not be allowing that mindset to exist here, in any sense.

I thought this letter to Ed. today was a perspective we might consider.

I agree. Good points were made.

Edited December 17, 2011 by American Woman

[cybercoma]

Your response is a lovely example of how anything and everything linked to what you and your ilk support is 'excused' on the premise that nothing is perfect.

You're a liar. I never once excused Islamic oppression. Condemning Western oppression of women does not excuse the horrific violence and oppression brought upon women in some Islamic societies. I'm opposed to oppressing women no matter what society is doing it and no matter how they do it. You on the otherhand have excused and even promoted the oppression of women in the West by denying the empirical evidence of that oppression and by promoting a law that would make women criminals for wearing something you deem inappropriate. The law would actually turn women who have been abused by a culture that oppresses them into criminals for being oppressed! You should be ashamed of yourself. Instead of empowering women to remove the hijab, you want to punish them. You want to keep them in fear of being deported and thus unable to report crimes committed against them when they're in abusive situations. What's even worse is that you absolutely refuse to acknowledge any of this and instead resort to ridiculous arguments predicated on the fact that I'm a man. If you were any kind of woman, you would protect your mothers, sisters and daughters, instead of supporting the systems that oppress them, no matter where they are.

[Guest American Woman]

If you were any kind of woman, you would protect your mothers, sisters and daughters, instead of supporting the systems that oppress them, no matter where they are.

I'm the "kind of woman" who doesn't tell her daughters that society only values them for their looks. Perhaps that's why they are successful and happy and don't place their value on their looks. But of course you would tell them differently, which is why what you think has no value to me.

As for the rest of your post, it's complete and utter bullshit. 'Nuff said.

[cybercoma]

I'm the "kind of woman" who doesn't tell her daughters that society only values them for their looks. Perhaps that's why they are successful and happy and don't place their value on their looks. But of course you would tell them differently, which is why what you think has no value to me.

As for the rest of your post, it's complete and utter bullshit. 'Nuff said.

What's bullshit is exactly what I highlighted above. You're utterly contemptible. How dare you tell me that I teach my daughters those things, when here I am criticizing those things? You're a real piece of work.

[Guest American Woman]

I didn't say you would "teach" them those things - I said that you would "tell" them those things. Same as you have here. The truth hurts, eh?

But do keep believing that women are only valued for their looks in our society and that women only value themselves for their looks - and do keep telling women that - making sure to add that they are "brainwashed" if they believe they are valued for more. They say ignorance is bliss, so your life must be full of it - enjoy!

Edited December 17, 2011 by American Woman

[cybercoma]

I didn't say you would "teach" them those things - I said that you would "tell" them those things.

Your intention was clear and is absolutely insulting.

[Wilber]

Head hurting yet AW?

[Guest American Woman]

Head hurting yet AW?

Oh, yeah. Big time! But I just poured myself a glass of wine, and I expect it will help.

[Keepitsimple]

Said it yesterday......

I think this thread says a lot about this forum......60 pages of dicussion on a topic that Canadians overwhelmingly support - over 80%. Yet there are still ideological dissenters. Hey, that's democracy....and I love it! But beware the squeaky wheel.

Edited December 18, 2011 by Keepitsimple