GostHacked Posted December 19, 2011 Report Share Posted December 19, 2011 How do you draw this conclusion? I don't think it's just in Muslim families and I didn't even imply it. I was illustrating how this veil ruling could create a barrier to reporting violence. I was trying to address the notion that abuse is not specific to someone wearing a veil. And it was more of an attempt to bring it to light for other posters who seem to have a hard time wrapping their brain around it. Thank you. That's but one small example of how it's accomplished. Many people don't read magazines. Magazines were but one small example. A good deal of us browse online and most of the ads we see are digitally manipulated to get a better product. All forms of advertizing use it. We do it for food as well. There is a reason your McDonald's burger will never look like what you see on TV. Also it's the same reason you won't recognize that 'hot model' in person that you see on TV or in an ad of some kind. Yes it is. And not just exclusive to the ladies. That guy you see on the cover or on that ad, has also been digitally modified. But as I said, huge thread drift. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted December 19, 2011 Report Share Posted December 19, 2011 The screaming and howling seems to be coming from your direction, actually, as the vast majority of Canadians support this new rule. I guess the majority of Canada lives in "Hicksille". As I've already said, if these Islamist women who feel compelled to hide their faces from the public actually do experience "humiliation" when their faces are visible to the public, perhaps they need to see a mental health professional. After all, under any other circumstances, the mental health of an individual who experiences "humiliation" when his or her face is visible to the public would be questionable. Have you ever worn a Speedo in public? There's many people that would be humiliated if they were forced to, but "the mental health of an individual who experiences 'humiliation' when his legs are visible to the public would be questionable." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted December 19, 2011 Report Share Posted December 19, 2011 Have you ever worn a Speedo in public? There's many people that would be humiliated if they were forced to, but "the mental health of an individual who experiences 'humiliation' when his legs are visible to the public would be questionable." No one is forcing anyone to wear anything. More hyperbole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted December 19, 2011 Report Share Posted December 19, 2011 as long as they arent making a profit from it i dont care You're all over the map, aintcha. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted December 19, 2011 Report Share Posted December 19, 2011 No one is forcing anyone to wear anything. More hyperbole. Exactly. It's not as if the women are going to be forced to wear low-cut cleavage-showing form-fitted short dresses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olp1fan Posted December 19, 2011 Report Share Posted December 19, 2011 You're all over the map, aintcha. all religion is used for is to manipulate weak people into donating money in the name of god for their ponzi scheme to continue Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted December 19, 2011 Report Share Posted December 19, 2011 Have you ever worn a Speedo in public? There's many people that would be humiliated if they were forced to, but "the mental health of an individual who experiences 'humiliation' when his legs are visible to the public would be questionable." This is perhaps the tenth time in this thread you've been unable to distinguish between covering one's face and covering the rest of one's body. The most recent example being your monumentally stupid attempt to draw a parallel between a religious head-covering like a kippah or turban and a face-covering like the niqab or burka. I specifically stated that the mental health of a person who experiences "humiliation" or "distress" under the normal circumstances of having his or her face shown in public needs to be called into question. Since we're talking about Islamist women, however, they're given a pass. Everyone in here knows what we'd think of a person who always wore a mask out in public in order to protect him or herself from the "humiliation" or "distress" of having his or her face exposes in public. You, however, liken this to the self-consciousness a person may feel wearing revealing bathing attire. I must admit, cybercoma, you continue to deliver satisfaction to me in this thread, fulfilling my masochistic side where I enjoy seeing people humiliated by having their stupidity exposed. You're nothing if not dependable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted December 19, 2011 Report Share Posted December 19, 2011 (edited) 5) Threatens abused women by isolating them due to the threat of deportation You are not automatically deported if you are not a Canadian citizen. Where do you get this stuff from? I'll address this specifically because the articles I've read said that if they refuse to remove their veil, rather than become citizens, they will remain a permanent resident. No one is forced to become a citizen - or face deportation. Edited December 19, 2011 by American Woman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted December 19, 2011 Report Share Posted December 19, 2011 No one is forcing anyone to wear anything. More hyperbole. No, the state is forcing women to not.. wear...something...hey, just wait a goddamn minute... [facepalm smack] Man I really have been thinking about this the wrong way haven't I? Go for Kenney! Whooo-hooo! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted December 19, 2011 Report Share Posted December 19, 2011 As an aside (could be another thread altogether), the big stuff does not matter to many, so we spend pages quibbling over really trivial matters. This thread for example has almost 70 pages. The bombing in Oslo Norway (as an example) is a big event with big implications and is close to 60 pages. We are screwed as a society (actually all societies are screwed) if this continues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted December 19, 2011 Report Share Posted December 19, 2011 I'll address this specifically because the articles I've read said that if they refuse to remove their veil, rather than become citizens, they will remain a permanent resident. No one is forced to become a citizen - or face deportation. Exactly right. If you choose not to become a citizen it does not lead to deportation!! That assertion by Cybercoma is ridiculous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted December 19, 2011 Report Share Posted December 19, 2011 Both of these are refuted by the articles written by Farzana Hassan, a Muslim Canadian woman (if you bothered to read them). I would venture to say that she is an expert on these matters. If the argument is that the niqab is not actually mandated by Islamic law, that argument is , sadly, irrelevant in the face of legal precedent in this country. I don't think this applies at all. It is a necessity to properly ID people at times. Asking for this is not unreasonable. It's a question of finding a middle ground. Or at least it would be if this was really about the neccesity of seeing someone's face during the citizenship oath and not about Jason Kenney pandering to his base (a base who probably doesn't give a fuck about women's rights in any other context). Yes, they do have better protections in Canada. Women are not dressed this way by choice, for the most part. Having to be properly identified will not do much to prevent abuse, but it does put Canadian values above the mysoginistic values that have them dressing this way. A small, but positive, step. If a woman is being forced or brainwashed into wearing this shit, do you honestly expect them to suddenly "see the light" as it were, when confronted with the forced removal of this thing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted December 19, 2011 Report Share Posted December 19, 2011 No one is forcing anyone to wear anything. More hyperbole. Although not quite a Speedo, that comment kinda reminded me of this scene. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted December 19, 2011 Report Share Posted December 19, 2011 Exactly. It's not as if the women are going to be forced to wear low-cut cleavage-showing form-fitted short dresses. Aw shucks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted December 19, 2011 Report Share Posted December 19, 2011 (edited) dp Edited December 19, 2011 by The_Squid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted December 19, 2011 Report Share Posted December 19, 2011 The problem is, Bob, that you don't seem to get it that asking someone to reveal themselves in public in a manner that they're not accustomed to, which some have already argued is humiliating, would produce the same effect. If a woman's culture or upbringing makes her feel uncomfortable being in a roomful of people without her face veil on, then who are you to say she should? You saying her embarassment should be predicated on Western norms is not only ethnocentric and myopic, but it's completely illogical. Of course her ideas of what is embarassing and what isn't embarassing is going to be based on her upbringing. It has nothing to do with mental health. I'm sure every culture has different things that they find humiliating than each other. One of the great things about Canada is that you don't have to get rid of your heritage when you come to this country. That's what makes us unique, even to the United States who forces its citizens to assimilate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted December 19, 2011 Report Share Posted December 19, 2011 all religion is used for is to manipulate weak people into donating money in the name of god for their ponzi scheme to continue Maybe. So what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted December 19, 2011 Report Share Posted December 19, 2011 The problem is, Bob, that you don't seem to get it that asking someone to reveal themselves in public in a manner that they're not accustomed to, which some have already argued is humiliating, would produce the same effect. Exactly, it would be no different than asking Bob to reveal his junk at his swearing-in ceremony in Israel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olp1fan Posted December 19, 2011 Report Share Posted December 19, 2011 Maybe. So what? Imagine a religion free society where you are free to be as spiritual as you want without being told what to think by child molesters and elders and shit then and only then will you have a real relationship with your God Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted December 19, 2011 Report Share Posted December 19, 2011 Exactly, it would be no different than asking Bob to reveal his junk at his swearing-in ceremony in Israel. Then he'd need to get circumcised. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted December 19, 2011 Report Share Posted December 19, 2011 If the argument is that the niqab is not actually mandated by Islamic law, that argument is , sadly, irrelevant in the face of legal precedent in this country. Cybercoma listed it as #1. If it was irrelevent to his argument it would not have been his first point against it. The author of the column refuted that this is even the case. It's a question of finding a middle ground. Or at least it would be if this was really about the neccesity of seeing someone's face during the citizenship oath and not about Jason Kenney pandering to his base (a base who probably doesn't give a fuck about women's rights in any other context). I don't think that this was pandering to his base. Or that it was pandering at all. I think that to most people this is just common sense. I don't vote Con. But I don't need to oppose every little thing (yes, this is a very minor issue) they do just for the sake of opposing. If a woman is being forced or brainwashed into wearing this shit, do you honestly expect them to suddenly "see the light" as it were, when confronted with the forced removal of this thing? Like I said, this decision will not make much (any?) difference to the mysoginist views of a minority of men who force women to dress this way. But at least Canada is not pandering to their wishes. It is a small thing... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted December 19, 2011 Report Share Posted December 19, 2011 (edited) The problem is, Bob, that you don't seem to get it that asking someone to reveal themselves in public in a manner that they're not accustomed to, which some have already argued is humiliating, would produce the same effect. If a woman's culture or upbringing makes her feel uncomfortable being in a roomful of people without her face veil on, then who are you to say she should? You saying her embarassment should be predicated on Western norms is not only ethnocentric and myopic, but it's completely illogical. Of course her ideas of what is embarassing and what isn't embarassing is going to be based on her upbringing. It has nothing to do with mental health. I'm sure every culture has different things that they find humiliating than each other. One of the great things about Canada is that you don't have to get rid of your heritage when you come to this country. That's what makes us unique, even to the United States who forces its citizens to assimilate. What you don't understand is that face-to-face communication is not a "Western" practise, it's an integral part of humanity. It's how humanity has conducted itself for hundreds of thousands of years, across the globe. There is nothing "revealing" about people interacting with one another with their faces exposed. On the other hand, hardcore Islamist practises of covering up the faces of women with burkas and niqabs is, essentially, what you are defending. If an Islamist woman does indeed experience "distress" or "humiliation", as you and eyeball are asserting, then she needs to seek help from a mental health professional. We would say the same thing about any other person who felt compelled to cover their faces in public in order to avoid such emotions in the normal circumstance of having his or her face seen by others. Consider also that I haven't even yet called you and eyeball out on your ridiculous assertion that Islamist women would in fact experience "distress" and "humiliation" in circumstances where they are required to reveal their faces. You just made that shit up, and eyeball ran with it... predictably. Edited December 19, 2011 by Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted December 19, 2011 Report Share Posted December 19, 2011 Like I said, this decision will not make much (any?) difference to the mysoginist views of a minority of men who force women to dress this way. But at least Canada is not pandering to their wishes. It is a small thing... Some times small things are big things. In this case, it might be a very big thing to a woman who is normally forced to stay under cover to be able to start her life as a citizen of Canada out in the open. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted December 19, 2011 Report Share Posted December 19, 2011 Cybercoma listed it as #1. If it was irrelevent to his argument it would not have been his first point against it. The author of the column refuted that this is even the case. Not sure what column you're referring to, but, Canadian law doesn't care if a religious practice is officially mandated or not. It's where the individual believes it to be so that counts. I don't think that this was pandering to his base. Or that it was pandering at all. I think that to most people this is just common sense. I don't vote Con. But I don't need to oppose every little thing (yes, this is a very minor issue) they do just for the sake of opposing. It is a minor issue and I doubt women in niqabs at swearing in ceremonies is a big deal (how many are there anyway? Kenney doesn't seem to have any data). So why bring it up if not to score points/distract from other issues? Like I said, this decision will not make much (any?) difference to the mysoginist views of a minority of men who force women to dress this way. But at least Canada is not pandering to their wishes. It is a small thing... I guess I don't put as much stock into empty gestures as others, preferring to see energy and resources directed to finding ways to actually engage and empower women coming from these backgrounds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted December 19, 2011 Report Share Posted December 19, 2011 I have to agree with Bob This stuff about "humiliation" and "distress" is a red herring. It was made up by Cybercoma. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.