Guest American Woman Posted December 13, 2011 Report Share Posted December 13, 2011 It's not right and guess what... Canada is one of those oppressive cultures where women are beaten and treated as second class citizens as well. Stoning is barbaric, so thank god we don't do that here too. Oh give me a break. Why you would try to equate Canada with countries that allow such thing by law is impossible for me to even begin to understand. Your claim that women are "second class citizens" in Canada is about as ignorant as it gets. Women have all the rights that men do. I have to wonder if you even have a clue as to what life is like for women in some of the countries that we are referring to. There's a reason why western women aren't rushing to emigrate to these countries while women from these countries are coming to ours to exercise their equality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted December 13, 2011 Report Share Posted December 13, 2011 (edited) So why hide one's,specifically female, identity??? I dunno. Who cares? My guess is that for some of these women its a cultural tradition and they feel naked without the stupid thing. Seems silly do me, as does every other religious ritual or custom in human history, but my personal opinion is not something other people should have to consider when deciding what to wear. My opinion is wholly and completely irrelevant. Like I said.. that whole line of reasoning is meaningless and when this goes to court it wont even be considered. Theres either a good tangible operational reason (such as Identification) why the government cannot provide reasonable accomodation, or there isnt. I dont know enough about the entire proceeding or how important identification is at this stage of the process, or whether or not theres some easy way to deal with identification without banning the headscarf thingy. Edited December 13, 2011 by dre Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted December 13, 2011 Report Share Posted December 13, 2011 Oh give me a break. Why you would try to equate Canada with countries that allow such thing by law is impossible for me to even begin to understand. Your claim that women are "second class citizens" in Canada is about as ignorant as it gets. Women have all the rights that men do. I have to wonder if you even have a clue as to what life is like for women in some of the countries that we are referring to. There's a reason why western women aren't rushing to emigrate to these countries while women from these countries are coming to ours to exercise their equality. The reason they don't go is because it's worse. That doesn't mean women here aren't oppressed. You also say you don't understand why I would "equate Canada with countries that allow such a thing by law." I assume you mean women covering themselves when you say "such a thing." If that's the case, then I don't know what's not to understand. Canada allows women to wear burqas and niqabs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted December 13, 2011 Report Share Posted December 13, 2011 Think dark tinted faceshield on a motorcycle helmet....lots of those. Think of a one eyed driver....lots of those. A dark tinted face shield has the shield going all around it - it's not a small space just in the eye area. Furthermore, tinted "glass" allows clearer vision than mesh. People don't wear helmets in a car, either - and vision from within a car is more obstructed than on a motorcycle. I would wager big bucks that it would be much more restrictive to drive a car wearing such a helmet than it is to drive a motorcycle. People with one eye can't help their situation and must learn to overcome it. Why should we allow the same type of disadvantage to people who CAN help it? - Who need not drive with such a disadvantage? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted December 13, 2011 Report Share Posted December 13, 2011 How can a liberal be pro muslim when muslim faith in the mid east violates everything a liberal is for A number of commentators on the Right have made that observation. Liberals just can't seem to find anything wrong with someone if they're a minority. Doesn't matter if, as a general cultural rule they don't believe in equality of the sexes, think gays should be in prison, and have a lackluster support for most of our other values. If a Lutheran or a Catholic expressed the kinds of social beliefs most of the Muslim community believe in most Liberals would sneer at them in contempt and call them bigots and homophobes and misogynists. But since they're minorities they get excused. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted December 13, 2011 Report Share Posted December 13, 2011 The reason they don't go is because it's worse. That doesn't mean women here aren't oppressed. You also say you don't understand why I would "equate Canada with countries that allow such a thing by law." I assume you mean women covering themselves when you say "such a thing." If that's the case, then I don't know what's not to understand. Canada allows women to wear burqas and niqabs. Ummmm. No. That's not what I'm talking about. Clearly, since we are talking about oppressing women, I am referring to countries with LAWS that oppress women. At any rate, keep trying to push Canada as "oppressive too" when discussing such nations. You'll just have to do it without me. I'll be busy living and appreciating my life of equality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted December 13, 2011 Report Share Posted December 13, 2011 (edited) Canada is certainly NOT and oppressive culture. You exaggerate. Most women can work freely, speak their minds and be rid of individuals who are "oppressive" in nature. There are services for abuse victims. To state that Canada is an aoppressive culture is a massive stretch! I agree relatively that Canada is not an opressive culture, but we do have a history of turning on ethnic minorities especially when theres some context to consider them "enemy aliens". Im not sure if Canada is more tolerant just because theres been decades of relative peace, or if we have really changed since we interned japanese canadians and stripped them of their property, and sent shiploads of jews back to Germany to get gassed. We wont know what our real values are until they are placed under severe stress. We'll know once the blowback from some of the misadventures in the middle east that we have recently became involved in inevitably result in a bus explodering in Toronto, Montreal, or Vancouver whether or not we'll throw an entire ethnic group or religion under the bus as we have been so fond of doing in the past. I most definately hope youre right though! Edited December 13, 2011 by dre Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted December 13, 2011 Report Share Posted December 13, 2011 only because the government is looking for trouble, an all female citizenship ceremony eliminates all issues.. You want us to run society like the Muslims do? Have separate rooms for men and women? Or maybe we could let the women be sworn in in the same room, but they'd have to be in the back behind a screen so their presence doesn't offend the men. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted December 13, 2011 Report Share Posted December 13, 2011 (edited) Ummmm. No. That's not what I'm talking about. Clearly, since we are talking about oppressing women, I am referring to countries with LAWS that oppress women. At any rate, keep trying to push Canada as "oppressive too" when discussing such nations. You'll just have to do it without me. I'll be busy living and appreciating my life of equality. In spite of legal equality, I've already given numerous examples of inequality faced by women in both Canada and the US. You go right on ignoring reality. Edited December 13, 2011 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted December 13, 2011 Report Share Posted December 13, 2011 homosexuals are still persecuted in canada, Yeah, Iran and Saudi Arabia are constantly having to deal with gay refugees from Canada, sobbing about their persecution... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted December 13, 2011 Report Share Posted December 13, 2011 They would force our women to wear the outfit and you would force their women not to. One is just as bad as the other. Sudan would force black people to be slaves. We would force them not to be. You're right! We're just as bad! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted December 13, 2011 Report Share Posted December 13, 2011 A number of commentators on the Right have made that observation. Liberals just can't seem to find anything wrong with someone if they're a minority. Doesn't matter if, as a general cultural rule they don't believe in equality of the sexes, think gays should be in prison, and have a lackluster support for most of our other values. If a Lutheran or a Catholic expressed the kinds of social beliefs most of the Muslim community believe in most Liberals would sneer at them in contempt and call them bigots and homophobes and misogynists. But since they're minorities they get excused. This is a strawman. Being "pro muslim" has nothing to do with it at all. Some people believe the majority should be allowed to legislate their culture on minorites with unusual customs and habits, and some people dont. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted December 13, 2011 Report Share Posted December 13, 2011 I would suggest that Minister take a look at his own backyard where women are treated as object rather than human beings, pressured into surgically altering their bodies to meet a beauty ideale our society forces upon them, forced to take jobs at lower wages than their male counterparts, abused in the home at a rate of 9:1 in proportion to men, and more. It's a total fabrication that women here are actually free from persecution. They're persecuted, but under the veil of equality. On a scale of 100, where 100 is perfect freedom and equality we're probably somewhere in the 90s. Most Muslim countries are somewhere in the teens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted December 13, 2011 Report Share Posted December 13, 2011 Exactly…..I really don’t see how putting a face on the issue in some circumstances is a wrong thing……Other then in this case, or getting a driver licence or appearing in court, I really don’t care if someone wants to wear a Batman costume and call it a religious or cultural right….whatever floats your boat…… Just don't ask me to respect the Batman wearing guy as anything more than a strange oddity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bud Posted December 13, 2011 Report Share Posted December 13, 2011 If the government tried to ban the wearing of the holy cross by saying "Dont worry! atheists cant wear them either so its fair!!!" would you buy that? Of course not. And the courts would strike the law down. or southern state's sodomy laws where the justification would be: "don't worry! straight people can't have bum sex either!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted December 13, 2011 Report Share Posted December 13, 2011 Sudan would force black people to be slaves. We would force them not to be. You're right! We're just as bad! I didn't say we, as in everything about us, is just as bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted December 13, 2011 Report Share Posted December 13, 2011 A dark tinted face shield has the shield going all around it - it's not a small space just in the eye area. The point is we allow reductions of vision for many reasons and it is legal for all. The reason we do this is to avoid the law of unintended consequences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted December 13, 2011 Report Share Posted December 13, 2011 On a scale of 100, where 100 is perfect freedom and equality we're probably somewhere in the 90s. Most Muslim countries are somewhere in the teens. So what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted December 13, 2011 Report Share Posted December 13, 2011 You want us to run society like the Muslims do? Have separate rooms for men and women? Or maybe we could let the women be sworn in in the same room, but they'd have to be in the back behind a screen so their presence doesn't offend the men. Nope. Reasonable accomodation. That is the law, and the standard by which this will be judged. If its relatively easy and inexpensive for the government to accomodate this strange custom during the one sentence 8 second pledge, then thats what they are going to end up having to do. If however the government can articulate a legitimate problem posed by this that cannot be easily solved then the courts will rule in their favor when we inevitably waste millions of dollars adjudicating this nothing-assed, unimportant issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted December 13, 2011 Report Share Posted December 13, 2011 (edited) So what. That's her choice. I don't criticize Pentecostal women for wearing long jean skirts and not cutting their hair. What's the difference with women that choose to cover themselves? If this is their culture and that's what they're used to Two reasons. One, I'm thinking of the CBC panel on this issue the other day, where the NDP guy was demanding Jason Kenney have a meeting with a veil wearing woman, sit down with her face to face to find out why she wears one. Face to face. It's part of our lexicon, part of our culture. We want to see people's faces, to tell who we're dealing with. Second. In addition to women who have simply been wearing these things all their lives in their home countries and are just used to it, we see a lot of younger Muslim women who were brought up in Canada also wearing them, either because they're pressured by relatives, or as a social/political statement about their dedication to Islam. I see that as more of a rejection of Canadian society, a blatant statement which says "I am not one of YOU!" And I don't like it. If you didn't want to be one of us you should have stayed the hell home. Edited December 13, 2011 by Scotty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted December 13, 2011 Report Share Posted December 13, 2011 To you, perhaps. To your government, not so much. It's not jibber jabber to the true immigrants, who really want to be part of this country and it's culture. To them it's one of the highlights of their lives. To any who think it's meaningless jibber-jabber - go home. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted December 13, 2011 Report Share Posted December 13, 2011 Your anecdotal proclamation is very nice, but you're wrong. You are objectified and I can give you countless examples of how it's happening. You don't see the oddity in your telling a woman she's wrong about the condition of women here? Western troops in Afghanistan called women there UMOs, Unidentified Moving Objects. Ie, objectified! That's all they were! Objects! Not people! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted December 13, 2011 Report Share Posted December 13, 2011 Why is dedication to Islam a rejection of Canadian society, but a dedication to Judaism or Christianity isn't? Is Islam against the law here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted December 13, 2011 Report Share Posted December 13, 2011 Attn: AW This is how you're an object to be consumed by men's gaze. Consumed? You know, a friend of mine put on some weight after having her two kids. She really misses being hot, she says. She misses the way men would look at her when she entered the room, and be so eager to help her with anything she wanted. Don't get the idea most women hate that men think they're attractive... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted December 13, 2011 Report Share Posted December 13, 2011 Nope. Reasonable accomodation. That is the law, and the standard by which this will be judged. If its relatively easy and inexpensive for the government to accomodate this strange custom during the one sentence 8 second pledge, then thats what they are going to end up having to do. If however the government can articulate a legitimate problem posed by this that cannot be easily solved then the courts will rule in their favor when we inevitably waste millions of dollars adjudicating this nothing-assed, unimportant issue. It is absolutely an unimportant issue. I don't see that asking someone to show their face to be a big deal... I think Canadian values of equality are more important than someone else's values that would like to see all women clad so no one can see their skin. What else would they like to see? Legal beatings? The barbaric cultural values of oppressing women has no business in Canada. The courts? Is this policy being challenged in court? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.