Face veils banned for citizenship oaths

[Black Dog]

I believe that in businesses such as a bank, one should not be able to enter if their identity is concealed. Had anyone come into the bank in the middle of June wearing a Halloween mask, I would have hit the panic button, summoning the police. If anyone had come in with a ski mask on, or a scarf wrapped entirely around their face, it would have put us all on on alert.

It makes a great deal more sense to ban face covering in banks etc than in citizenship ceremonies.

These situations would put any good employee on alert - but Burkas are normal Muslim attire, therefore drawing less attention, making it easier to blend in, giving no cause for being on 'alert,' and easy to conceal one's entire identity. Hence the difference.

Eh, not really.

[cybercoma]

Um. I don't think saying "Looks don't matter for women in politics: just look at this ugly cow!" makes the point you think it does.

Exactly. Because the most powerful woman in the United States at that time wasn't heavily criticized for her appearance. People were constantly speculating on her sexuality and making rude comments about her appearance. If that's how a woman is treated as Secretary of the State, what does that say for the average woman? If even she can't be discussed in the media for her ideas and politics, what does that say about female role models? I bet if you polled people, very few would be able to name anything she did in office, but they would probably be able to tell you everything about her appearance. Ask people about Bill Gates, on the other hand, and his nerdy appearance definitely would come up after his business accomplishments and probably philanthropy. His appearance and sexuality are certainly not the first things people comment upon.

[Guest American Woman]

Eh, not really.

Eh, yeah, really. They aren't abnormal Muslim attire, eh?

[Bob]

Well, since you say so .... I guess that's that.

As already posted:

Veils and face coverings are already banned in Quebec for people receiving some government services.

Canada is considering a wider ban on veils in government offices, schools and hospitals.

It's always interesting to see the socialists defend the "liberties" of Islamists, essentially supporting a misogynistic practise that effectively isolates women and is rooted in a shaming of women by virtue of their sexuality. The truth? These socialists only take this position on this issue because they're reflexively ally with groups they perceive as "vulnerable", "oppressed", or "marginalized". These days, certain Muslim organizations have done an effective job selling this lie that they are discriminated against in Western societies, and jacee has drunk their Kool-Aid and is going for seconds. Her support for the "freedom" of Islamists to perpetuate their inferior cultural practises is rooted in reflexive support for these "lesser" groups that need her political patronage. Basically, she needs an imagined underdog to cheer for, regardless of who, where, or why. In this case, it's the Islamist cloaked woman.

[cybercoma]

That's true, but private businesses such as banks should be permitted to deny service to people who refuse to identify themselves in accordance with the policies of the business. Eventually banks will begin to add photos to their bank cards, as certain credit cards already do (like my photo on my Costco AMEX). Another example would be a gym or fitness club membership with a photo - the private business should be permitted to deny service to individuals who refuse to identify themselves in-line with the business membership/customer policies. Unfortunately, in left-wing Canada, that would inevitably bring about a constitutional challenge and/or HRC complaint from the usual suspects.

Even with photo ID, the banks have your signature on file for identification purposes. When mine was outdated (because I had filled out the card when I was 12), I actually had to jump through hoops for bank service. Also, people now identify themselves with their pin numbers through their chip cards. Seldom do they ask for any other ID. Face veils on Muslim women that choose to wear them... not all that big of an issue.

[Bob]

Exactly. Because the most powerful woman in the United States at that time wasn't heavily criticized for her appearance. People were constantly speculating on her sexuality and making rude comments about her appearance. If that's how a woman is treated as Secretary of the State, what does that say for the average woman? If even she can't be discussed in the media for her ideas and politics, what does that say about female role models? I bet if you polled people, very few would be able to name anything she did in office, but they would probably be able to tell you everything about her appearance. Ask people about Bill Gates, on the other hand, and his nerdy appearance definitely would come up after his business accomplishments and probably philanthropy. His appearance and sexuality are certainly not the first things people comment upon.

So in other words, you're parroting the feminist narrative that there is a double-standard in politics between men and women when it comes to appearance? That the electorate holds higher standards for women with respect to things like how telegenic they are than for men?

[Bob]

Even with photo ID, the banks have your signature on file for identification purposes. When mine was outdated (because I had filled out the card when I was 12), I actually had to jump through hoops for bank service. Also, people now identify themselves with their pin numbers through their chip cards. Seldom do they ask for any other ID. Face veils on Muslim women that choose to wear them... not all that big of an issue.

I worked at a bank for years while in university, I'm well aware of the absence of requirements for presenting photo ID during most transactions. Still, there are circumstances where photo ID is required. For example, opening up an account or applying for credit. You've completely ignored the point, anyways.... not surprisingly, I should add.

[cybercoma]

This simply comes down to a group of people that don't like the veils or are frightened by them, which makes sense because it's not part of their culture, trying to systematize their fears through the judicial system by banning what they don't like. What a mess society would be if people were able to just have everything they didn't like banned. I've yet to see anyone establish a serious credible reason for these veils to be banned, aside from situations where they would already be required to remove their veil.

[Wilber]

That's not what I'm saying at all. All I'm saying is that the research shows the people are very unlikely to change from the religion of their parents, even into adulthood. Some do, but the vast majority don't.

And I am saying that is not society's problem nor should it be. There are all sorts of valid reasons for being able to positively identify someone. If their modesty is offended by showing their face on those occasions, that's their problem.

[Bob]

This simply comes down to a group of people that don't like the veils or are frightened by them

Wrong. Many practical problems have been presented, and you've ignored them all.

Edited December 16, 2011 by Bob

[dre]

and getting gas for my motorcycle and snowmobile, keeping warm on a blustery day....all thsoe busts at footbal games since the face is painted ,

Somebody went full stupid on their post without thinking. No surprise there.

Right. SO you write all kinds of exceptions into the law... then train your "face covering" police force to arrest or fine the right people, and the courts to uphold those fines. Brilliant . Anyhow... judging by some of the attitudes in this thread, such legislation may be a forgone conclusion.

[Bob]

And I am saying that is not society's problem nor should it be. There are all sorts of valid reasons for being able to positively identify someone. If their modesty is offended by showing their face on those occasions, that's their problem.

According to cybercoma, there aren't any "valid reasons for being able to positively identify someone" by showing their face. This is all about us not liking the niqab/burka. We're "frightened" by it.

[Black Dog]

Eh, yeah, really. They aren't abnormal Muslim attire, eh?

It depends on the Muslim. For some Muslims it is, for a much larger percentage of Muslims, it is not.

[Guest American Woman]

So in other words, you're parroting the feminist narrative that there is a double-standard in politics between men and women when it comes to appearance? That the electorate holds higher standards for women with respect to things like how telegenic they are than for men?

I guess I must have imagined all of the references to Bush and his looks - ie: the Bush/monkey comparisons; and by the same token, all of the comments about Obama's ears are all in my head, as are all of the references to his being too "skinny." "Too skinny to be president," no less. Never mind the accusations that he's a sissy.

[Bob]

I guess I must have imagined all of the references to Bush and his looks - ie: the Bush/monkey comparisons; and by the same token, all of the comments about Obama's ears are all in my head, as are all of the references to his being too "skinny." "Too skinny to be president," no less. Never mind the accusations that he's a sissy.

Yes, apparently vanity concerns only affect the fairer sex in the eyes of the public... according to cybercoma's false social narrative, anyways.

[Guest American Woman]

It depends on the Muslim. For some Muslims it is, for a much larger percentage of Muslims, it is not.

Um. I wasn't referring to individuals. The fact remains, for Muslims Burkas are normal attire. All women don't wear dresses, but that doesn't make the statement "dresses are normal attire for women" any less true. Get it? If not, oh well. I tried.

Edited December 16, 2011 by American Woman

[cybercoma]

Wrong. Many practical problems have been presented, and you've ignored them all.

I haven't ignored them all. I've even said there are quite reasonable situations for removing the veil. In a room full of people for the citizenship oath isn't one of them, neither is walking into a bank or shopping at a store.

[DogOnPorch]

Um. I don't think saying "Looks don't matter for women in politics: just look at this ugly cow!" makes the point you think it does.

You're the one who called her an ugly cow.

Edited December 16, 2011 by DogOnPorch

[Guest American Woman]

You're the one who called her an ugly cow.

As I said, he didn't get the point I was making at all.

[Black Dog]

I guess I must have imagined all of the references to Bush and his looks - ie: the Bush/monkey comparisons; and by the same token, all of the comments about Obama's ears are all in my head, as are all of the references to his being too "skinny." "Too skinny to be president," no less. Never mind the accusations that he's a sissy.

I love how your whole, entire claim that women are not judged on their looks rests on certain exceptions which are not necessarily representative.

[Wilber]

I haven't ignored them all. I've even said there are quite reasonable situations for removing the veil. In a room full of people for the citizenship oath isn't one of them, neither is walking into a bank or shopping at a store.

Really, what happens when a sales clerk asks for picture ID when a credit card is used? This is more than reasonable, it protects the store, the credit card company and the card holder. Would you accept a cheque from someone you didn't know and couldn't identify? I wouldn't.

[Black Dog]

As I said, he didn't get the point I was making at all.

Yeah your ideas are just too deep.

[Guest American Woman]

I love how your whole, entire claim that women are not judged on their looks rests on certain exceptions which are not necessarily representative.

I love how you haven't understood one thing I've said, one point I've made, much less my "entire claim," yet on and on you go .....

[dre]

According to cybercoma, there aren't any "valid reasons for being able to positively identify someone" by showing their face. This is all about us not liking the niqab/burka. We're "frightened" by it.

I think there ARE valid reasons. But Im not sure there is one in this case. And remember, you dont just need a "valid reason". The government has to demonstrate that there was no easy way to accomodate. In this case, apparently since they are even contemplating a ban, I assume that there is no ban in place. That means the odd muslim has probably worn these things for a long time. Maybe even going back decades. Can the government show this has posed any kind of problem to the system? I havent heard of any, but well find out when it gets to court.

[cybercoma]

I love how your whole, entire claim that women are not judged on their looks rests on certain exceptions which are not necessarily representative.

When's the last time you've heard someone criticize a woman's looks by saying her ears are funny, she's TOO skinny, or she looks like a monkey. Criticisms about their looks are more often than not sexualized.