Face veils banned for citizenship oaths

[Black Dog]

Back to the subject of how to deal with face-coverings in Canada..... perhaps we can talk about what, more broadly, the niqab and burka really represent and what "values" they are borne out of? Hint - the "values" are misogyny and chauvinism, and contempt of female sexuality.

That's probably true. And so what? Funny to see staunch freedom loving right-wingers tumble over themselves to give the government the right to dictate individual wardrobe choices. What next? Dog on Porch hauled in for wearing his beloved "No Fat Chicks" T-shirt?

Honestly, does anyone in their right mind actually believes banning these expressions of misogyny from the public sphere will in any way serve to undermine the culture that produced them? Of course not. It's a hollow gesture of the sort tubthumpers on the right find incredibly appealing for some odd reason.

[Black Dog]

Why? Since you don't get it now, I can't imagine that you ever will.

Sounds like I was bang on. Later, chickenshit.

[Bob]

Values that we have in this society as well. For example, you trying to tell women what they can and cannot wear.

This has nothing to do with what women can or cannot wear, but has everything to do with requiring all people, men and women alike, to show their identities during certain circumstances. This has already been explained to you many times, in great detail, and of course you will continue to ignore legitimate reasons for requiring a person to identify him or herself. I mean, you've been doing it the entire thread, you and I both know you won't stop now.

[Guest American Woman]

I'm not saying women wearing a veil are a threat to society, I am saying that people who completely hide their identity and indeed gender, can be a greater risk to society than those who do not.

Exactly. And I've made the same clarification myself, for all the good it's done. Furthermore, allowing people to completely hide their identity and indeed gender understandably can be perceived as presenting a greater risk to society. At the same time, supporting a ban against the burka can be on the grounds that one does not support the forcing of women to wear such a garment, having nothing to do with religious bias or discrimination.

[Guest American Woman]

Sounds like I was bang on. Later, chickenshit.

Since I know what I've said, whatever it "sounds" like to you, it is wrong. But seriously. "Chickenshit?"

You make claims about my POV, I say you're wrong, and you come back with "Chickenshit??" Just as Cybercoma comes back with his juvenile "troll" responses, this is not worth my time .....

[Black Dog]

This has nothing to do with what women can or cannot wear, but has everything to do with requiring all people, men and women alike, to show their identities during certain circumstances.

So now it's not about what the niqab and burka really represent and what "values" they are borne out of?

[Bob]

That's probably true. And so what? Funny to see staunch freedom loving right-wingers tumble over themselves to give the government the right to dictate individual wardrobe choices. What next? Dog on Porch hauled in for wearing his beloved "No Fat Chicks" T-shirt?

Honestly, does anyone in their right mind actually believes banning these expressions of misogyny from the public sphere will in any way serve to undermine the culture that produced them? Of course not. It's a hollow gesture of the sort tubthumpers on the right find incredibly appealing for some odd reason.

So you're joining the team that ignores all the legitimate reasons why having one's face covered is unacceptable under certain circumstances, and intentionally try to obfuscate the debate and ascribe an ulterior motive to those of us (80% of Canadians) who support this new rule of one's face needing to be shown during the citizenship oath. Like cybercoma, it doesn't matter what legitimate reasons are advanced in support of these types of restrictions during various circumstances, because what we're all really trying to do is offend Muslims. Forget about everything that's been said in this thread, we're all just a bunch of contradictory right-wingers who want to "dictate wardrobe choices".

I'm trying to change the direction of the discussion because clearly there is a certain group of people in here,, who all happen to be leftists, who refuse to be honest in this discussion. So what's the point of beating a dead horse? I'm not arguing in favour of banning the niqab and nurka on the grounds of these attires constituting a misogynistic practice, I'm simply trying to discuss a somewhat related issue - the origins of these face-covering practices masquerading as "modesty". I've already explained, clearly, why face-coverings should be banned, at a minimum, in various circumstances. Ideally, they'd be banned almost everywhere.

[Black Dog]

Since I know what I've said, whatever it "sounds" like to you, it is wrong. But seriously. "Chickenshit?"

You make claims about my POV, I say you're wrong, and you come back with "Chickenshit??" Just as Cybercoma comes back with his juvenile "troll" responses, this is not worth my time .....

I read your posts on the subject so far, including your unintentionally hilarious "society's not sexist, you're sexist" response to cybercoma, and I'm not seeing any other interpretation than the one I laid down. You had the opportunity to correct any misconception I had, but instead you're doing your usual "oh you just don't get it" routine which always seems to pop up in arguments with you (funny how so many people are just unable to grasp your deep, deep thoughts). So yeah: "chickenshit" seems as apt as any of your dumbass emoticons.

[guyser]

This has nothing to do with what women can or cannot wear, but has everything to do with requiring all people, men and women alike, to show their identities during certain circumstances.

Boob says....Back to the subject of how to deal with face-coverings in Canada..... perhaps we can talk about what, more broadly, the niqab and burka really represent and what "values" they are borne out of? Hint - the "values" are misogyny and chauvinism, and contempt of female sexuality

Good grief.

[Bob]

So now it's not about what the niqab and burka really represent and what "values" they are borne out of?

There is no difference between the two concepts. The niqab and burka are both products of a misogynistic culture/value system.

[guyser]

So now it's not about what the niqab and burka really represent and what "values" they are borne out of?

First sign of trolling and/or lying...confusion.

I have read enough of his utter bullshit and lies for one day. At least a good liar can keep things moderately straight, but this one cant tell if he said A or B two seconds after saying it.

[Black Dog]

So you're joining the team that ignores all the legitimate reasons why having one's face covered is unacceptable under certain circumstances, and intentionally try to obfuscate the debate and ascribe an ulterior motive to those of us (80% of Canadians) who support this new rule of one's face needing to be shown during the citizenship oath.

No dummy. I already made the point that there are certain circumstances where having one's face covered is probably inappropriate. I was speaking to your point that it's bigger than all that and is really about "values". Er, except when it's about when its appropriate to cover one's face. You can't seem to make up your mind on that score.

i'm not arguing in favour of banning the niqab and nurka on the grounds of these attires constituting a misogynistic practice, I'm simply trying to discuss a somewhat related issue - the origins of these face-covering practices masquerading as "modesty".

If you're arguing from a purely pragmatic standpoint, the origins are irrelevant.

I've already explained, clearly, why face-coverings should be banned, at a minimum, in various circumstances. Ideally, they'd be banned almost everywhere.

And we're back!

[Bob]

I never advanced an argument for banning face-coverings based on an examination of the cultural origins of the niqab and hijab. I never have, I never will. I'm simply bringing it up as a somewhat relevant side-discussion, not as grounds for public policy changes. Every argument I've advanced for restrictions of face-coverings in certain (and ideally virtually all) circumstances come from a purely practical point of departure. Many reasons have been provided by myself and other in this thread, feel free to go read them again. So your attempt at ascribing ulterior motives to those of us who support restrictions on face-covering, just as cybercoma has done, is essentially an attempt at smearing us and shutting down (but really dumbing down) the debate. You're telling us that we don't care about security/fraud concerns, what we really want is to make life difficult for certain Muslims. It's basically a new iteration of the race-card, but this time it's the "you hate Muslims" card ("Islamophobia"?). When legitimate reasons for requiring a person to show his or likeness are provided, they're ignored, and we go into irrelevant discussions about credit card/vendor policies. It's pointless to talk to people like you, clearly.

[Guest American Woman]

I read your posts on the subject so far, including your unintentionally hilarious "society's not sexist, you're sexist" response to cybercoma, and I'm not seeing any other interpretation than the one I laid down. You had the opportunity to correct any misconception I had, but instead you're doing your usual "oh you just don't get it" routine which always seems to pop up in arguments with you (funny how so many people are just unable to grasp your deep, deep thoughts). So yeah: "chickenshit" seems as apt as any of your dumbass emoticons.

Ok. Let's start with your first claim - your reference to my unintentionally hilarious "society's not sexist, you're sexist" response to cybercoma. Quote me where I said what you claim I said. Because I didn't.

There's nothing "chickenshit" about my refusal to repeat what I did say - I value my time and have no desire to either repeat myself over and over and over again or to repeatedly correct people's totally incorrect take on what I've said. Either you get it, or you don't. My bet is that if you wanted to understand what I've said, you would. If not, then seriously, there is no point in repeating it - it would be a total waste of my time.

But go ahead. Find the post where I said what you've quoted me as saying above. If you can do that, we'll continue this conversation. If not, I am done - and it has nothing to do with my being a "chickenshit."

Edited December 16, 2011 by American Woman

[PIK]

I run a business, someone with thier face covered comes walking in, he or she will be going out faster then they came in.

[Guest American Woman]

I run a business, someone with thier face covered comes walking in, he or she will be going out faster then they came in.

France and Belgium have already banned the burqa, the Netherlands is proposing legislation to ban it also, and Italy has approved a preliminary draft that bans women from wearing veils that cover their faces in public. One has to wonder if these nations are just anti-Islamic, against religious freedom, or if there just might be something more behind it.

Edited December 16, 2011 by American Woman

[guyser]

When legitimate reasons for requiring a person to show his or likeness are provided, they're ignored, and we go into irrelevant discussions about credit card/vendor policies. It's pointless to talk to people like you, clearly.

It pointless when you cant keep your thoughts, ideas and opinions straight.

You have flipped flopped like a 12 yr old in this thread.

"credit cards debate is irrelevant" but you kept going at it as some proof. (you were shown how invalid that is but you ignored)

"I didnt say I want burkas etc banned" except where you said you want them banned.... "I've already explained, clearly, why face-coverings should be banned"

[guyser]

I run a business, someone with thier face covered comes walking in, he or she will be going out faster then they came in.

Blanket statement is kinda silly.

You run a diamond cutting business. Makes sense.

You run a variety store in frigid Ottawa Valley, makes no sense.

But you have the right to do so,no mistaking that.

Edited December 16, 2011 by guyser

[The_Squid]

Interesting point of view from a Muslim:

http://www.calgaryherald.com/life/Muslims+need+leave+their+veils+behind/5870110/story.html

Bigotted? Racist? Anti-Muslim? None of the above. Just some common-sense.

[dre]

I never advanced an argument for banning face-coverings based on an examination of the cultural origins of the niqab and hijab. I never have, I never will. I'm simply bringing it up as a somewhat relevant side-discussion

[Black Dog]

I never advanced an argument for banning face-coverings based on an examination of the cultural origins of the niqab and hijab. I never have, I never will. I'm simply bringing it up as a somewhat relevant side-discussion, not as grounds for public policy changes. Every argument I've advanced for restrictions of face-coverings in certain (and ideally virtually all) circumstances come from a purely practical point of departure.

Really? What's the "practical point of departure" for banning the burka on someone who is, say, walking down the street?

Many reasons have been provided by myself and other in this thread, feel free to go read them again. So your attempt at ascribing ulterior motives to those of us who support restrictions on face-covering, just as cybercoma has done, is essentially an attempt at smearing us and shutting down (but really dumbing down) the debate. You're telling us that we don't care about security/fraud concerns, what we really want is to make life difficult for certain Muslims. It's basically a new iteration of the race-card, but this time it's the "you hate Muslims" card ("Islamophobia"?). When legitimate reasons for requiring a person to show his or likeness are provided, they're ignored, and we go into irrelevant discussions about credit card/vendor policies. It's pointless to talk to people like you, clearly.

See, Bob, we know you hate Muslims. I'm not sure why it's something you even run from. But that's beside the point: the above diarrhea shows that you aren't interested in dialogue (since I've already voiced my support of making people show their face in certain circumstances), just picking sides. Clearly.

Edited December 16, 2011 by Black Dog

[Black Dog]

Ok. Let's start with your first claim - your reference to my unintentionally hilarious "society's not sexist, you're sexist" response to cybercoma. Quote me where I said what you claim I said. Because I didn't.

There's nothing "chickenshit" about my refusal to repeat what I did say - I value my time and have no desire to either repeat myself over and over and over again or to repeatedly correct people's totally incorrect take on what I've said. Either you get it, or you don't. My bet is that if you wanted to understand what I've said, you would. If not, then seriously, there is no point in repeating it - it would be a total waste of my time.

But go ahead. Find the post where I said what you've quoted me as saying above. If you can do that, we'll continue this conversation. If not, I am done - and it has nothing to do with my being a "chickenshit."

There's a whole lot of choice in that. I know no one who has had surgery, which is a whole lot different from what it would be if it were required by law. And again. Men have surgery, take steroids, try to grow hair - try to alter their appearance too. You, I believe, are being sexist in your insistence that only women feel these pressures.

Link

The irony of your bleating about being misrepresented is rich given your whole exchange with cybercoma was predicated on the logical leap you made that his or her belief that society values women primarily for their looks is actually their own viewpoint. Because otherwise, your claim that he is the sexist one makes no damn sense.

Edited December 16, 2011 by Black Dog

[Guest American Woman]

Link

The irony of your bleating about being misrepresented is rich given your whole exchange with cybercoma was predicated on the logical leap you made that his or her belief that society values women primarily for their looks is actually their own viewpoint. Because otherwise, your claim that he is the sexist one makes no damn sense.

So I didn't say what you claim. Not even close. Thanks for the confirmation - and have a good night.

[Wilber]

You're not saying that they're a threat, just that they can be a threat. Can't everyone be a threat? The veil is not the threat. Not even close. And we already have laws against concealing one's identity during a crime. Not sure how the veil changes risk.

I think we have laws against committing crimes, concealing ones identity just makes it harder to identify the criminal and bring charges against them. That's the point. You assume that just because someone wears a particular costume, that is some sort of guarantee as to their character. Bad assumption. There may be a god fearing Muslim woman under there or it could be another Ma Barker, or it could even be a guy. You have no way of knowing which and you have no way of identifying them after any sort of discourse you might have had with them.

I for one would never engage in a business transaction with anyone I couldn't physically identify after the fact. That would just be stupid. The first thing anyone is asked in a court room is whether they can identify the person they are giving evidence about. If you or the police can't, you or the Crown has no case.

[Scotty]

Research suggests people don't choose their religion. They actually just adopt the religion of their parents and community, but I agree with your point.

And how does that explain the young Canadian Muslims embracing Islamist thinking, and putting on these religious costumes even though they were born in Canada and their parents aren't demanding it?