Face veils banned for citizenship oaths

[Guest American Woman]

The difference is that I didn't tell you those things either, but keep making crap up. It's amusing.

Ummm. Yes, you did. It's all here in this thread.

You have insisted that women are only valued in society for their looks. You have insisted that women place their value on their looks. And then when I said it wasn't that way for me, you said I was brainwashed.

[cybercoma]

I get that this is your completely ill-informed opinion of what I said, but what I actually said is different. You've made it abundantly clear that you're unwilling or incapable of understanding my argument, so I can't even be bothered correcting you anymore.

[eyeball]

Women will only have equality when the state doesn't let men, or an abusive father, or an abusive husband, dictate what they have to wear.

But in the meantime the state will dictate what women mustn't wear?

You'd make a wonderful dictator.

[dre]

Women will only have equality when the state doesn't let men, or an abusive father, or an abusive husband, dictate what they have to wear. As long as the state allows men to do this in the name of 'freedom of religion,' too many women will not find a free, equal society in our nations.

Freedoms are not absolute, and when it harms a specific segment of society, the freedom is sometimes denied to prevent the potential abuse. Your hate speech is not against your Charter of Rights for that reason. Freedom of religion is also not absolute, which is why polygamy is not allowed.

Did you read where extremist organizations are paying men in some instances to force the women in their lives to cover up? And that's in Europe and North America. Did you read that 77% of the girls surveyed in France in 2003 said they only wore the hijab because of force or threats of violence?

These are not, as Kenney said, Canadian values, and anyone choosing to live in Canada should accept Canadian values - Canada should not bend to their values.

Women will only have equality when the state doesn't let men, or an abusive father, or an abusive husband, dictate what they have to wear. As long as the state allows men to do this in the name of 'freedom of religion,' too many women will not find a free, equal society in our nations.

All you want to do is replace the husbands force with the states force. In both cases women are deprived of freedom and choice. At the end of the day your "plan" appears to be to have the police and courts either fine or imprison women over their choice of clothing. This has absolutely nothing to do with freedom or equality.

[Guest American Woman]

All you want to do is replace the husbands force with the states force. In both cases women are deprived of freedom and choice.

Not really. No one is forcing a Muslim woman to wear a bikini. She can still dress as "modestly" as she wants. But here's the thing - by the state "forcing" her not to wear a burka et al, no harm is coming to her. When a woman is forced to wear the burka et al, there is harm being done.

If one cannot give both sides "freedom," whom should we deny the freedom to? The ones suffering no harm - or the ones suffering abuse, force, and threats of violence?

At the end of the day your "plan" appears to be to have the police and courts either fine or imprison women over their choice of clothing. This has absolutely nothing to do with freedom or equality.

At the end of the day, my opinion is that our states should not allow the oppression/abuse of women because of "freedom of religion." Many of our laws deprive certain people of their "rights." As I said, and you ignored, one cannot even incite hatred in speech in Canada, because of the potential harm. As you also ignored, one cannot have more than one spouse, in spite of religious beliefs some have. Again. There is no such thing as absolute freedoms, even under the guise of religion.

I noticed you totally ignored the fact that extremist organizations are paying men in some instances to force the women in their lives to cover up ... in Europe and North America. And that 77% of the girls surveyed in France in 2003 said they only wore the hijab because of force or threats of violence

You think the right to wear a burka et al should supercede the rights of women NOT being forced to - when being forced to involves abuse, threats, and violence?

Being covered in such a way singles a woman/girl out and keeps her apart from society. How is she to ever achieve equality within that society? Her right to equality is more important than someone else's right to wear a burka et al.

[Wilber]

Who's dictating what women can't wear? We are all subject to dress codes in certain situations.

[Black Dog]

Women will only have equality when the state doesn't let men, or an abusive father, or an abusive husband, dictate what they have to wear. As long as the state allows men to do this in the name of 'freedom of religion,' too many women will not find a free, equal society in our nations.

Freedoms are not absolute, and when it harms a specific segment of society, the freedom is sometimes denied to prevent the potential abuse. Your hate speech is not against your Charter of Rights for that reason. Freedom of religion is also not absolute, which is why polygamy is not allowed.

Lost in all this racket is the fact that banning the veil won't actually change a damn thing about the cultures in question. It could conceivably make things worse for those women who are forced to wear the veil.

Did you read where extremist organizations are paying men in some instances to force the women in their lives to cover up? And that's in Europe and North America. Did you read that 77% of the girls surveyed in France in 2003 said they only wore the hijab because of force or threats of violence?

These are not, as Kenney said, Canadian values, and anyone choosing to live in Canada should accept Canadian values - Canada should not bend to their values.

There are no reliable statistics on who wears the niqab in France and whether they have kept wearing it since the law. It is estimated that only a few hundred women wear it, mostly French citizens. Muslim associations say a minority of women have taken off the niqab or moved abroad. Nekkaz says that more than 290 women still wearing niqab have contacted him: he says a large number were divorced with children, most were aged between 25 and 35, many were French of north African parentage, and many were living on income support. An Open Society Foundation report on women in niqabs in France in April found that of a sample of 32 women in niqab, none had been forced to wear the full veil. Many said they would refuse to take if off after the law came in, adding that they would avoid leaving home, or move abroad.

Link

[The_Squid]

No one is telling women what they can/can't wear. The requirement is to show one's face when taking the oath.

Stop the hyperbole.

[Guest American Woman]

I get that this is your completely ill-informed opinion of what I said, but what I actually said is different. You've made it abundantly clear that you're unwilling or incapable of understanding my argument, so I can't even be bothered correcting you anymore.

Here's what you've said. This first quote was said to a man:

Your social worth is separable from your sexual attractiveness via intelligence or athletics. A woman's social worth is inseparable from her attractiveness, such that they're intelligence and athletic prowess are typically only valued if they're ALSO attractive.

About men and their appearance:

Their value is also not tied to their appearance. They have the choice of being valued for their intelligence ....

Of course women have no such choice. Being valued for intelligence it not a choice that exists for women in our society.

Here, upon my telling you that I am not objectified in my life, you inform me that indeed I am.

Your anecdotal proclamation is very nice, but you're wrong. You are objectified....

Once again you repeat that women's value in society is their looks.

...society values beauty in women above and beyond all other traits....

Here's where you tell us what women place their value on - their looks - because in our society women cannot be appreciated for anything else.

She misses being hot because she can't be appreciated for anything else. Our society doesn't allow it. Her value is tied to her appearance.

Once again we are told that the value of a woman is first and foremost her looks and "sexuality."

It's about a woman's value being tied to her sexuality first before anything else.

Men are required to be in roles of power and women are required to be subservient to them.

Ah yes, this is a "requirement" of women in our society. And shame on me if I don't see it that way.

It's just examples like these that are taken for granted when people make the completely wrong statement that women are equal to men and that society appreciates them for more than their appearances and sexuality.

This sums it up, eh? It's "completely wrong" to say that society appreciates women for more than their appearance and sexuality.

And of course, women can't even be conceived of having attributes necessary for leadership in our societies. In spite of all the women who ARE in positions of leadership.

...when you can't even be conceived of as having the attributes necessary for leadership because they're "masculine," I would say that's oppression.

Yet again, according to you, women are appreciated first and foremost for their looks; it's a woman's most valuable asset.

...It has to do with a woman's value being tied directly to sexualized notions of her attractiveness. .... When a man is judged for his looks, it's not the same as women whose most valuable asset in our society is her looks.

And when I continue not to buy your claims ....

I'm the one [..]trying to get people like you to see our society for what it is, but you choose to pull the wool over your eyes ....

You've clearly said exactly what I've said you did.

[dre]

Not really. No one is forcing a Muslim woman to wear a bikini. She can still dress as "modestly" as she wants. But here's the thing - by the state "forcing" her not to wear a burka et al, no harm is coming to her. When a woman is forced to wear the burka et al, there is harm being done.

If one cannot give both sides "freedom," whom should we deny the freedom to? The ones suffering no harm - or the ones suffering abuse, force, and threats of violence?

At the end of the day, my opinion is that our states should not allow the oppression/abuse of women because of "freedom of religion." Many of our laws deprive certain people of their "rights." As I said, and you ignored, one cannot even incite hatred in speech in Canada, because of the potential harm. As you also ignored, one cannot have more than one spouse, in spite of religious beliefs some have. Again. There is no such thing as absolute freedoms, even under the guise of religion.

I noticed you totally ignored the fact that extremist organizations are paying men in some instances to force the women in their lives to cover up ... in Europe and North America. And that 77% of the girls surveyed in France in 2003 said they only wore the hijab because of force or threats of violence

You think the right to wear a burka et al should supercede the rights of women NOT being forced to - when being forced to involves abuse, threats, and violence?

Being covered in such a way singles a woman/girl out and keeps her apart from society. How is she to ever achieve equality within that society? Her right to equality is more important than someone else's right to wear a burka et al.

the state "forcing" her not to wear a burka et al, no harm is coming to her

Thats objectively false. Some of these women belief the veil is an important part their spirituality.

What we really need to do is tackle the root problem... which is the cultural dynamic of the muslim family, and that its very patriarchial in nature. Theres ways to do this over time without banning various articles of clothing.

Your approach is akin to abolishing slavery by banning cotton. And its likely to actually HARM muslim women, because it will discourage them from immigrating to the west, where they are treated much much better than they are in muslim countries. Youre banning ancilary activities and objects, instead of tackling the underlying problem.

Besides that its just a non starter. It would be a constitutional violation in both the US and Canada. Youre allowed to have an opinion on what other people should wear but thats all.

Like I said youre just trying to substitue one infringement on womens freedom with another.

Her right to equality is more important than someone else's right to wear a burka et al.

Thats your arbitrary judgement... you can make that decision for yourself, but not for anyone else. This is EXACTLY why religious rights have constitutional protections. Its very easy and tempting for the majority to attack customs that seem strange. We have a rich history of doing this unfortunately.

Edited December 19, 2011 by dre

[dre]

No one is telling women what they can/can't wear. The requirement is to show one's face when taking the oath.

I agree. It was massive thread drift to make this thread about whether there should be some kind of blanket ban on face coverings for cultural reasons. Such a ban simply isnt going to happen and would be illegal in both Canada and the US.

As you say... this is simply about a one sentence ceremonial pledge.

Edited December 19, 2011 by dre

[olp1fan]

I don't know why left wingers hate Canadian values and pander to minorities all of the time

it is quite annoying

[Black Dog]

I don't know why left wingers hate Canadian values and pander to minorities all of the time

it is quite annoying

The irony here is that freedom of religious expression without interference from the state is a Canadian value.

[DogOnPorch]

Women will only have equality when the state doesn't let men, or an abusive father, or an abusive husband, dictate what they have to wear. As long as the state allows men to do this in the name of 'freedom of religion,' too many women will not find a free, equal society in our nations.

Freedoms are not absolute, and when it harms a specific segment of society, the freedom is sometimes denied to prevent the potential abuse. Your hate speech is not against your Charter of Rights for that reason. Freedom of religion is also not absolute, which is why polygamy is not allowed.

Did you read where extremist organizations are paying men in some instances to force the women in their lives to cover up? And that's in Europe and North America. Did you read that 77% of the girls surveyed in France in 2003 said they only wore the hijab because of force or threats of violence?

These are not, as Kenney said, Canadian values, and anyone choosing to live in Canada should accept Canadian values - Canada should not bend to their values.

Don't worry, AW. These bozos have a lot of nerve telling a woman how it's like to be a woman. May they be reborn as a Saudi woman play toy in a future life.

[olp1fan]

The irony here is that freedom of religious expression without interference from the state is a Canadian value.

Canadians are becoming less religious every year .. values change

[Black Dog]

Canadians are becoming less religious every year ..

Irrelevant. Religious freedom is a constitutionally protected right.

values change

Even "Canadian values"?

[olp1fan]

Irrelevant. Religious freedom is a constitutionally protected right.

Even "Canadian values"?

religious freedom is but niqab is not a religious freedom neither are face veils

yes even canadian values change

Edited December 19, 2011 by olp1fan

[Black Dog]

religious freedom is but niqab is not a religious freedom neither are face veils

Why not?

[olp1fan]

Why not?

cause it has all to do with culture not religion

[Black Dog]

cause it has all to do with culture not religion

Wrong. Those that wear the niqab (or compel others to do so)do so because they believe their religion demands it. Under Canadian law, that's all that matters.

[Guest American Woman]

Thats objectively false. Some of these women belief the veil is an important part their spirituality.

And if you've listened to bigamists explain their beliefs, multiple wives/sister wives are an important part of their spirituality. Yet it's not allowed by law.

Not allowing one to engage in every aspect of their spirituality is not the kind of harm I was referring to, which is why I clearly mentioned threats, violence, and abuse.

What we really need to do is tackle the root problem... which is the cultural dynamic of the muslim family, and that its very patriarchial in nature. Theres ways to do this over time without banning various articles of clothing.

If the "various articles of clothing" keep one from embracing our open society and prevent women and young girls from living a life of equality, then I would say they are part of the "root problem." Furthermore, the "patriarchal nature" of their culture and their "religious beliefs" are often intertwined. As for the ways to deal with one without the other, I see no suggestions as to how to go about that - only the claim that it's doable.

Your approach is akin to abolishing slavery by banning cotton.

You've got to be kidding. This is so not "akin" to it that I'll simply say not all slaves worked in cotton fields. That seems about as relevant as your comparison.

And its likely to actually HARM muslim women, because it will discourage them from immigrating to the west, where they are treated much much better than they are in muslim countries. Youre banning ancilary activities and objects, instead of tackling the underlying problem.

Yes, they are treated better by our societies - but if they don't feel part of that society, if they can't assimilate into it, if they are held apart by threats, violence, and abuse - it goes against our values. I have to wonder, though, how many Muslims would not immigrate to the west for that reason - has there been a huge decline in the Muslim population in France? In Belgium?

But if we allowed Muslims to engage in other practices that go against our culture, that might get more to immigrate here - so should we do that?

Besides that its just a non starter. It would be a constitutional violation in both the US and Canada. Youre allowed to have an opinion on what other people should wear but thats all.

That's your take on it. We shall see what develops over time. I don't see where limiting what someone can wear is more of a violation than limiting what someone can say. So you have your opinion, I have mine. Just because you believe a certain way doesn't make it a "non starter."

Like I said youre just trying to substitue one infringement on womens freedom with another.

And like *I* said, no I'm not. I've clearly said it's about more than "freedom;" it's about "equality."

Thats your arbitrary judgement... you can make that decision for yourself, but not for anyone else. This is EXACTLY why religious rights have constitutional protections. Its very easy and tempting for the majority to attack customs that seem strange. We have a rich history of doing this unfortunately.

As I said, religious rights do not have absolute constitutional protection. And that's a very good thing.

[Guest American Woman]

Irrelevant. Religious freedom is a constitutionally protected right.

So why is bigamy illegal?

[Black Dog]

So why is bigamy illegal?

Because of the belief that the practice harms women and children. Wearing the burqa or niqab does not as yet meet that standard.

[cybercoma]

Who's dictating what women can't wear? We are all subject to dress codes in certain situations.

It's not as benign as a dresscode for a particular situation. In this situation you're dictating that a woman dress in a way that she finds humiliating as a prerequisite to gaining citizenship. To avoid that shame, she will likely avoid getting her citizenship and therefore, upon fear of deportation, not turn to the authorities if she is being abused by her husband or family.

[Guest American Woman]

Because of the belief that the practice harms women and children. Wearing the burqa or niqab does not as yet meet that standard.

Whose belief?? Not those who have those religious beliefs, whose spirituality is tied to such beliefs; ie: not a lot of people who are living the life. So religious beliefs are NOT absolutely protected.

But perhaps the key words in your response are "as yet."