Face veils banned for citizenship oaths

[Guest American Woman]

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.

It's unbelievable, really. To try to defer from "oppression" in such nations by claiming that women are "oppressed" in our nations too is difficult enough to grasp, but to insist on telling me, a woman, that my value in society - and my value in myself - is my looks, is mind boggling. To then throw insults at me for not accepting that my value in society and my self worth is based on my looks goes beyond the pale.

I cannot believe that anyone would try to diminish the abuse and inequality that women in these nations are subjected to BY LAW - and then have the nerve to insult me, a woman, for pointing out the absurdity of it. It's all too real that as a woman, if I were born in such a country, I would not be enjoying the equality and freedoms that I have here. I should be ashamed if I didn't recognize and appreciate that - but instead I'm being told that I should be ashamed for feeling the way I do. I can't say strongly enough how repulsive I find it all.

[Bob]

Once again, you haven't addressed the fact that many of them will avoid getting their citizenship and thus be excluded from our society.

Since when did this hysterical prediction about what Islamist/ultra-orthodox Muslim women "avoiding getting their citizenship" as a consequence of this new rule graduate to become a "fact"?

When they're truly in abusive situations in their families and communities, they will have no one to turn to because of the threat of deportation. Moreover, those that may see Canada as a place of refuge may avoid coming here because they don't want to suffer the embarassment and humiliation of doing something that they're not comfortable with. The ones that would take off the veil, it doesn't matter because they're not the ones wearing it at the ceremony. They probably already removed it when they got here.

You sure do have a wild imagination and and feel comfortable composing ridiculous predictive narratives, you must be a liberal arts student studying nonsense. You'll make a great apparatchik in some government bureau conducting "studies" about "social impacts" of public policy.

[cybercoma]

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

About men and their appearance:

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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

I find it really something that you can be so clueless as to my position that you would cut and paste things out of context to craft your silly little narrative that I'm the sexist one. I don't feel I need to explain to you again that I was pointing out how women are oppressed in our society, as argued by women themselves and as shown by the empirical evidence I've posted numerous times in this thread.

You can't seem to get your mind around the fact that you're making an ecological fallacy on two grounds. First, by assuming that what's true for the group "women" applies to each individual woman, namely you and secondly by assuming that what's true for the group "valuing women only for their appearances and sexuality," somehow applies to me as an individual.

I've resigned myself to the fact that you're illogical and have a difficult time understanding arguments. I would kindly ask you to stop saying that I'm sexist because it's not only untrue (I've actually done work for a number of different women's advocacy groups), it's just plain rude and insulting. It would be like calling someone a Nazi for explaining to you how Nazis viewed the Jews.

[Black Dog]

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.

No they aren't absolutely protected, whoever said they were? But you have to prove that wearing the niqab/burqa is a sufficient violation of other individual rights to justify fucking with religious expression.

[cybercoma]

To then throw insults at me for not accepting that my value in society and my self worth is based on my looks goes beyond the pale.

Who wants you to accept that? This sentence infuriates me. I want you to open your god damned eyes and fight against it. You are accepting it by ignoring it. What I want is for you to stop accepting it!

[Guest American Woman]

I find it really something that you can be so clueless as to my position that you would cut and paste things out of context...

Our of context?? Hardly. Nice attempt to defend your own words. And fyi, that's as far as I read in your post - I have been disgusted enough already.

[The_Squid]

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

You folks really do believe that the burka/niqab is a voluntary cultural practice that doesn't harm women and children?

I'm not saying ban the burka.... but let's at least be honest about what this cultural practice, for the most part, entails. It entails female subjugation.

Let's hear from someone who knows:

Farzana Hassan

It is nonetheless the muticulturalists' love affair with the "exotic" that prevents them from seeing the larger picture about the burka. Their view is obviously predicated on moral relativism that regards all cultures--even the horrendously patriarchal ones--as equal.

--------------

Women in fact cannot make choices freely as she contends, when control over their lives is as invasive and pernicious as it is. Muslim women are led to believe that they must accept their husbands as their imams in all matters. What Shariah law demands of them is complete subservience. Women must hence comply if their husbands require them to don the veil.

Such patriarchy is contrary to Canadian values based on gender equality.

http://farzanahassan.com/Articals/FH0052.htm

=================================

By far, it remains the most pernicious symbol of female subjugation, as many believe the niqab greatly stigmatizes and marginalizes women in society.

That perception is hardly mistaken. Despite pronouncements by niqab-clad women to the contrary, the niqab is just that a means of control over womens bodies, movements and activities.

-----------

Islam does not require a woman to cover her face that the niqab must be worn is a minority view held by a segment of the community whose values remain diametrically opposed to Canadian values.

Farzana Hassan is author of Islam, Women and the Challenges of Today and past president of the Muslim Canadian Congress.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/canadian-courts-must-face-down-islamisms-niqab/article1603937/

Her point about people seeing all cultures as equal, even if its practices are "horrendously patriarchal", seems to fit very well with some people's opinions in this thread who are arguing that it is some sort of "choice" to wear the burka.

Edited December 19, 2011 by The_Squid

[cybercoma]

Since when did this hysterical prediction about what Islamist/ultra-orthodox Muslim women "avoiding getting their citizenship" as a consequence of this new rule graduate to become a "fact"?

You sure do have a wild imagination and and feel comfortable composing ridiculous predictive narratives, you must be a liberal arts student studying nonsense. You'll make a great apparatchik in some government bureau conducting "studies" about "social impacts" of public policy.

A similar explanation about France was posted above. Only a moron would avoid predicting the outcomes of legislation before enacting it.

[Bob]

No, women will have equality when they can choose what they want to wear. Not when the state decides for them, or an abusive husband.

The new rule applies equally to both men and women. The state is not "telling women what they can and cannot wear", the state is setting a standard that one's countenance, male or female, must be shown when swearing a public oath. Predictably, you're parroting a twisted feminist narrative, thinking that the state is "oppressing women" with this new rule that applies equally to both men and women.

[cybercoma]

Our of context?? Hardly. Nice attempt to defend your own words. And fyi, that's as far as I read in your post - I have been disgusted enough already.

No doubt you stopped there. You conveniently skip over the parts that soundly prove you're wrong every time they're presented to you. Yet, you call me a liar when I tell you that you have the wool pulled over your eyes or that you're "brainwashed." Thank you for proving my point.

[cybercoma]

The new rule applies equally to both men and women. The state is not "telling women what they can and cannot wear", the state is setting a standard that one's countenance, male or female, must be shown when swearing a public oath. Predictably, you're parroting a twisted feminist narrative, thinking that the state is "oppressing women" with this new rule that applies equally to both men and women.

Maybe they can ban yamulkas or turbans next. It's ok because it applies to everyone.

[Guest American Woman]

Who wants you to accept that? This sentence infuriates me. I want you to open your god damned eyes and fight against it. You are accepting it by ignoring it. What I want is for you to stop accepting it!

If you think that sentence infuriates you, just try to imagine how much what you have been saying infuriates me!! :angry:

YOU WANT ME TO ACCEPT THE IDEA THAT SOCIETY ONLY VALUES WOMEN, ME, FOR THEIR LOOKS; THAT WOMEN PLACE THEIR VALUE ON THEIR LOOKS BECAUSE THAT'S ALL THAT SOCIETY VALUES.

And, one more time, it's not true.

[Black Dog]

You folks really do believe that the burka/niqab is a voluntary cultural practice that doesn't harm women and children?

Who said that? I sure didn't.

[Bob]

I didn't tell you personally how you feel and I didn't say society only values men for something as superficial as looks; and you didn't say to me "I don't feel that I am only valued for my looks" and I didn't say in response "then you are brainwashed."

Furthermore, I didn't say what men place their value on - I didn't say men only feel valued for (fill in the blank), much less tell you personally what you place your value on, and I sure as hell wouldn't tell you that it's only because you are brainwashed if you don't feel these things.

SEE THE DIFFERENCE??

Somehow I doubt it.

So of course once again you are completely off the mark as to what I did say. Why am I not surprised?

Black Dog is such a waste of time. It's hilarious to see him parrot the feminist narrative of victimized women in contemporary society with respect to allegations of how the standards of vanity they are expected to live up to as oh-so-crushing. What a horrible life it must be for a woman in today's America or Canada! I mean, girls can't help but feel insecure when they're BOMBARDED with images of pretty women in our society! Oh, the horror!

How did you ever make it past the age of twenty-five under such oppressive circumstances, American Woman? Tell us your harrowing story of courage and perseverance, surviving as a woman in such a misogynistic society.

Edited December 19, 2011 by Bob

[DogOnPorch]

I can't say strongly enough how repulsive I find it all.

The same fellows will tell you this is OK...right?

I mean...burqa...neck rings...clitoris removal...it's a woman's world of choice and freedom, eh?

[Black Dog]

Black Dog is such a waste of time. It's hilarious to see him parrot the feminist narrative of victimized women in contemporary society with respect to allegations of how the standards of vanity they are expected to live up to as oh-so-crushing. What a horrible life it must be for a woman in today's America or Canada! I mean, girls can't help but feel insecure when they're BOMBARDED with images of pretty women in our society! Oh, the horror!

Yes, well, unlike you, I actually talk to girls, so I take it from them. And unlike you, I don't believe in some nonsensical hierarchy of oppression wherein only certain groups are allowed to complain about their lot in life.

[Bob]

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.

I will second that, cybercoma has, as you've just said, repeatedly advanced this narrative that women in today's Canada are magically held to some higher standard of vanity in this society as opposed to men. I guess it's somewhat true, given that women tend to spend more on their vanity than men, but it's not that significant and certainly not indicative of some systemic social wrong that needs to be corrected. This fantasy narrative, of course, leads cybercoma to conclude that women are still suffering from unjustifiable inequality in our societies that is a result of gender discrimination.

Rather than simply address the issue of the thread, leftists like cybercoma will predictably obfuscate and veer off the subject matter into ridiculous tangents as you've just shown. Consider that a fellow leftist, dre, tried to derail the thread into a talk about VISA's policies for identity verification at the point-of-sale. The leftists simply cannot stay on topic.

[GostHacked]

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.

Wow this thread has totally drifted off course, but I will address this, that there are many women and children in our own society that are abused, neglected and even killed for various reasons. An abused woman, (of any religion) will have a hard time of breaking free of the abuse to get help. If you think that just is in Muslim families, you need to look at the abuse stats in Canada alone over the past 50 years. That's if the abuse was even reported.

And if anyone wants to see how society has warped our overall view of women on the whole, all you need to so is look at any fashion magazine or any magazine for the most part. Do any of you realize how much editing in something like Photoshop happens to make the model beautiful? So yea, to Cybercoma's point, western society subliminally puts a lot of emphasis on how a woman looks. I think that is the point Cybercoma was trying to make.

Edited December 19, 2011 by GostHacked

[The_Squid]

Cyber, you are so out of line that it is getting ridiculous.

AW seems to think that N. America is, for the most part, an equal and free society when it comes to women's rights. To say that this point of view is completely invalid and that she is brainwashed is not any way to debate the topic.

To state that Canadian culture opresses women and that women are only judged by their looks is an extremist viewpoint. It is not the mainstream view and there is lots of grey area in there to debate. But you won't debate. You invalidate any other opinion as coming from a brainwashed view...

[DogOnPorch]

Who said that? I sure didn't.

[Bob]

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

You'd make a wonderful dictator.

More hysterics from the knee-jerk leftist. The state is "dictating" that everyone, men and women included, Muslims and non-Muslims alike, must display their faces publicly when swearing a public oath. How this is likened to dictatorship tells us what we've known about you for some time - that you're not a serious poster whose exclusive operandi is hysterical hyperbole.

[Bob]

Maybe they can ban yamulkas or turbans next. It's ok because it applies to everyone.

This is an expected reply from a person who still can't grasp that this is about having one's face displayed publicly when taking a public oath. Kippahs and turbans cover the head and hair, respectively, not one's countenance. It's sad that you don't grasp the difference.

[cybercoma]

I will second that, cybercoma has, as you've just said, repeatedly advanced this narrative that women in today's Canada are magically held to some higher standard of vanity in this society as opposed to men. I guess it's somewhat true, given that women tend to spend more on their vanity than men, but it's not that significant and certainly not indicative of some systemic social wrong that needs to be corrected. This fantasy narrative, of course, leads cybercoma to conclude that women are still suffering from unjustifiable inequality in our societies that is a result of gender discrimination.

I love it. Your post is a precise example of a conclusion not following from its premises. You repeat my conclusion, give evidence to support it, then come to a contradictory conclusion with absolutely nothing to support it. You admit to the validity of my argument and even provide support for it only to reject it based on a hunch or opinion, in other words bias. Keep it coming! This is great stuff.

[Bob]

I love it. Your post is a precise example of a conclusion not following from its premises. You repeat my conclusion, give evidence to support it, then come to a contradictory conclusion with absolutely nothing to support it. You admit to the validity of my argument and even provide support for it only to reject it based on a hunch or opinion, in other words bias. Keep it coming! This is great stuff.

The sad truth for you is that I can advance the false leftist narratives that you subscribe to far better than you can. It doesn't make these false narratives any more valid, however, just because a more gifted individual like myself (who is more intelligent and educated than you) can advance a more convincing and coherent argument supporting them than you can. I know the narratives that you subscribe to better than you do. That's one reason why it's so easy to rip them apart.

Edited December 19, 2011 by Bob

[Black Dog]

The sad truth for you is that I can advance the false leftist narratives that you subscribe to far better than you can. It doesn't make these false narratives any more valid, however, just because a more gifted individual like myself (who is more intelligent and educated than you) can advance a more convincing and coherent argument supporting them than you can. I know the narratives that you subscribe to better than you do. That's one reason why it's so easy to rip them apart.

Apparently Ron Jeremy isn't the only guy out there capable of sucking his own dick.