Face veils banned for citizenship oaths

[cybercoma]

You mean like how police will lay assault charges against a husband even if the wife says no, that she doesn't want that? You mean how like the state does this, and all concerned agree, because it's in her best interests, and she can't be relied on to make the proper decision due to intimidation from her husband and family? You mean like that?

All parties most certainly don't agree that this is the case. Those of your ilk that thing crime and punishment is the answer to all of the world's problems agree. On the other hand, researchers, judges, and police all over this country are working on more restorative justice measures in domestic violence cases, which is why you have specialty courts popping up all over the place. Those who are actually educated about the issue believe that crime and punishment tactics are perhaps the worst approach to domestic violence and they are working to change that.

[cybercoma]

But it's not religious, it's cultural and political.

As was pointed out to you repeatedly, there is no central authority in Islam and it doesn't matter because the courts have already decided that religious expression is personal. So you don't get to decide whether it's religious or not.

[Scotty]

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.

The difference being that you can go to large cities in Muslim countries and you won't find their police departments have any groups dedicated to spousal violence, or that there are any laws about it, because spousal violence in the Muslim world is accepted as the norm and isn't punished by society.

[Scotty]

Go bite yourself.

Force is force. I agree with the sentiment that the niqab is a symbol and tool of subjugation of women and I think their subjugation is repulsive. That said forcing women to remove the veil and show their faces to men however noble the intent of the state will result in many women feeling very distressed. .

Do you suppose a lot of slaves felt distressed when they were suddenly set free? Nobody's there to look after them any more, to feed them, to provide them with shelter. That's all on them now. Cause for a lot of distress, I would think.

No doubt there will be some distress at unveiling. But it will pass quickly, and then freedom will reign.

[Black Dog]

But it's not religious, it's cultural and political.

Asked and answered above. It's religious expression.

[Scotty]

You're replacing their husband with the state. No one should be requiring a woman to dress in any way that she doesn't want to.

So if she wants to wear a thong bikini everywhere, that's okay, right?

[DogOnPorch]

As was pointed out to you repeatedly, there is no central authority in Islam and it doesn't matter because the courts have already decided that religious expression is personal. So you don't get to decide whether it's religious or not.

This, of course, paves the way for the First Church of the Sacred Toaster.

Yeah...your statement is a tad inaccurate. Somebody gets to decide. Be it about sacred toasters (rejected!) or living body bags (accepted!!).

[Scotty]

BTW... I read that theres 300 women in the entire nation that wear these things. So in terms of womens rights its a bit of a red herring.

Got a reliable cite for that?

[Black Dog]

I don't know. I'd suggest that a woman who wears them in Canada has no real future other than as an obedient housewife. In addition, you can't drive very well with them, they're heavy, stifling, and rob you of personality, of personhood, turning you into an object. As an object, children will laugh at you, and no one will voluntarily approach you. Your only friends will be within the small extremist community you belong to - which of course will help reinforce the requirement to wear the stupid things.

That isn't harmful?

I think it it is, but we're talking about a legal standard here. As yet, we haven't put that to the test.

But like I said, not one person who favors banning burqas here has explained how they will make the lives of women forced to wear them any better, let alone how such a law would be enforced.

[DogOnPorch]

Got a reliable cite for that?

They must all be in my city...

[Scotty]

I would be interested to see how the SCC responds to that case. Seeing a person's facial expressions during testimony is absolutely necessary. The prosecutors, the judge, and the jury needs to be able to gauge their responses.

But... but... what about her humiliation!?

[Scotty]

Yeah, actually it does. Worrying is an expression of fear. You worry because you think something bad might happen or you're afraid that something bad could happen. Worry is anxiety and anxiety is caused by fear.

Well, by that standard, all of us live in constant fear.

[Scotty]

And how did that work out for women that wanted to go topless in Ontario?

They're free to do so. They have the choice. Few make use of it. But they do have the choice.

[Scotty]

All parties most certainly don't agree that this is the case.

The authorities agree. Womens groups agree.

Those of your ilk that thing crime and punishment is the answer to all of the world's problems agree

.

What exactly is my 'ilk'?

And btw, I don't agree. I'm stating, however, that it is the common practice and law.

And you completely ignored the point. Since the state feels it should overrule a woman's judgement "for her own good' because of the possibility that intimidation and fear will interfere with her own free choice, why would we not ban the burqua for the same reason?

[Scotty]

I think it it is, but we're talking about a legal standard here. As yet, we haven't put that to the test.

But like I said, not one person who favors banning burqas here has explained how they will make the lives of women forced to wear them any better, let alone how such a law would be enforced.

Would you not think being a part of society, would be better? Not having to sweat like a pig every time you go out in the summer wouldn't be better? Being able to meet and interact with people as a person wouldn't be better than isolation?

[Black Dog]

Would you not think being a part of society, would be better? Not having to sweat like a pig every time you go out in the summer wouldn't be better? Being able to meet and interact with people as a person wouldn't be better than isolation?

The narrative here is that women are being forced by their domineering husbands/families to leave the house wearing the veil. So what makes you think they'll be let out of the house at all without it?

[cybercoma]

Do you suppose a lot of slaves felt distressed when they were suddenly set free? Nobody's there to look after them any more, to feed them, to provide them with shelter. That's all on them now. Cause for a lot of distress, I would think.

Yeah. Actually it was. It was such a problem for the Refugees of the American Revolutionary War that Thomas Peters, a Black Loyalist that had his land grants constantly denied, actually went to London to petition directly to the colonial office. He figured that corruption in the colonies was keeping him from his land that he was promised.

During the Revolution, the Dunmore Proclamation 1775 offered freedom to any slaves that revolted against their Rebel owners and fought for the British, while the later Philipsburg Proclamation 1779 opened the offer to all of the colonies and not just for military duty. When the British lost the war, Carleton told Washington that he would not return the slaves as property and many of them were evacuated from New York for Nova Scotia with what were called Birch Certificates, denoting their freedom. Of all the Black Loyalists that ended up in Nova Scotia only 1/3 of them actually got land. Not only that, but it was much smaller and practically sterile. It was not much use for even subsistence farming, let alone making any kind of living.

So, Thomas Peters, having been denied many petitions both in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, decided to take his petition, as well as those of many other families, directly to London. On the way he met up with some abolitionists that arranged for his meeting. The result was partnering Thomas up with John Clarkson, who was a British Naval officer and member of the Sierra Leone Company. The plan was that the British government would pay to have the Loyalists resettle in Sierra Leone. They were going to pay for the slaves to go back to Africa.

1200 slaves, nearly all of the Black Loyalists, left Nova Scotia. Not only were they unused to the climate when it came to farming, but the housing that they had or built was also not appropriate for Nova Scotian winters. The colonial government had also banned blacks from dancing or gathering together in crowds. The Churches there had segregated balconies. Moreover, Nova Scotians saw blacks as slaves still. Many of the White Loyalists had brought their slaves with them as property, so a number of black people that were in Nova Scotia were still enslaved, not to mention the black and native slaves that were already there. In Saint John, NB a law was passed that explicitly disallowed blacks from voting. Ex-soldiers attacked Black Loyalist settlements in Birchtown because they were angry that the Blacks worked for less money than them. So, the "free" Blacks had enough and decided to leave for Sierra Leone.

Of course, these a great many of these slaves were no longer from Africa. In the American colonies from which they came, primarily Charleston, many of the slaves by this time were native born in America. When the Black Loyalists got to Africa, they were outsiders in their own "homeland." Many of them tried to convert the local Temne peoples to Christianity and were in constant conflict with them. As if natal alienation wasn't bad enough for the Black Loyalists, they were nearly decimated the first year they got to Africa. Torrential rains wiped out their crops, destroyed their tools, ate through their clothing and brought swarms of mosquitos carrying disease such as malaria. Thomas Peters died after only 8 months in Sierra Leone.

So, the "slaves" were certainly distressed when they were sent free. They were a people without a home. Even our conception of Canada be the land of freedom and the British being the progenitors of abolitionism are skewed by nationalist propaganda. Freedom was not very free after all.

[cybercoma]

But... but... what about her humiliation!?

But... but... what about your reading comprehension? You don't seem to understand arguments very well. It has been said ad nauseum that this is an issue of REASONABLE accommodation.

Edited December 20, 2011 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

Well, by that standard, all of us live in constant fear.

That doesn't follow. Only someone who constantly worries would be living in a constant state of fear.

[cybercoma]

They're free to do so. They have the choice. Few make use of it. But they do have the choice.

So when you say the State dictates you have to wear clothes, as evidenced by it being a criminal offense for women to go topless in Ontario, you're agreeing that perhaps the state cannot dictate you have to wear clothes if it's challenged before the courts.

[Guest Peeves]

The narrative here is that women are being forced by their domineering husbands/families to leave the house wearing the veil. So what makes you think they'll be let out of the house at all without it?

Well, how do we know it's a woman in that niqab? It could be a cross dresser or a guy in disguise, or a cop following someone. Lets not assume anyone in that black all encompassing bag is subjugated woman.

Contributed by Pooper

Topic: Humorous Poetry

Sexy Jihad With A Cover Up

I find the Afghan burqa quite provocative.

So why aren't more worn where I live?

Such head to toe tenting,

leads to sexual venting,

And deviant thoughts most evocative.

They're so sexy, sensuous and titillating.

And I really find them so scintillating.

but I must wonder why then,

the wearers don't fry when

there's so very little ventilating?

A full burqa is such a turn on

A disguise that any can don.

The ugliest witch can

look like any old fat man

or pull off a transvestite con.

One's imagination can simply run wild

What's beneath a burqa keeps me beguiled

Any shape I can conceive

makes my pounding heart heave

One can even imagine she smiled!

[cybercoma]

The authorities agree. Womens groups agree.

.

What exactly is my 'ilk'?

And btw, I don't agree. I'm stating, however, that it is the common practice and law.

And you completely ignored the point. Since the state feels it should overrule a woman's judgement "for her own good' because of the possibility that intimidation and fear will interfere with her own free choice, why would we not ban the burqua for the same reason?

The state doesn't feel anything. There are no specific domestic violence laws here in Canada. I've told you that the authorities and Women's Groups do not agree and the result of their disagreement has been the creation of specialty courts for dealing with domestic violence. They have one in Moncton, NB and another Winnipeg, MB that I know of for certain. I believe there may also be one in British Columbia. These are different from your usual Family Courts. They're designed specifically to handle cases of domestic violence.

The state does not overrule the woman's choice in these matters when it goes to these courts. Her fear is not always about intimidation from her abuser. Other factors like whether or not she will be able to care for her kids alone or be able to pay for her home with her abuser in jail also play a role in a woman's decision to press charges. It's not even remotely as simple as you think it is.

[guyser]

The state dictates you have to wear clothes, and no one has yet come up with an adequate reply to why they shouldn't.

Because the state doesn't ? Maybe thats why no one answered.

[Guest Peeves]

Because the state doesn't ? Maybe thats why no one answered.

The 'state' isn't the only one to dictate dress code. Schools do, courts can, restaurants do, and apparently swimming pools, private clubs and many others can as well.

The state does in many countries both Islam and otherwise. The state decreed in Canada that women may go topless (anywhere a man can.)

Certainly the state should be able to decree where and if and when, a disguise or mask may be reasonably worn just as private business may...

Edited December 20, 2011 by Peeves

[cybercoma]

The State doesn't decree what you may do. The courts struck down something that the State decreed that violated the rights of women.