Face veils banned for citizenship oaths

[TimG]

Nowhere did I say "police should not concern themselves with a woman with a black eye."

You said: "that banning the niqab to stop the oppression of women is like banning black eyes in public to stop domestic violence.". Which I interpret to mean that it is pointless to do anything about women with black eyes because it does not address the real problems. I don't a happen to think that it is pointless to investigate a woman with a black eye nor do I think it pointless to ban the niqab from certain public functions.

[dre]

Pretty soon there will be more pages in this thread than there are Niqab wearing women in the entire country.

[cybercoma]

You said: "that banning the niqab to stop the oppression of women is like banning black eyes in public to stop domestic violence.". Which I interpret to mean that it is pointless to do anything about women with black eyes because it does not address the real problems. I don't a happen to think that it is pointless to investigate a woman with a black eye nor do I think it pointless to ban the niqab from certain public functions.

Anything? Really?

That is where you would be wrong because you are incapable of making an argument without creating a strawman. I implied that "banning black eyes in public to stop domestic violence" would be stupid and ineffective. Nowhere did I say anything about investigating domestic violence or anything else that you so ridiculously attribute to my statement.

[Guest American Woman]

TimG, on 21 December 2011 - 10:52 PM, said: Yet we have laws that allow police to law charges against an abusive spouse even if the woman objects. Why doesn't the same standard apply here?

No we don't. There are no domestic violence laws in Canada.

Canada has laws that don't allow women to retract a charge of domestic violence even if the woman has regrets after the police have been to her house and made such an arrest on her behalf.

[Guest American Woman]

The clothing does not cause harm per se.

Yes, it most definitely does. It prevents women from openly becoming a part of society. It keeps them set apart. It prevents equality for the women being forced to wear them; the garment itself prevents that. link

The essence of a modern society is that it extends civic participation to everyone. Deliberately preventing an entire gender from participating in society as identifiable individuals is an assault on the democratic character of the state.

The Burqa is designed to impede interaction outside the home. The failure to be recognized as an individual is dehumanizing and deprives women of their role in civic life.

I agree wholeheartedly with that and I would feel the same way if I were forced to "hide" behind such a garment. How is one supposed to feel a part of a society that they must "hide" from against their will?

While the authorities cannot interfere with what people choose to do in their own homes—the public wearing of the Burqa is a statement that women are unequal and must be segregated.

Such an attitude is an assault on the legal place of women in society. It imposes the norms of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia on the streets of Paris and London.

Again. I agree wholeheartedly. By tolerating men forcing women to wear such garments in public, what message is our country sending to these women? That the men in their lives are the final "law." Why bring such "norms" to our streets in the name of tolerance? Why would a woman's right to wear such a garment supersede women's right not to wear it when doing so brings harm?

As a minor factor, I can't imagine it not being horrible to wear in the heat of summer, which might keep women more home-bound and I've read accounts that say wearing it gives one a constant headache. It also restricts mobility. And of course there is the hinderance in driving because of the loss of peripheral vision. Those may seem very minor points, but they wouldn't be to me if I were the one being forced to wear such a garment.

The harm comes from the misogynistic tendencies of those they domicile with.

Not exclusively; not by any means. The harm also comes from the burden of wearing such a garment. The harm comes from being viewed as a harlot and as 'asking for it' in public by other Muslims with such a mindset when women choose not to wear it - even if the men in their lives aren't forcing it on them. From what I've read, many women 'choose' to wear it just to avoid this type of public scrutiny.

Women have the equality enshrined in law, but in practice it can and is denied by others, but it does exist.

Our laws still protect women in such instances. Can you come up with one instance where it doesn't?

Again, the right to wear something is not enshrined in any law or Charter or Constitution. Under the freedom section is where its antecedent is found. What this law (banned veils) does is turn the it upside down and removes the right of free expression, however small or slight or short that period may be (the Oath takes but a minute)

As I said, it goes beyond "the right to wear something." I would hope your Charter would be concerned with women's equality before it concerns itself with the "right" to wear a particular garment; just as it's more concerned with possible harm than absolute freedom of speech. I don't see you all protesting the hate law; the right not to be able to say what one wants. Allowing men to force women to wear the burka is really no different in the harm, violence, force, and threats too often involved.

The oppression comes from the domicile situation. Hardly unique to Muslims as all cultures, all religions and pretty much anything else also has an element of oppression.

The state is allowing that oppression to exist on the streets - and I'm not going to excuse it by 'it's not just Muslims.' I can't understand that mindset - we have laws that protect gender abuse, inequality, etc.

Jews oppress their women with some clothing , Hasidic's even worse (and in black---yikes) Italian fathers (old school) have two different sets of rules for their kids. Son, rule #1-do whatever ya want, Girls, rule # 1-do what I say and you arent leaving this house (hyperbole to make the point)

I don't know of any mandatory Jewish clothing that oppresses women, but if there are, I think it should be addressed. Sorry, but I'm not going to accept this on the "others have their negative aspects too" mentality and I don't understand those who do.

As for Italian fathers having two different sets of rules for their kids - I certainly hope you are not comparing a father-child situation to a man-grown woman situation - and seeing it as the same.

Romanians (no idea their religion) especially the women, must look rich , all the while live in a sorry ass trailer but there is a shiny new car out front.

What does that have to do with oppressing women? Using force, threats, and violence to do so?

[DogOnPorch]

AW! Shhhhh....and get in your place! These men know what is good for you and you want to avoid a beating!

[Guest American Woman]

BTW... I read that theres 300 women in the entire nation that wear these things.

I'd love to know where you read that; I'd be very interested to know how that figure was derived. Source, please.

[Guest American Woman]

AW! Shhhhh....and get in your place! These men know what is good for you and you want to avoid a beating!

What I really don't understand is the fierce defense of the "right" to wear the Burka et al - as the state defines and restricts all kinds of "rights," including free speech, where there is the possibility of harm. Furthermore, I can't understand how people don't recognize the "harm" of the garment itself, especially for those being forced to wear it. There are so many reasons why such a garment is in itself harmful to women. But in the end, as I've said, it's basically saying that the men who control the women in their lives overrule the state protecting women from such abuse. And I have to wonder why no man has ever chosen to wear such a garment?

Edited December 22, 2011 by American Woman

[Black Dog]

What I really don't understand is the fierce defense of the "right" to wear the Burka et al - as the state defines and restricts all kinds of "rights," including free speech, where there is the possibility of harm.

Then you haven't been reading.

Furthermore, I can't understand how people don't recognize the "harm" of the garment itself, especially for those being forced to wear it.

Same as above. I have not seen anybody defending the practice on its own merits. Everyone concedes its a vile practice.

There are so many reasons why such a garment is in itself harmful to women. But in the end, as I've said, it's basically saying that the men who control the women in their lives overrule the state protecting women from such abuse.

It's more complex than that. I find it interesting you have never once acknowledged the pov of those women (who if the French example is anything to go by, must exist) who choose to wear these garments. Not that I'm convinced they are a majority or anything, but I think it's a viewpoint that needs to be taken into account.

Finally, you have been silent on how such a ban would be enforced. Are we talking fines? Jail time? Mandatory "re-education" programs?

[Guest American Woman]

Then you haven't been reading.

I see. "Reading" is synonymous with "understanding where someone is coming from." If I don't understand everyone's viewpoint, I must not be reading. I can only conclude, then, that you either actually understand where the Mulsim men who think the way they do and act the way they do are coming from - or you haven't been reading.

Same as above. I have not seen anybody defending the practice on its own merits. Everyone concedes its a vile practice.

Once again you fail to comprehend what I said. I didn't say they were "defending the practice on its own merits;" whether or not they concede that it's a vile practice, they are STILL defending the "right" to wear it - and I specifically responded to a poster who said there is no harm in the garment itself - so again, that's what I was responding to. So I suggest you practice what you preach rather than erroneously pass your advice on to others.

It's more complex than that. I find it interesting you have never once acknowledged the pov of those women (who if the French example is anything to go by, must exist) who choose to wear these garments. Not that I'm convinced they are a majority or anything, but I think it's a viewpoint that needs to be taken into account.

I've addressed it countless times. I've clearly said that the right to equality should trump the right to wear it. I've also addressed why some women "choose" to wear it, which really doesn't amount to much of a "choice." I've also pointed out that those who choose to wear the burka need not suddenly don bikinis and form fitting clothes. They can still make modest dress choices; baggy styles that don't display the body. But again, I don't think the POV of those choosing to wear it trumps the harm, the inequality, the force/threats/violence that women are subjected to; I think the law should prevent such an environment from existing, not enable it.

Finally, you have been silent on how such a ban would be enforced. Are we talking fines? Jail time? Mandatory "re-education" programs?

My POV would be fines, but same as just about any other misdemeanor, with graduated penalties for repeated offenses.

[Black Dog]

I've addressed it countless times. I've clearly said that the right to equality should trump the right to wear it. I've also addressed why some women "choose" to wear it, which really doesn't amount to much of a "choice."

So what, they've been brainwashed?

You know, some women choose to do it without threats or coercion.

I've also pointed out that those who choose to wear the burka need not suddenly don bikinis and form fitting clothes. They can still make modest dress choices; baggy styles that don't display the body.

Oh how considerate of you. Real white of you, even.

But again, I don't think the POV of those choosing to wear it trumps the harm, the inequality, the force/threats/violence that women are subjected to; I think the law should prevent such an environment from existing, not enable it.

The law cannot prevent such an environment from existing by banning the practice, anymore than hate speech legislation is effective at ending racism, sexism or homophobic thought.

My POV would be fines, but same as just about any other misdemeanor, with graduated penalties for repeated offenses.

So your response is to ending this patriarchal, oppressive practice is to punish the victims. Nice.

[Black Dog]

I see. "Reading" is synonymous with "understanding where someone is coming from." If I don't understand everyone's viewpoint, I must not be reading. I can only conclude, then, that you either actually understand where the Mulsim men who think the way they do and act the way they do are coming from - or you haven't been reading.

We weren't talking about the Mulsim men who think the way they do and act the way they do.

Once again you fail to comprehend what I said. I didn't say they were "defending the practice on its own merits;" whether or not they concede that it's a vile practice, they are STILL defending the "right" to wear it - and I specifically responded to a poster who said there is no harm in the garment itself - so again, that's what I was responding to. So I suggest you practice what you preach rather than erroneously pass your advice on to others.

It's one thing to disagree with a perspective, another to feign "not understanding".

[Guest American Woman]

So what, they've been brainwashed?

Could you point out where I've said anything close to that? a thousand times over.

You know, some women choose to do it without threats or coercion.

You don't say!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh how considerate of you. Real white of you, even.

So when you think I don't address it, you insult me. When I do address it, you insult me. Got'cha.

The law cannot prevent such an environment from existing by banning the practice, anymore than hate speech legislation is effective at ending racism, sexism or homophobic thought.

Yet there is hate speech legislation, eh?

So your response is to ending this patriarchal, oppressive practice is to punish the victims. Nice.

I doubt the "victims" are the ones out in the work world, supporting the family. Ya think? I also think putting such a legal pressure on the situation will lead to forcing the men to change their tune. It will also give some women who feel they "have" to wear it a valid, acceptable reason not to.

But once again you criticize me for not addressing an issue and then insult me for addressing it. Nice.

Fyi, supporting a "right" that oppresses women, keeps them from equality, is hardly "nice." Ya think otherwise?

Edited December 22, 2011 by American Woman

[Guest American Woman]

We weren't talking about the Mulsim men who think the way they do and act the way they do.

We were talking about the relationship of "understanding" to "not reading." It applies to the way Muslim men think the same as it applies to how y'all think. Ie: One can read what someone thinks and still not understand how they can think that way. Truly, they can.

It's one thing to disagree with a perspective, another to feign "not understanding".

I'm not "feigning not understanding" at all. I DON'T understand the mindset. Do you understand how the Muslim men in question can think the way they do??

Edited December 22, 2011 by American Woman

[Black Dog]

Could you point out where I've said anything close to that? a thousand times over.

Your claiming that women are not acting of their own free will when they choose to wear it, no?

You don't say!!!!!!!!!!!

I do indeed. News to you, I take it?

So when you think I don't address it, you insult me. When I do address it, you insult me. Got'cha.

If the condescending, paternalistic shoe fits...

Yet there is hate speech legislation, eh?

Yet there is still hate speech.

So what we can take from this is that banning the burka won't actually do a damn thing about changing the culture or empowering women.

I doubt the "victims" are the ones out in the work world, supporting the family. Ya think? I also think putting such a legal pressure on the situation will lead to forcing the men to change their tune. It will also give some women who feel they "have" to wear it a valid, acceptable reason not to.

Or, as I've pointed out before, it will cast these women as criminals and even greater social outcasts (as we've seen in France) or force them to stay at home, cut off from any social support and possibility of change. Considering how pervasive you think the controls are on these women, you're might sanguine about the ease in which a ban would actually enact social change.

But once again you criticize me for not addressing an issue and then insult me for addressing it. Nice.

Tissue?

Fyi, supporting a "right" that oppresses women, keeps them from equality, is hardly "nice." Ya think otherwise?

I've already stated that the niqab doesn't keep women from equality, but the culture.

Edited December 22, 2011 by Black Dog

[Guest American Woman]

Your claiming that women are not acting of their own free will when they choose to wear it, no?

Um, no. Not all of them, as I've clearly attested to. Repeatedly. You might want to file that away for future reference.

I do indeed. News to you, I take it?

You have a real inability to recognize sarcasm, I take it?

Yet there is still hate speech.

So what we can take from this is that banning the burka won't actually do a damn thing about changing the culture or empowering women.

So you think Canada's hate law has been completely ineffective; has had no positive effects? Everything would be as it was without it?

Or, as I've pointed out before, it will cast these women as criminals and even greater social outcasts (as we've seen in France) or force them to stay at home, cut off from any social support and possibility of change. Considering how pervasive you think the controls are on these women, you're might sanguine about the ease in which a ban would actually enact social change.

Yes, you have stated your opinion before. Now I'm stating mine, based on what I've read. Based on surveys I've seen. Based on the opinions of Muslims that I've read.

As far as what "we've" seen in France, who is this "we" you speak of?

Tissue?

12 years old?

I've already stated that the niqab doesn't keep women from equality, but the culture.

And I've already stated that it does - and how it does. As have women who have been subjected to it. As have people whose opinion I respect.

[Black Dog]

So you think Canada's hate law has been completely ineffective; has had no positive effects? Everything would be as it was without it?

Pretty much, yes.

There's really no point in continuing this conversation, if one can even call it that. Have a crappy holiday.

[Guest American Woman]

Have a crappy holiday.

Thank you. And may your holiday be filled with as much cheer and good will as you bestow upon others.

[DogOnPorch]

Nice fellow. You know he'd stuff you in one in a second...lol.

[GostHacked]

We were talking about the relationship of "understanding" to "not reading." It applies to the way Muslim men think the same as it applies to how y'all think. Ie: One can read what someone thinks and still not understand how they can think that way. Truly, they can.

I'm not "feigning not understanding" at all. I DON'T understand the mindset. Do you understand how the Muslim men in question can think the way they do??

How men feel towards women in Muslim society is irrelevant to the Canadian courts decision to remove the veil when taking the oath of citizenship for Canada.

[cybercoma]

a charge of domestic violence

There is no "domestic violence" charge in Canada. You will not find it anywhere in the Criminal Code.

[cybercoma]

What I really don't understand is the fierce defense of the "right" to wear the Burka et al - as the state defines and restricts all kinds of "rights," including free speech, where there is the possibility of harm. Furthermore, I can't understand how people don't recognize the "harm" of the garment itself, especially for those being forced to wear it. There are so many reasons why such a garment is in itself harmful to women. But in the end, as I've said, it's basically saying that the men who control the women in their lives overrule the state protecting women from such abuse. And I have to wonder why no man has ever chosen to wear such a garment?

Of course the garment is harmful and that's why many who have said it should not be illegal to wear one have said that women need to supported and encouraged not to be subjected to it. However, you cannot say that every woman is violently forced to wear the thing. The problem is that you're advocating making a criminal out of the victim for wearing, rather than making a criminal out of the perpetrators of the oppression. You seem to want to criminalize the oppressed, rather than the oppressors. That is where we part ways because, while I find the oppression of women by forcing them to wear the burqa to be completely reprehensible, I find it quite offensive that anyone would make the victims criminals by banning them for exhibiting the signs of their oppression. Like I said, it's like making a woman a criminal for having a black eye in public.

[Black Dog]

Nice fellow. You know he'd stuff you in one in a second...lol.

No just you. In a specially designed version with no eyeholes and a drawstring close.

[cybercoma]

No just you. In a specially designed version with no eyeholes and a drawstring close.

Isn't that the one the Americans stuffed the prisoners in at Abu Ghraib?

[DogOnPorch]

No just you. In a specially designed version with no eyeholes and a drawstring close.

Why not just come right out and say you'd like to kill me? Afraid?