Unveiling according to the Prophet

[cybercoma]

Unacceptable clothing is frequently denied by situ.

There are dress codes in many establishments. Schools, restaurants- courts, swimming pools- sports-

Those aren't government restrictions on what someone can do in public. Dress codes in schools are in private schools or the separate Catholic system in Ontario, not public schools. Moreover, a Muslim girl in a school with a uniform could wear the hijab as well as the uniform and they're not allowed to force her to remove it, just as you couldn't force a Jewish man to remove the yamulka. It's not reasonable to require them to take it off in these situations.

There have been hijab baning in sports and if loose they would be disallowed by H& safety laws in industry where certain clothing is required and other clothing not allowed for safety reasons.

Safety reasons are a reasonable expectation for someone to remove it. In particular, issues of safety where the person wearing the article can be seriously injured.

If it( dress-attire)is in conflict with a law or policy or procedure, it is simply unacceptable.

You might want to consider the differences between "law," "policy," and "procedure." They're different things and while it may be acceptable in one case, it might not be in another.

That IS NOT discrimination. That is not singling out one religion.

There's a notion in law called disparate impact. You should look it up. I basically says that discrimination can be present, even if unintentional, if the rules created have a disparate impact on a particular group.

When the Hajj requires a woman to remove a face covering in Saudi Arabia, or when Turkey demands-restricts where a niqab-hijab even may not be worn, is that discrimination ? Not if it's the law there.

For the umpteenth time, there is no central authority in Islam. It doesn't matter what the Saudi Arabian or Turkish governments do, lest you want Canada to be more like those countries. We thankfully don't take our policy from those nations.

Seriously, the logic of your argument is that they do it over there where there are many Muslims, so it's ok to do that to Muslims here. They also stone women to death if they are raped by a neighbour. Using your logic, it would be ok to do that here because they do that there. It's not and your argument is faulty for that reason.

When an industry requires, regardless tradition or culture or religion that specific attire is required and other attire is forbidden, that is not singling out one religion nor is it discrimination.

They don't have to single out a specific group. If they do not reasonably accommodate someone's religious observances, they are discriminating. Saying no beards would discriminate against several religions, but if the company can't show that it is a reasonable limitation (for example, the person could be injured serious by having a beard or they would be completely unable to do the job), then someone with a beard for religious reasons would be discriminated against based on what their religion requires of them.

If our country specifies no face covering on an oath taking or (?) in court or while driving, that is not discriminating, it's applying our ... culture ...

It is discriminating if they can't show that reasonable accommodation is not possible. I'm not sure what makes you think it's ok for you to apply our culture to someone else, but the one of the core values of our country is that you can live freely here without us discriminating against your religions, ethnicity, or culture. Forcing someone else to adopt your culture, while making theirs illegal, is discrimination.

Having said that, I also expect my government to protect our values and traditions from those who for political reasons attempt to change them and refuse to leave their conflicting culture---baggage behind.

Muslims in this situation are not trying to change the law and apply their culture to everyone. On the other hand, you're trying to use the legal and political institutions of this nation to discriminate against others because you refuse to acknowledge that there absolutely must be a level of reasonable accommodation in a free and multicultural nation.

All attempts to change our country (to a more draconian model of sharia -anachronistic values) must be resisted.

Sharia law is not Canadian law and no one is expecting that it would be. That debate was had in Ontario awhile ago and Sharia law was shot down. Nevertheless, you still have fundamentalist Christians and Jews that have their own family arbitration across Canada. This private arbitration is legally binding and accepted. I know it's not in the news right now, so I don't expect that you would be rallying against that. However, the point here is that Muslims are not trying to change Canadian law. It is Canadian law that has changed in response to Muslims.

[Michael Hardner]

How would I personally deal with clothing issues? Firstly it would not be discriminatory as you suggest, to address an issue of attire as being acceptable or unacceptable.

If it( dress-attire)is in conflict with a law or policy or procedure, it is simply unacceptable.

Ok, well thank you for the clarity. We're likely in agreement on most of these cases.

for example:

"If our country specifies no face covering on an oath taking or (?) in court or while driving, that is not discriminating, it's applying our laws, values, traditions and culture, as it exists or existed before someone took advantage of our rather broad and lenient immigration policies. "

Yes, I concur.

[Scotty]

Extreme is a relative term.

No, I don't think a Phelps would get elected but you can't get elected in the U.S. without referencing the bible in some reverent way.

I'm just trying to figure out what the point is in painting other countries as having religious extremism, and how people see that. Every time I ask, I get a slight change in the parameters.

What is the point in anything we discuss here? Does it have to have a point? The point would depend on the direction of the conversation, and on the topic and subject, which flows according to that direction.

I have very little liking for or tolerance of the kinds of cultures and values I see in Muslim countries, which is, of course, inspired, in large measure, but Islam. So what? Well, indeed. But this topic is peripheral to that of immigration, and the kinds of people we're bringing into Canada, what accommodation we ought to make for them, and how much change we need to ask of them. And in that I do have an interest which is in persuading such people to abandon their often barbarous cultural practices and begin integrating with our own culture - as disparate as that culture is.

[cybercoma]

I have very little liking for or tolerance of the kinds of cultures and values I see in Muslim countries, which is, of course, inspired, in large measure, but Islam. So what? Well, indeed. But this topic is peripheral to that of immigration, and the kinds of people we're bringing into Canada, what accommodation we ought to make for them, and how much change we need to ask of them. And in that I do have an interest which is in persuading such people to abandon their often barbarous cultural practices and begin integrating with our own culture - as disparate as that culture is.

We have a criminal code that addresses many, if not all of the "barbarous cultural practices" that you're concerned about. Thus, I don't see your objection that they carry their barbarous practices here playing out. Those that do, will be punished by the law if the things they do are against the criminal code.

[Scotty]

Those aren't government restrictions on what someone can do in public. Dress codes in schools are in private schools or the separate Catholic system in Ontario, not public schools. Moreover, a Muslim girl in a school with a uniform could wear the hijab as well as the uniform and they're not allowed to force her to remove it, just as you couldn't force a Jewish man to remove the yamulka. It's not reasonable to require them to take it off in these situations.

But I think it is reasonable for us to do our utmost for newcomers to embrace our culture, rather than shunning it and setting themselves and their children apart from it. I think it's particularly reasonable for us to act against the proliferation of cultural practices which are inimical to our way of life and to the social cohesion we enjoy. The culture of many of these middle east countries is extremely, even violently misogynistic. We need to get both women and men to reform, and making it clear that women are not to be wrapped in bedsheets is a small part of that.

Let me give you an example of what I don't like, or what I might think is a concern in this regard. Sweden has brought in an awful lot of immigrants/refugees from Muslim countries. And in their 'sensitivity' have done very little to cause those people to adapt and reform their primitive, backward culture. The result is you have a bunch of people who think wearing short sleeve shirts marks a woman as a whore (and the whore is the lowest dregs of society barely fit to live) living alongside modern, sexually liberated Swedish women. What's that done? Well, the rate of sexual assault and violence against women in Sweden has gone from among the lowest in Europe to the highest in Europe. The Canadian government has actually issued a travel advisory to Canadian women traveling to Sweden! Is that not a shocking thing?!

We keep no statistics in Canada regarding the ethnic or religious background of those arrested for rape, and we have done a far better job of educating and absorbing our immigrants than Sweden has. But many Muslim men still hold primitive and misogynistic attitudes and believes about women. Maybe if their women weren't wrapped in head to toe sheets they'd feel a little less contemptuous about Canadian women and their presumed morality.

[dre]

Ok, well thank you for the clarity. We're likely in agreement on most of these cases.

for example:

"If our country specifies no face covering on an oath taking or (?) in court or while driving, that is not discriminating, it's applying our laws, values, traditions and culture, as it exists or existed before someone took advantage of our rather broad and lenient immigration policies. "

Yes, I concur.

I dont concur. None of that shit has anything to do with Canadian values. Iv been a Canadian for almost 40 years, and I had never heard a peep about any of this stuff prior to 911. The reason muslims and their traditions are being treated with suspicion now is the exact same reason we interned the Japanese.

There is no "canadian values" regarding the wearing of masks, or face coverings. This would be a complete non issue, in the absense of the GWOT and 911.

What Canadas "values" on religious expression are, is that we accomodate whenever remotely reasonable.

1. The Drivers license example we cant accomodate easily.

2. As for court rooms that could go either way. The justices will have to balance a defendants right to see the face of his accuser (quite important) with the very real fact that forcing removal of a face covering will deprive woman of justice in some cases. Its not cut and dried, which is why they agreed to take the case.

3. The idea of forcing women to remove their veil for the entire oath, is pretty much a non starter, and this will be struck down by the courts, at least based on the governments arguments in support of it so far. The government has to meet a pretty tough test to deprive someone of a charter right. They have to present a real problem posed by the excersize of that right, and since we have been allowing this for decades, and nobody has told us what real substantive problem it has caused thats going to be hard. Then they have to show that reasonable accomodation is not possible, and thats going to be really hard as well.

Edited December 23, 2011 by dre

[dre]

But I think it is reasonable for us to do our utmost for newcomers to embrace our culture, rather than shunning it and setting themselves and their children apart from it. I think it's particularly reasonable for us to act against the proliferation of cultural practices which are inimical to our way of life and to the social cohesion we enjoy.

No its not reasonable, and thats why this type of expression is in the charter. The ENTIRE POINT of it is to protect expression that is UNPOPULAR with Canadians. Its fine for us to try to encourage them to join our culture, but we arent allowed to make laws to force it on them, especially where religion is concerned.

The culture of many of these middle east countries is extremely, even violently misogynistic. We need to get both women and men to reform, and making it clear that women are not to be wrapped in bedsheets is a small part of that.

Theres already laws against violence. They are legally bound by them, and their right to religious or cultural expression ends when it collides with the criminal code.

And we arent allowed to write laws that deprive these women of their charter right to wear religious garb, so you can pretty much just forget about that part.

Anyhow... No laws are required here. Theres only a few hundred people wearing these outfits in the entire country, and only a small trickle of muslim immigration. This is quite simply a non issue, and not something that warrants a national debate. The fact that there actually is one, just proofs why its so important to have the charter to protect unpopular speach and expression from the dumb-ass mob.

[cybercoma]

But I think it is reasonable for us to do our utmost for newcomers to embrace our culture, rather than shunning it and setting themselves and their children apart from it. I think it's particularly reasonable for us to act against the proliferation of cultural practices which are inimical to our way of life and to the social cohesion we enjoy. The culture of many of these middle east countries is extremely, even violently misogynistic. We need to get both women and men to reform, and making it clear that women are not to be wrapped in bedsheets is a small part of that.

Let me give you an example of what I don't like, or what I might think is a concern in this regard. Sweden has brought in an awful lot of immigrants/refugees from Muslim countries. And in their 'sensitivity' have done very little to cause those people to adapt and reform their primitive, backward culture. The result is you have a bunch of people who think wearing short sleeve shirts marks a woman as a whore (and the whore is the lowest dregs of society barely fit to live) living alongside modern, sexually liberated Swedish women. What's that done? Well, the rate of sexual assault and violence against women in Sweden has gone from among the lowest in Europe to the highest in Europe. The Canadian government has actually issued a travel advisory to Canadian women traveling to Sweden! Is that not a shocking thing?!

We keep no statistics in Canada regarding the ethnic or religious background of those arrested for rape, and we have done a far better job of educating and absorbing our immigrants than Sweden has. But many Muslim men still hold primitive and misogynistic attitudes and believes about women. Maybe if their women weren't wrapped in head to toe sheets they'd feel a little less contemptuous about Canadian women and their presumed morality.

You have got to be kidding me. Are you seriously blaming Muslims for the increased number of rapes in Sweden?

[Scotty]

No its not reasonable, and thats why this type of expression is in the charter. The ENTIRE POINT of it is to protect expression that is UNPOPULAR with Canadians. Its fine for us to try to encourage them to join our culture, but we arent allowed to make laws to force it on them, especially where religion is concerned.

Then might I suggest we instead limit our immigration to those immigrants who lack unpleasant social characteristics?

Ie, focus our immigration on Europe and be very wary of potential immigrants from Muslim areas.

[Scotty]

You have got to be kidding me. Are you seriously blaming Muslims for the increased number of rapes in Sweden?

Almost everyone who has looked into it acknowledges that they are responsible. Think about it. You have men coming from the mot mysogenist place in the world - the Muslim middle east - arriving into a country with the most sexually liberated girls in the world. These are men who think a woman who wears a short sleeved shirt is a whore. And they are men who think whores are loathsome creatures, from cultures where young women may be killed just for being seen walking alone with a boy. How do you expect such men to behave around Swedish girls? Especially since Sweden has done a piss poor job of integrating immigrants. Sweden, you see, is oh-so-sensitive and oh-so politically correct that it refuses to even acknowledge there are any issues. It took the United Nations to criticize them for not cracking down on rape. Swedish police are horribly uncomfortable at the thought of arresting minorities, you see, and tend to make excuses for them, much as you do.

[Michael Hardner]

Then might I suggest we instead limit our immigration to those immigrants who lack unpleasant social characteristics?

Ie, focus our immigration on Europe and be very wary of potential immigrants from Muslim areas.

That's just brainless. European seems to be synonymous with "good" here.

Luckily no one with any public stature is pushing for this.

[cybercoma]

Then might I suggest we instead limit our immigration to those immigrants who lack unpleasant social characteristics?

Ie, focus our immigration on Europe and be very wary of potential immigrants from Muslim areas.

Our primary sources of immigrants is the Philippines, India and China. Following that is the United States, United Kingdom, and France before we even get to the first "Muslim" nation Iran (which are probably political refugees, but I'm speculating). That is followed by UAE and Morocco.

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/statistics/facts2010/permanent/10.asp#countries

[cybercoma]

Almost everyone who has looked into it acknowledges that they are responsible.

I'm going to need to see some credible sources on that. Maybe they are, but I would like to see what the debate has been.

[Scotty]

That's just brainless. European seems to be synonymous with "good" here.

Luckily no one with any public stature is pushing for this.

It's too bad we didn't have a 'facilitator' who would point out that responding to someone's opinion with personal insults rather than explaining why they disagree is childish and ignorant.

Nice example you set.

[cybercoma]

We also tend to take in more women than men, btw.

Some more statistics:

In 2010, 42.5% of our immigrants were skilled workers and their spouses/dependants, while another 14.5% were the foreign spouses and partners of Canadian citizens.

I'm just curious where you expect the government to crack down?

edit: while I'm perusing these statistics, it's also worth noting that "permanent residents" have not made up more than 1% of the country by population since the 50s. Currently, the number of people that are permanent residents sits at 0.7% of the total population.

Edited December 24, 2011 by cybercoma

[Guest Peeves]

You have got to be kidding me. Are you seriously blaming Muslims for the increased number of rapes in Sweden?

Inviting the wrath of the nay sayers and enablers.

Don't bother replying with accusatory ad hominem nor of denigrating any referenced authors. Firstly your opinion on either won't matter, and neither does this post. It's rather like whistling in the wind.

On the other hand if you wish to dispute the opinion(s) expressed here “Lay on, Macduff," opinions and debate is always welcome.

So,

there's now quite a deviation in this thread from the initial post. That may be acceptable if we can stay rational. I have no problem with any ethnic culture or religions tenets so long as they are not contrary to law or in conflict with policies/procedure.

Honor killing or female genital mutilation (female circumcision) or settee, or caste systems, slavery, polygamy, draconian sentences, (hanging gays), to name a few are not restricted to Muslims.

Our country historically and in contemporary times have established the 'right' & 'wrong' for us.

A generation ago there were no such problems here that I'm aware of, it's only since immigration from some country's became more common that different unacceptable cultural behavior became to conflict with our societal laws and customs. Whether we accommodate other cultural traditions should be up to

our values and laws.

Other cultures should not assume to press their baggage on us. If in our wisdom, an alien cultural practice is deemed unacceptable then, that's all she wrote. To press for exceptions when you have been granted sanctuary from a perhaps repressive regime is insulting to me.

I have stated in previous posts that it is only in RECENT history that the niqab or burka have been cultural factors in Islam. Bikini's were quite common on beaches in some Muslim states until the Shaw of Iran's exit, and Khomeini's role in theocratic rule.

Islam has been feeling shamed in the generations since defeat on so many fronts. Militant-theocratic fundamentalist Islam is now re-surging as it sees how it can pressure the West-Christianity.

With such a large member representation in the UN, the oil , the billions in funds they control, Islam is now a force that we must be aware of not just militarily (nukes in Pakistan), but for the attempts they, (Please read they as the fundamentalist factions, not all Muslims) go on in most countries today, to overwhelm the host country with many Muslim demands for accommodations.

( That includes attempts to accept sharia laws, dress, polygamy, and in some locations actual intimidation and violence.)

A US-based Jewish group has issued a travel warning urging Jews to exercise "extreme caution" when traveling in southern Sweden.

“We reluctantly are issuing this advisory because religious Jews and other members of the Jewish community there have been subject to anti-Semitic taunts and harassment,” said Dr. Shimon Samuels, Director of International Relations with the Los Angeles-based Simon Wiesenthal Centre, in a statement.

“There have been dozens of incidents reported to the authorities but have not resulted in arrests or convictions for hate crimes.”

Now before calls for bigotry charges against me, let me say that I have no wish to deprive any group of the rights Canadians value or have in our culture. I have no problems with any cultural traditions that are not in conflict with our traditions. However, I consider certain recent demands as more likely affectations for political purpose than for any sincere need. You may feel differently, that's your position, but I think those supporting some 'demand' are missing the Islamofascism intent and objectives.

Certainly millions of Muslims are not working to that end, but other millions including the Saudi funding of Western mosques and Iran's Theocracy are intent of persuing an Islamic agenda

.. Others feel the same way* and if you want to stick your head in the sand that's your business.

I will point out again, that until the '70's, Islamic countries had little use for burkas so tell me why when bikinis were ok then suddenly in 50 years a full body disguises is 'religiously proclaimed'...b/s I'll tell you why, there are countries like Iran the Saudis, Syrians, etc. that have different sectarian religions, but, the one thing in common with all is their purpose to establish Islam politically and religiously as the dominant world power. Unfortunately moderate-secular and peaceful Muslims are 'their' enemies as well.

You can do all the nay saying you wish to, but, the world events and the preaching and actions foreign and domestically prove the intent of the fundamentalists.

There is no doubting that an element of Islam has a determination to

follow the Islamic and Koranic ordained demonstrated history of accept or else.

* http://www.bibleone.net/print_tbs74.html

Readers will have heard apologists for the Koran acknowledge that, yes, there are war verses in the Koran, but only a few. Every Muslim apologist hastens to add that the Koran’s sparse number of war verses relate to just a few unavoidable military crises in Islam’s early history. They assure us that no war verse was ever intended to serve as a model inciting Muslims in general to hostility against resistant non-Muslims in all ages.

What is the truth of the matter?

In fact, there are at least 109 identifiable war verses in the Koran. One out of every 55 verses in the Koran is a war verse. War verses are scattered throughout Mohammed’s chapters like blood splatter at a crime scene

Pipes on Islam

http://www.danielpipes.org/books/militantislam.php

"Unnoticed by most Westerners," Daniel Pipes wrote in 1995, referring to militant Islam, "war has been unilaterally declared on Europe and the United States." Pipes, director of the Philadelphia-based Middle East Forum, was one of the very few Americans to understand the significance of what to many appeared to be no more than isolated cases of violence. Long before September 2001, he publicly warned Americans that militant Islam had gone to war against America. Now Americans are listening to him.

[cybercoma]

So your source is a review on a book by Don Richardson, who appears to be a Christian fundamentalist, done by bibleone.net, whose tagline is "Faith alone in Christ alone." I hardly think this is a credible when it comes to information about increased sexual assaults happening in Sweden. Your second source is the blog of Daniel Pipes, who Christopher Hitchens has even called an anti-Muslim propagandist and Hitchens is absolutely not a supporter of Islam. Also not a effective, reliable or credible source for the subject at hand. No wonder you don't want to hear comments about the sources. They're garbage.

Edited December 24, 2011 by cybercoma

[Michael Hardner]

It's too bad we didn't have a 'facilitator' who would point out that responding to someone's opinion with personal insults rather than explaining why they disagree is childish and ignorant.

Nice example you set.

I didn't say you were brainless - just your idea.

[dre]

Then might I suggest we instead limit our immigration to those immigrants who lack unpleasant social characteristics?

Ie, focus our immigration on Europe and be very wary of potential immigrants from Muslim areas.

You can suggest whatever you want. And we dont have a whole of of muslim immigrants anyways. Which underscores even more the abject stupidity of these veil threads, especially in the context of womens rights. Theres about 300 muslim women wearing veils in the entire country. 70 thousand women will check into one of the nations 600 shelters for battered women.

This is a complete and total non issue besides providing people who just dont like muslims, with an opportunity to spout off.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/44/COB_data_Canada.PNG

Edited December 24, 2011 by dre

[dre]

I didn't say you were brainless - just your idea.

Iv been banned for insulting ideas.

[kimmy]

So your source is a review on a book by Don Richardson, who appears to be a Christian fundamentalist, done by bibleone.net, whose tagline is "Faith alone in Christ alone." I hardly think this is a credible when it comes to information about increased sexual assaults happening in Sweden. Your second source is the blog of Daniel Pipes, who Christopher Hitchens has even called an anti-Muslim propagandist and Hitchens is absolutely not a supporter of Islam. Also not a effective, reliable or credible source for the subject at hand. No wonder you don't want to hear comments about the sources. They're garbage.

It isn't difficult to find similar claims with just a little googling. In some cases they're made by anti-Muslim people, or white supremacists, or right-wing nationalists. The Muslim rape epidemic in Sweden has been talked about for years. A similar claim was made in regard to Oslo, Norway after the Anders Breivik massacre: somebody talking about why Breivik hated Muslims claimed that of something like 42 rape incidents in Oslo, almost all of them were perpetrated by Muslims.

Things of this nature are extremely difficult to verify, because for reasons we've all discussed a number of times, publishing information regarding the race and ethnicity of criminals is a touchy subject.

That all of these claims are published by sources with an agenda makes them untrustworthy. It doesn't, however, prove that they're false. It might mean that other news sources are uncomfortable with publishing the information for whatever reason.

An example of this was some time ago when our late unlamented member Lictor asked why the dragging death of a black man, James Byrd, at the hands of white rednecks caused a media sensation while the dragging death of white woman Patricia Stansfield at the hands of a black thug went virtually unreported by media just a year later.

Challenged to find any evidence to support the claim that the Patricia Stansfield incident even happened, Lictor could only produce links to white supremacist websites, and it was assumed by many here that the incident was fiction invented by racists to stir up anger against black people.

Except, it wasn't. It really happened.

So, when you're considering that there might be a reason that only agenda-based sources are talking about something, also spend a moment to consider that there might also be a reason that other people are keeping quiet about it.

-k

[bud]

what the f*ck has become of our culture that the description in the title of this thread has become acceptable? how can you guys accept racist sh*t like that?

tell me why only 2 of the following racist comments are unacceptable to you?

"from the camel's mouth"

"from the ape's mouth"

"from the vermin's mouth"

[Scotty]

I didn't say you were brainless - just your idea.

You quibble like a lawyer. Rather than discussing my opinion and the pros and cons you simply chose to throw out an insult.

[Scotty]

Iv been banned for insulting ideas.

I've been suspended for 'disrespect'.

[Scotty]

In 2010, 42.5% of our immigrants were skilled workers and their spouses/dependants,

The majority of that group consist of the spouses/dependants, who, like the skilled worker, had little ability to communicate in English, and who, unlike the sponsor, had no testing for skills or education.

while another 14.5% were the foreign spouses and partners of Canadian citizens

.

Yes, the many immigrants who send their children 'home' to get a 'proper' spouse.

I'm just curious where you expect the government to crack down?

I believe that when selling something, you charge what the market will bear. When looking for a good, a product, a service, you get the best you can. To me, the best possible immigrant would be someone who is fluent in English (or French) young, skilled in a trade which is in demand in Canada, and has the same sort of secular western attitude as we do.

Skin colour has ZERO to do with it.

However, it seems to me, and I haven't seen anyone try to contradict me, the vast majority of such people are in Europe, the US, and a few other countries. Now I understand past arguments were that we needed to go to third world countries because there just weren't that many Europeans interested in coming here. That is no longer the case. The massive, economic problems in Europe, with some countries experiencing unemployment rates which rival the great depression, mean plenty of young, educated people are available for us. In some cases the unemployment rate for young people is over 40%! We ought to be focusing on getting those people to come here.

As to those already here. We need to do out utmost to (respectfully) encourage them both to increase their knowledge of English, and to accept and integrate with our culture.

Edited December 24, 2011 by Scotty