Is the Burka against Islam?

[Guest]

So if I make up a religion that says that nobody is allowed to wear burkas, we should now ban burkas?

Where did I say Colanders should be banned? I said I would not take someone wearing one at work seriously. If you want to get financial advice from someone with a colander on his head, fill your boots.

[Michael Hardner]

Can we try to get some footing on this thread ?

By that I mean - what point are we arguing from ?

I mean, we all know that religious freedom is guaranteed in Canada right ? Are we arguing whether that should be allowed here or how it should be interpreted ?

There's really no sense in arguing both. On this thread, we seem to be arguing that religious freedom guarantees that you are able to wear anything you want to work (it doesn't) simultaneously with arguing whether Islamic garments should be allowed under the provisions for religious freedom.

[-1=e^ipi]

By that I mean - what point are we arguing from ?

Well, initially I wanted a theological debate about what is/isn't required for a women's dress code in Islam. But it is clear that no one else here has sufficient knowledge of islam to have a discussion about this. So if I want to get a good theological discussion I'll probably have to go to an Islamic website.

That said, the discussion has now shifted more to the Quebec Charter of Laicite & reasonable accommodation, since we cannot discuss the original topic (do to lack of knowledge about Islam from most posters and the fact that most counter arguments here involve generalizations about religion).

Does that answer your question?

[Michael Hardner]

Sort of. Are we discussing whether 'reasonable accommodation' is itself reasonable ? Or what falls into that category ?

[-1=e^ipi]

Sort of. Are we discussing whether 'reasonable accommodation' is itself reasonable ? Or what falls into that category ?

Well reasonable accommodation is by definition reasonable. But I guess now we are discussing when or if there should be restrictions on dress code, or if we should just allow all clothing if it is religious. Then there is the issue of defining what a religion is (ex. is pastafarianism considered a religion?).

Anyway, I might ask a similar question on an islamic forum and post a link to the thread. Will be interesting to read responses from muslims.

[Michael Hardner]

Well reasonable accommodation is by definition reasonable. But I guess now we are discussing when or if there should be restrictions on dress code...

If ? Let me cut to the chase - do you believe that reasonable accommodation of religion should be allowed or not ?

[-1=e^ipi]

If ? Let me cut to the chase - do you believe that reasonable accommodation of religion should be allowed or not ?

I believe that the law should apply equally to everyone regardless of religion. So if hijabs are allowed then bandannas should be allowed. If daggers are banned, kirpans should be banned, etc.

And do I believe that 'reasonable' accommodation of religion should be allowed? Well since it is by definition reasonable and as long as it does not discriminate against people for their religious beliefs (or lack of religious beliefs), yes.

[GostHacked]

Covering of the face is a security issue as it makes it difficult for people to identify each other. If everyone covered their faces then it would become much easier for criminals to move about in public and avoid law enforcers.

I had brought this up and was concerned about the muslim woman who drives a car and how her face was covered. Then I looked at most other cars and every one else has their heads covered and such and realized I was looking the same and realized it was not a problem. It was winter.

[Michael Hardner]

And do I believe that 'reasonable' accommodation of religion should be allowed? Well since it is by definition reasonable ...

Odd interpretation. If something is called 'reasonable', you assume it is ? Some might say that "reasonable accommodation" as a concept is not reasonable.

[Guest]

I had brought this up and was concerned about the muslim woman who drives a car and how her face was covered. Then I looked at most other cars and every one else has their heads covered and such and realized I was looking the same and realized it was not a problem. It was winter.

As long as they are willing to take it off for a licence photo. And for a speed cop.

[-1=e^ipi]

I had brought this up and was concerned about the muslim woman who drives a car and how her face was covered. Then I looked at most other cars and every one else has their heads covered and such and realized I was looking the same and realized it was not a problem. It was winter.

Well there is a difference between face coverings and head coverings. But obviously there are situations were face coverings should be allowed and where they shouldn't be allowed. In winter, face coverings make a lot of sense.

Odd interpretation. If something is called 'reasonable', you assume it is ? Some might say that "reasonable accommodation" as a concept is not reasonable.

If the accommodation is not reasonable then it is unreasonable accommodation not reasonable accommodation.

[jbg]

I don't know of doctrine like that in any other mainstream religion. Again all religious texts are up for interpretation but I challenge anyone find a passage from the New Testament that can be thought of as a call to arms.

I wouldn't go there if I were you.

That being said it's more what a people do with their holy text than necessarily what is in them. The Old Testament is full of stories of violence and exhortations to slaughter various peoples (though never prospectively all non-believers or foreigners). Yet most people who religiously adhere only to the Old Testament rate low on violence and high on accomplishment. The Koran is probably not much worse in terms of advocacy of violence and yet many but not all of its adherents, by and large, have problems with accomplishing much, with self government etc.

Edited November 19, 2013 by jbg

[-1=e^ipi]

That being said it's more what a people do with their holy text than necessarily what is in them.

This is more of a Judeo-Christian view of things than an Islamic view. Islam is a very unique religion.

The Old Testament is full of stories of violence and exhortations to slaughter various peoples (though never prospectively all non-believers or foreigners). Yet most people who religiously adhere only to the Old Testament rate low on violence and high on accomplishment.

Many adherents to the Old Testament are non-practicing Christians that merely self identify with their religion (ex. self identify as catholic) for cultural/family reasons.

The Koran is probably not much worse in terms of advocacy of violence and yet many but not all of its adherents, by and large, have problems with accomplishing much, with self government etc.

Why do you say 'probably'? Do you have very limited knowledge of the Quran so your claim is unjustified?

The Quran and the old testament are very different. Both in the amount of violence they teach and with the flexibility of interpretation. The Quran IS THE DIRECT WORD OF GOD THROUGH MOHAMMED! That is a huge difference. Muslims have to take the teachings in islamic texts far more literally.

Edited November 19, 2013 by -1=e^ipi

[Moonlight Graham]

I mean, we all know that religious freedom is guaranteed in Canada right ?

Religious freedom is not necessarily guaranteed when that right conflicts with other rights. In a legal sense, historically (since the Charter) religious rights usually have taken a backseat to other rights when there is a conflict.

[jbg]

Religious freedom is not necessarily guaranteed when that right conflicts with other rights. In a legal sense, historically (since the Charter) religious rights usually have taken a backseat to other rights when there is a conflict.

Given the way the Charter of (no) Rights and Special Pleadings Freedoms is written none of the rights are sacrosanct. For example:

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

Fundamental Freedoms

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;

( freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

(c ) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

(d) freedom of association.

The highlighted portion swallows the rule, essentially.

Edited November 19, 2013 by jbg

[GostHacked]

Well there is a difference between face coverings and head coverings. But obviously there are situations were face coverings should be allowed and where they shouldn't be allowed. In winter, face coverings make a lot of sense.

I agree that they do need to show their face when confronted by police if they suspect a traffic violation of some sort. No problem here. I would have to take off my hat or whatever for the cop.

This lady I am talking about seems to be a decent driver compared to the plethora of idiots who are distracted by their cell phones and other devices in the car. Throw in elderly people (no need to explain this) and general asshats on the road. Cell phones are more of a threat on the road compared to face coverings.

As an example. Going from Orleans to Kanata. While near downtown, I was behind a person doing 80 in the left lane. Speed limit is 100. Most do 120-130 in that lane. Anyways, I got behind him and gave a little honk on the horn. I saw his head look up and then down. So he was looking at a device on his lap. He was not aware I was behind him. I honked a couple more times. Nothing. I end up pulling up on his right. Rolled down the window, honked AND waved at him. He was 100% oblivious to what was going on around him. Only when I got in front, tapped the breaks and raised my finger out the window did he notice.

Check out drivers and see how many are all over the road. Head coverings while driving is not an issue.

[Moonlight Graham]

The purpose of the Burka is probably 20% religion, 80% a male tool for dominance over women. It's sick.

But wearing such a thing isn't in itself illegal or wrong, nor should it be a "right". If people are forcing women to wear it while in Canada, that's another issue. If women want to wear it, then that's their prerogative, but there are many situations where they shouldn't be allowed to wear it, and I wouldn't make much distinction in those situations between a women wearing a burka and someone like myself wearing a full-body costume covering the face.

[The_Squid]

What if the burka is a cultural issue? If 9/10 Imams agree that it is not part of Islam.... The new Quebec charter would not apply. It's not a religious garment, but a cultural one. That's why this new law, while I agree with it in principal, is not a workable idea.

[Moonlight Graham]

What if the burka is a cultural issue?

Banishing women behind a cloth prison is a really crappy part of any culture.

[The_Squid]

Banishing women behind a cloth prison is a really crappy part of any culture.

I agree 100%.

It will take a generational change for immigrants embrace Canadian values. Their kids are much less likely to be covered up in bags. I don't think they can all be sent to private crazy religious schools where this would be acceptable. Even if they are, this will change once the kids get "westernized".

Edited November 21, 2013 by The_Squid

[Bonam]

It will take a generational change for immigrants embrace Canadian values. Their kids are much less likely to be covered up in bags. I don't think they can all be sent to private crazy religious schools where this would be acceptable. Even if they are, this will change once the kids get "westernized".

The real question is why bother. There are so many potential immigrants applying whose cultures are much more similar to what is the norm in Canada. Why pick the group(s) whose members tend to take the longest to "Westernize"?

[dre]

The real question is why bother. There are so many potential immigrants applying whose cultures are much more similar to what is the norm in Canada. Why pick the group(s) whose members tend to take the longest to "Westernize"?

Because fast "westernization" is only one goal, and even seemingly incompatible immigrants seem to integrate fairly well within a generation or two. If you have a shortage of agriculutral workers you probably arent going to bring in immigrants from Luxembourg or Denmark. And even as far as shortages of skilled labor countries like India are sometimes the best sources even if theres cultural and language differences. Commercial interests want to drive down labor and increase productiivity and that plays a part as well.

If all we did was import people from liberal western democracies, it would cost 30$ an hour to even get someone out of bed.

[The_Squid]

The real question is why bother. There are so many potential immigrants applying whose cultures are much more similar to what is the norm in Canada. Why pick the group(s) whose members tend to take the longest to "Westernize"?

ask the current government who controls these things and have for years.

[Bonam]

If all we did was import people from liberal western democracies, it would cost 30$ an hour to even get someone out of bed.

And maybe that would be ok? People wouldn't be complaining about wage stagnation, for one. With typically 7% unemployment rates (and workforce participation rates hovering around 60%), it seems to me that giving more incentive to people to work (more wages) would be just as effective at getting the needed workers as bringing in lots of immigrants. Mass immigration has likely played a huge part in the wage stagnation and economic malaise that the middle and lower classes in Western countries have been experiencing.