On Baring your face in public

[Scared.In.Canada]

We need a resistence against these face cfoverings. This is just all part of a slippery slope. If we allow them to wear t his what will be next? Sharia Law?

How long will be before we allow the Muslims to have Sharia LAw?

They are already passing Sharia Law in Belgium and the Netherlands is next....then France. How far behind will Canada be?

[Argus]

What sort of questions would one pose to a prospectee to find out?

I said screened, but questioning could be part of the process. I don't believe you could ask them straight out questions since they'd simply lie. The screening would have to be designed to gauge a person's social level based on a number of more subtle questions. Simply asking if you think people who leave Islam or women who bring dishonour to their families should be executed is not likely to cut it.

[cybercoma]

What do you mean their "social level"?

[BC_chick]

You might want to be careful about using feminism as an excuse for cultural imperialism. There are many Muslim feminist scholars who see the "ban the veil" movement as insulting to their free will to choose. It's another form of patriarchy, having Western women force their views of what women should and shouldn't do upon Muslim women. You might want to read this. http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/09/calling-all-feminists-get-over-veil-debate-focus-real-problems-201392573343242621.html

Keep the veil, ban the niqab. Two very different issues.

As for freedom of choice for women to wear whatever they please, yep, sounds like a great idea. I say we start with the Middle East.

Edited October 24, 2014 by BC_chick

[cybercoma]

Keep the veil, ban the niqab. Two very different issues.

As for freedom of choice for women to wear whatever they please, yep, sounds like a great idea. I say we start with the Middle East.

And I agree with you, but I don't have a political voice in the Middle East. I certainly do here. And I don't see why you would dictate to another woman how she observes her faith. If she freely wants to wear a niqab, then that's her prerogative. Do I think it's stupid? Of course. But I think most religious practices are stupid. I think it's stupid pentecostal women have to keep their hair long and wear long skirts. I think it's stupid that mormons have to wear magic underwear. I think it's stupid that Sikhs carry around daggers. Thing is, they're not my faiths and if it makes them happy, they're doing it of their own free will, and they're not hurting anyone by it, then so be it.

Edited October 24, 2014 by cybercoma

[BC_chick]

And I agree with you, but I don't have a political voice in the Middle East. I certainly do here. And I don't see why you would dictate to another woman how she observes her faith. If she freely wants to wear a niqab, then that's her prerogative. Do I think it's stupid? Of course. But I think most religious practices are stupid. I think it's stupid pentecostal women have to keep their hair long and wear long skirts. I think it's stupid that mormons have to wear magic underwear. I think it's stupid that Sikhs carry around daggers. Thing is, they're not my faiths and if it makes them happy, they're doing it of their own free will, and they're not hurting anyone by it, then so be it.

My point earlier was about the hypocrisy of these Muslim feminists lambasting valid concerns by invoking ethnocentrism and lack of choice when their fellow Muslim women lack choice more than any western Muslim ever would.

And yes, it is a concern. I couldn't care less standing next to someone wearing a magic underwear but I do find it unnerving when I can't see the face of the person next to me. You can't walk into a bank or on a plane wearing a ski mask, why should you be allowed to do so in the name of superstition?

Kirpans should also be banned, they would be illegal if it weren't for religious beliefs and Canadian laws should always trump personal beliefs.

[cybercoma]

My point earlier was about the hypocrisy of these Muslim feminists lambasting valid concerns by invoking ethnocentrism and lack of choice when their fellow Muslim women lack choice more than any western Muslim ever would.

It's not hypocritical. You should read their concerns. They've spoken out about being forced to wear the burqa in Afghanistan and other oppression they face. But that's for them to decide and fight. It's Western feminists need to be an ally by amplifying the Muslim feminists voices and supporting them in their own fight. It's not appropriate for Western feminists to come in and dictate how Muslim women should act or experience their faiths. It's ethnocentrism and Western imperialism. It's the added layer of religious oppression that Muslim women face. They not only face oppression for being women, but for being Muslim too. That's the part that a lot of Western feminists fail to grasp. Imposing your beliefs on their religious values and faith is just as bad as patriarchal oppression over their gender.

And yes, it is a concern. I couldn't care less standing next to someone wearing a magic underwear but I do find it unnerving when I can't see the face of the person next to me. You can't walk into a bank or on a plane wearing a ski mask, why should you be allowed to do so in the name of superstition?

Well, I guess as long as Muslim women make you comfortable. That's the important thing.

Kirpans should also be banned, they would be illegal if it weren't for religious beliefs and Canadian laws should always trump personal beliefs.

Kirpans wouldn't be illegal in other contexts. Typically they're ceremonial and stitched into a pouch that can't easily be opened. Often times they're tiny, other times they're simply worn as a necklace. Most importantly, however, they're rarely sharpened daggers, meaning they're not truly a knife. They're no more dangerous than a letter opener in most cases and have never been used in an act of violence on Canadian soil. The past hysteria about kirpans makes a mountain out of a molehill. Notice how it has pretty much disappeared out of the media, when it was oh so popular to complain about a couple years ago?

[Scared.In.Canada]

The face veil and the burqa are in themselves showing support for Islamic terrorism.

[Guest]

You must have a lot of fun.

[Scared.In.Canada]

I have fun yes. thanks for the inquiry.

[carepov]

I don't want anarchists here either. And in this case I think what they're wearing self-identifies as the kind of person we don't want. If these people were screened for social attitudes at the beginning they wouldn't ever be allowed to set foot in Canada.

By the time we get to the citizenship ceremony its way too late.

[Black Dog]

No problem at all for me if somebody wants to wear anything or nothing.

Except where establishing identity is required.

Getting on a plane. Getting a passport or drivers licence. Testifying under oath. Like that. Once it is certain who the person is, they can cover what they like.

This was the actual end of the thread right here. Pretty simple.

[Argus]

What do you mean their "social level"?

Do they think its fine to beat their wives and children for any reason they feel like? Do they think all sorts of sinners should be executed? Do they think any woman who shows her face or bare arms is a whore who deserves to be attacked? Etc. etc.

[hitops]

Do they think its fine to beat their wives and children for any reason they feel like? Do they think all sorts of sinners should be executed? Do they think any woman who shows her face or bare arms is a whore who deserves to be attacked? Etc. etc.

Exactly. We don't need people here who even think those things are ok, even if they given token lip service to it when required. Unfortunately we need to be smart about it, like Nordic countries are.

[Black Dog]

Exactly. We don't need people here who even think those things are ok, even if they given token lip service to it when required. Unfortunately we need to be smart about it, like Nordic countries are.

What about native-born people who feel that way? What do you propose to do about them ? If you're going to be serious about enforcing ideological conformity, you should really go all the way.

[The_Squid]

What about native-born people who feel that way? What do you propose to do about them ? If you're going to be serious about enforcing ideological conformity, you should really go all the way.

Unfortunately, there isn't a remedy for that until they act upon their feelings. For immigrants there is the opportunity to deny entry for reprehensible religious and/or cultural viewpoints and practices.

[Black Dog]

Unfortunately, there isn't a remedy for that until they act upon their feelings.

Maybe there should be. Why is no one is advocating for that?

[Bonam]

Maybe there should be. Why is no one is advocating for that?

What remedy do you propose?

And yes, I see what you are doing here. But there is no logical reason that an input filter to make sure we only get immigrants we actually want needs to be conflated with the laws that apply to people that are already here. They are two separate things. Try pausing and thinking before throwing out politically correct talking points.

[Black Dog]

What remedy do you propose?

I dunno, I'm not the one insisting that we need to monitor thoughtcrimes.

And yes, I see what you are doing here. But there is no logical reason that an input filter to make sure we only get immigrants we actually want needs to be conflated with the laws that apply to people that are already here. They are two separate things. Try pausing and thinking before throwing out politically correct talking points.

The principle here is that certain views are considered to be so anathema to our nation that holding them should be adequate grounds for keeping someone out. If you accept that premise, it's only logical to ask what you plan to do to ensure such views do not circulate among native-born members of the population. Un-Canadian ideas are Un-Canadian ideas whether the person holding them is trying to come here or is born here. There's no disconnect there, no "politically correct talking points," only your own inconsistency.

Edited October 24, 2014 by Black Dog

[overthere]

My point earlier was about the hypocrisy of these Muslim feminists lambasting valid concerns by invoking ethnocentrism and lack of choice when their fellow Muslim women lack choice more than any western Muslim ever would.

And yes, it is a concern. I couldn't care less standing next to someone wearing a magic underwear but I do find it unnerving when I can't see the face of the person next to me. You can't walk into a bank or on a plane wearing a ski mask, why should you be allowed to do so in the name of superstition?

Kirpans should also be banned, they would be illegal if it weren't for religious beliefs and Canadian laws should always trump personal beliefs.

Yes, you can walk onto a plane wearing a ski mask, but you cannot go through security wearing it.

So, you suggest restricting basic Charter rights because you find another persons attire unnerving?

Luckily, having native Canadian feminism tainted by a whiff of fascism is totally allowed under that same Charter. Aren't we lucky to all live in such a society, brown and white together?

Tolerance is more than just an allowable amount of variance in machine parts. It means accepting things that are not in your personal comfort zone.

[Guest]

I dunno, I'm not the one insisting that we need to monitor thoughtcrimes.

The principle here is that certain views are considered to be so anathema to our nation that holding them should be adequate grounds for keeping someone out. If you accept that premise, it's only logical to ask what you plan to do to ensure such views do not circulate among native-born members of the population. Un-Canadian ideas are Un-Canadian ideas whether the person holding them is trying to come here or is born here. There's no disconnect there, no "politically correct talking points," only your own inconsistency.

Can you think of any views that, if held by a potential immigrant, would cause you to advocate for refusing them admission?

I think it's more a case of how they act upon their views, and whether or not they are willing to put them aside upon being granted landed immigrant status. We certainly would expect that of a citizen, regardless of views held.

[guyser]

But there is no logical reason that an input filter to make sure we only get immigrants we actually want

We are already doing that.

[Black Dog]

Can you think of any views that, if held by a potential immigrant, would cause you to advocate for refusing them admission?

I'm not comfortable with the idea of policing thoughts.

I think it's more a case of how they act upon their views, and whether or not they are willing to put them aside upon being granted landed immigrant status. We certainly would expect that of a citizen, regardless of views held.

Sure: we give people who are citizens the right to hold whatever beliefs they want provided that their actions conform to our laws. Why not grant the same to prospective citizens?

[Guest]

I agree that all people have the right to hold whatever views they want. I would go further and say they have the right to express them too.

I would say the Canadian government has the right to deny entry to anyone whose views it finds objectionable, if they believed there is the possibility they might act on those views.

As far as citizens go, the same applies, but with different sanctions for the act.

[cybercoma]

I dunno, I'm not the one insisting that we need to monitor thoughtcrimes.

Pack up the thread. There's nothing left to discuss. hah