On Baring your face in public

[Black Dog]

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.

That's not what's being discussed. To some, simply believing the Quran allows you to hit your wife with a stick is grounds for expulsion regardless of whether you actually do it.

[Big Guy]

It has created a new problem. Years ago, if someone walked into a store wearing a face covering (and it was not Halloween) then you just raised your hands and handed over the money. To-day, a person walks in with a face covering, you do not know whether to sell them something, give them all your cash or duck down because he was going to blow himself up.

[Guest]

That's not what's being discussed. To some, simply believing the Quran allows you to hit your wife with a stick is grounds for expulsion regardless of whether you actually do it.

That is what's being discussed. We are discussing it. Disgusting though certain views are, just holding them is no reason for sanctions.

[guyser]

It has created a new problem.

It has?

Years ago, if someone walked into a store wearing a face covering (and it was not Halloween) then you just raised your hands and handed over the money. To-day, a person walks in with a face covering, you do not know whether to sell them something, give them all your cash or duck down because he was going to blow himself up.

...or just go about your business and not worry about it.

[Guest]

True. Maybe it's just cold out.

[BC_chick]

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.

Well, I guess as long as Muslim women make you comfortable.

That's the important thing.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?

I can't multi-quote on iPad so here goes:

- Feminism is inherently incompatible with any Abrahamic religion where women are considered inferior and property of men. Period. These women are not feminists so their their argument can't based on feminism. Which leads the topic back to the OP and whether or not it's acceptable to have covered faces in western societies.

- Nice try I didn't say Muslim women make me nervous, I said people with their faces covered make me nervous and this is not Merlin trolling 'fear' and/or xenophobia. As you can see, many of the reasonable posters agree so it's a difference of opinion and I'm not the only one who feels this way.

- I remember a dispute in Montreal years back where the Sikhs did pull their Kirpans on each other. Maybe it's posturing but from my understanding they are blades. Obviously if they're not they don't conflcit with canadian laws and it's a moot point.

[BC_chick]

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.

Covering faces is not an Islamic doctrine. Nowhere in the Koran is it mentioned which negates the religious factor.

[guyser]

- Feminism is inherently incompatible with any Abrahamic religion where women are considered inferior

Isnt that true of most religions?

Catholic-cant serve

Jews-sit on separate aisles

for example.

[BC_chick]

Isnt that true of most religions?Catholic-cant serveJews-sit on separate aislesfor example.

Abrahamic religions are Judaism, Christianity and Islam. All three have indoctrinated patriarchy and are incompatible with feminism. There no such thing as feminist Muslim/Jew/Christian if someone is truly observant of their religion (vs say nominally Muslim/Christian etc).

[Argus]

That is what's being discussed. We are discussing it. Disgusting though certain views are, just holding them is no reason for sanctions.

Perhaps not but it's a reason to not want to import thousands of such people to come and live in Canada every year.

[Argus]

That's not what's being discussed. To some, simply believing the Quran allows you to hit your wife with a stick is grounds for expulsion regardless of whether you actually do it.

Expulsion? You can't expel people for their ignorant social views once they're accepted here as landed immigrants, not unless they lied on their application.

[Argus]

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?

Suppose these prospective citizens think six year olds are hot and sexy? It's not illegal to think that. It might be disgusting to you, but hey, maybe they belong to a particular religious group which doesn't have a problem with pedophilia. Should we not screen them for that?

[Argus]

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.

Already dealt with this. Just because we have criminals here doesn't mean we want to bring in more. So if you have a criminal record you're pretty much screened out from applying for immigration. Do you think we should allow people to come live here even if they are habitual criminals in their homelands?

[Guest]

Perhaps not but it's a reason to not want to import thousands of such people to come and live in Canada every year.

I think if you are willing to adopt the cultural practices of your new country and forego the ones you grew up with, then a chance is deserved.

After all, I came here from England, and I haven't beaten anyone up at a soccer match yet.

[Argus]

I think if you are willing to adopt the cultural practices of your new country and forego the ones you grew up with, then a chance is deserved.

Anyone demanding to keep their face covered at all times is clearly not willing to give up their old cultural practices.

[Guest]

Yeah, but that's one I think should be left to personal choice, much as I abhor the practice.

[Argus]

Yeah, but that's one I think should be left to personal choice, much as I abhor the practice.

But it's a clear symbol that they wholly embrace their horribly backward cultural beliefs and practices which come attached and utterly reject ours.

[cybercoma]

Anyone demanding to keep their face covered at all times is clearly not willing to give up their old cultural practices.

For practices that are not criminal offences, why should we demand it? We're a country that advertises it as a place where people of all cultures can come together. To argue for cultural assimilation is essentially anti-Canadian.

[cybercoma]

But it's a clear symbol that they wholly embrace their horribly backward cultural beliefs and practices which come attached and utterly reject ours.

Do we not have criminal laws in this country to protect people against the "horribly backward cultural . . . practices" that you're talking about?

If you want the government to start policing beliefs and ideas, then you're asking to open a can of worms that I'm pretty sure even you would denounce.

[Argus]

For practices that are not criminal offences, why should we demand it? We're a country that advertises it as a place where people of all cultures can come together. To argue for cultural assimilation is essentially anti-Canadian.

You seem to have avoided my queries about whether you believe we should simply have no standards and let in child molesters, rapists and other criminals simply because we have such people here. Suppose you instead give me your opinion as to why we should have no standards in those we bring to Canada? That, in effect, no matter how anti-social and primitive their views are, we should let them immigrate here and live among us.

[Argus]

Do we not have criminal laws in this country to protect people against the "horribly backward cultural . . . practices" that you're talking about?.

I'm sure the parents of the dead soldiers are gratified that their sons' killers were dealt with under the law. But that's not going to bring them back to life.

[overthere]

Covering faces is not an Islamic doctrine. Nowhere in the Koran is it mentioned which negates the religious factor.

I don't care if it's religious or not. I don't care because it is none of my business what people believe in, or what they do, as long as they obey the laws of Canada.

There is absolutely no need for anybody to 'adopt my cultural practices'. It would be equally worthy for them to insist that I adopt theirs, since we are all EQUAL in Canada, and there are no degrees of equality. But they are not so arrogant to insist that..... Our culture is composed of many different elements, and they change with every face we welcome, every day. Equality is not something that is determined by where you're from or when you got here. End of.

[cybercoma]

You seem to have avoided my queries about whether you believe we should simply have no standards and let in child molesters, rapists and other criminals simply because we have such people here.

Yeah. I tend to ignore intellectual dishonesty. Try addressing what I actually argue rather than creating strawmen and asking me to address those.

Suppose you instead give me your opinion as to why we should have no standards

Maybe I should help you out with the concept.

[cybercoma]

I'm sure the parents of the dead soldiers are gratified that their sons' killers were dealt with under the law. But that's not going to bring them back to life.

Your point? That soldier in Ottawa was killed by a Canadian-born citizen.

So what was that about keeping people out of the country?

[BC_chick]

I don't care if it's religious or not. I don't care because it is none of my business what people believe in, or what they do, as long as they obey the laws of Canada.

There is absolutely no need for anybody to 'adopt my cultural practices'. It would be equally worthy for them to insist that I adopt theirs, since we are all EQUAL in Canada, and there are no degrees of equality. But they are not so arrogant to insist that..... Our culture is composed of many different elements, and they change with every face we welcome, every day. Equality is not something that is determined by where you're from or when you got here. End of.

No, it's no end of just because you've stated your position.

Sure, diversity is allowed and accepted in Canada, but it doesn't mean anything goes. We have laws and limits on people's beliefs and choices even when there are no 'victims' in the people's actions.

Women who choose to marry within a polygamous relationship are willing participants as are women who wear burkas. Why do we choose not to honour the beliefs of the polygamists? Their women aren't crying about it after all?

Why do we ban public nudity when the sight of a naked person does not harm anyone? Why can't we respect the values of nudists when they're not hurting anyone?

It's not so clear-cut. We do ban cultural misogyny even when the women themselves are participants. We also enforce certain public attire even though it doesn't hurt anyone.