.

[jacee]

Not me - but clearly it has escaped your notice. When you talk with other Muslims, they will tell you that niqab wearers are deferring to men's demands. They subscribe to an ultra-patriarchal sect of Islam where men rule. Clearly, you feel that this false choice trumps Gender Equality.

It doesn't matter what others think.

It's personal.

.

[Keepitsimple]

No one has said religions arent ever oppressive. (How many women priests do you know). The women I heard interviewed the other day were clearly not deferring to mes demands. One in particular said she had to argue with her husband as he wanted her not to wear it for fear people would think of him as you probably would. Jumping in with both feet to start banning this or that based on preconceived notions is folly. And unconstitutional it turns out.

Go ahead and keep your head in the sand. Although I do not like what it stands for, this issue is not about banning the niqab - our Charter protects their right to do so - as is their right to be subservient to their men. It's about asking for reasonable accommodation in acknowledging our institutions and bureaucracies by lifing their veils at appropriate times.

Edited March 24, 2015 by Keepitsimple

[Keepitsimple]

It doesn't matter what others think.

It's personal.

.

"It doesn't matter" seems to be a regular answer of yours. In many respects, when a huge majority of Canadians believe in the same thing - it's usually because it relates in some manner to Canadian/Social values.

[On Guard for Thee]

Go ahead and keep your head in the sand. Although I do not like what it stands for, this issue is not about banning the niqab - our Charter protects their right to do so - as is their right to be subservient to their men. It's about asking for reasonable accommodation in acknowledging our institutions and bureaucracies.

I guess if you had your head out of the sand you would be aware the courts have already spoken.

[jacee]

"It doesn't matter" seems to be a regular answer of yours. In many respects, when a huge majority of Canadians believe in the same thing - it's usually because it relates in some manner to Canadian/Social values.

You can't force those on people.

.

[Keepitsimple]

I guess if you had your head out of the sand you would be aware the courts have already spoken.

One Federal judge has spoken (not "the courts") - and the Charter was never brought under consideration - it didn't have to be because of the sloppiness of how this "rule" was implemented. Why do you keep repeating yourself so that I have to keep repeating the facts.

[On Guard for Thee]

One Federal judge has spoken (not "the courts") - and the Charter was never brought under consideration - it didn't have to be because of the sloppiness of how this "rule" was implemented. Why do you keep repeating yourself so that I have to keep repeating the facts.

A federal judge is not a court...The supreme court of Canada is not a court...what are you talking about. And BTW I believe it was I who pointed out to you earlier that Jason Kennys policy book was struck down simply because it was illegal, they didnt even have to go to the charter to do that. So who is repeating themselves...

[Keepitsimple]

A federal judge is not a court...The supreme court of Canada is not a court...what are you talking about. And BTW I believe it was I who pointed out to you earlier that Jason Kennys policy book was struck down simply because it was illegal, they didnt even have to go to the charter to do that. So who is repeating themselves...

You said "the courts have spoken" - plural - the Supreme Court has not spoken and the Charter has not been considered in any court with regards to this issue - and it might never have to be raised at all. The government may simply have to revise/introduce legislation to be more precuse - at which time the Charter might come into play, as would the accompanying Reasonable Accommodation clause. That's what the government has to consider to make it Charter-proof - will the courts decide that it is reasonable to ask someone to lift their veil when taking the Oath of Citizenship. This is what has the vast, vast majority of Canadians, including Muslims - totally flummoxed - because it does seem so reasonable. Anyway...with a few on the fringe, this argument falls on deaf ears.

Edited March 24, 2015 by Keepitsimple

[cybercoma]

That's not even close to true. People don't have issue with the dress, but rather the dehumanizing nature of it. It's designed to control and separate.

Let's not address the people who actually dehumanize women though. We should punish the victims by not allowing them to wear their traditional clothing which they claim is a part of their identity. But their opinions about it doesn't matter, right? Because like you said. It's oppressive and their lowly women who don't know what's good for them.

[cybercoma]

So you believe that in a democratic society the people should not have any say in the rules of how their society is run? Have I got that right?

You certainly don't have an absolute say, no. Nobody said anything about you not having any say. Nobody even came close to that ridiculous hyperbole.

[cybercoma]

How far out on this ludicrous bit of a limb do you want to crawl in your defense of a medieval wife beating culture?

Yeah. Nobody beats their wives in Canada. That's strictly a Muslim thing.

And good thing heroes like you are on their white horses telling women what to wear. That ought to stop the abuse.

Every post you make would be comedy gold if it wasn't so sad that you actually believe this crap. Muslim countries have had female leaders elected. How many have we had? And how long did Kim Campbell last as Prime Minister?

But hey. You go ahead and feel superior. Let's pretend women aren't beaten, raped, and abused in our culture. Let's pretend that they have no power anywhere in the Muslim world. It's so much easier thinking in stereotypes when you're too bloody obtuse to understand the complexity of the world.

Edited March 24, 2015 by cybercoma

[Moonlight Graham]

Hiding the face is an institution designed to prevent women from participating as equals in society. This is inconsistent with Canadian values.

How did you come to this conclusion? It's possible, but where's the evidence? In Islam, hiding the face, hair, and/or body is an expression of sexual modesty so Muslims are more free from sexual temptation. Muslim men are also encouraged to cover up in long, loose garb to remain sexually modest. Men also often wear head coverings, for reasons I'm not 100% sure. Ever seen Arab Muslim men in shorts? Some Saudi men just chillin':

The head/face coverings for both men and women might also have been originally worn, pre-Islam, as protection from sand blowing their face? Especially in desert environments like Saudi Arabia, where the niqab is usually worn.

Edited March 24, 2015 by Moonlight Graham

[Smallc]

Whatever excuse we can think of, right?

[guyser]

Not me - but clearly it has escaped your notice. When you talk with other Muslims, they will tell you that niqab wearers are deferring to men's demands.

None of the women interviewed in the Star article suggested anything close to what you say.

[cybercoma]

Whatever excuse we can think of, right?

Your cognitive dissonance is showing.

[Argus]

How did you come to this conclusion? It's possible, but where's the evidence? In Islam, hiding the face, hair, and/or body is an expression of sexual

modesty so Muslims are more free from sexual temptation.

As the Muslim Canadian Congress said in 2009, “there is no requirement in the Qur’an for Muslim women to cover their faces. Invoking religious freedom to conceal one’s identity and promote a political ideology is disingenuous.” No less an authority than Egypt’s late Sheikh Mohamed Tantawi, dean of al-Azhar university, stated the niqab was merely a cultural tradition and that it had no connection to Islam or the Qur’an. If there is any doubt about the religiosity of the niqab and burka, one should take a look at the holiest place for Muslims, the grand mosque in Mecca, the Ka’aba. For more than 1,400 years, Muslim men and women have prayed in what we believe is the House of God, and for all those centuries, female visitors have been explicitly prohibited from covering their faces.

http://www.torontosun.com/2013/09/17/west-should-ban-niqab

Muslim men are also encouraged to cover up in long, loose garb to remain sexually modest.

Men also often wear head coverings, for reasons I'm not 100% sure. Ever seen Arab Muslim men in shorts?

Uhm, yes? I've seen Muslim men in shorts often enough, and in swim trunks. Muslim men are often in t-shirts on hot days while these women are covered in heavy, stiflingly hot black shrouds.

Edited March 24, 2015 by Argus

[TimG]

How did you come to this conclusion? It's possible, but where's the evidence?

The importance of the face in human communication is well established the scientific literature. The niqab is only imposed on women and not men which means it has no functional purpose its only purpose is to keep a woman hidden. I am aware that the claim is because of "modesty" but, unlike restrictions on clothing or hair, the niqab actually interferes with the wearers ability to communicate with others in public. The only reason for such a definition of modesty to evolve is because it was a tool that made it easier for men to control the public lives of women. It is simply irrational to suggest that a women would decide for themselves that handicapping their ability to communicate in public was a good thing. The fact that every country where the niqab is used widely has an abysmal record when it comes to women's rights is evidence that the niqab is ultimately a tool of repression even if some women today have been brainwashed into believing it is "for modesty".

[eyeball]

How far out on this ludicrous bit of a limb do you want to crawl in your defense of a medieval wife beating culture?

Exactly what are you babbling about? What a completely stupid interpretation of what I said - you're completely ass backwards.

[guyser]

The importance of the face in human communication is well established the scientific literature.

So science is good for you when it suits you? Sounds about right.

The fact that every country where the niqab is used widely has an abysmal record when it comes to women's rights is evidence that the niqab is ultimately a tool of repression even if some women today have been brainwashed into believing it is "for modesty".

Well, they also have phones and cars in those countries, so maybe it was cars and cell phones that led to repression?

I put up a symbol on my front door to ward off Polar Bears , so far, 12 years and no bears. Works like a charm.

Probably should have used the symbol for Moose,considering Moose kill more than terrorists. Maybe next year

Edited March 25, 2015 by Guyser2

[jacee]

So science is good for you when it suits you? Sounds about right.

Well, they also have phones and cars in those countries, so maybe it was cars and cell phones that led to repression?

I put up a symbol on my front door to ward off Polar Bears , so far, 12 years and no bears. Works like a charm.

Probably should have used the symbol for Moose,considering Moose kill more than terrorists. Maybe next year

Put that one on your truck.

[Guest]

Yeah. Nobody beats their wives in Canada. That's strictly a Muslim thing.

And good thing heroes like you are on their white horses telling women what to wear. That ought to stop the abuse.

Every post you make would be comedy gold if it wasn't so sad that you actually believe this crap. Muslim countries have had female leaders elected. How many have we had? And how long did Kim Campbell last as Prime Minister?

But hey. You go ahead and feel superior. Let's pretend women aren't beaten, raped, and abused in our culture. Let's pretend that they have no power anywhere in the Muslim world. It's so much easier thinking in stereotypes when you're too bloody obtuse to understand the complexity of the world.

Do you think then, that a woman would be better off in a country where the law was based on the religion of Islam, as opposed to being here in Canada where our laws are, supposedly, separate from religion?

Or would you say that I shouldn't even be thinking about such things, being a man, and all. Too paternalistic?

[Keepitsimple]

None of the women interviewed in the Star article suggested anything close to what you say.

Of course not - that's because all 38 of them wear the niqab. Interesting that they also all say that they are just fine with lifting their veil for a variety of reasons......which makes one wonder why this one Muslim woman has used a legal team to fight raising her veil when taking the Oath. Does it not seem counter to what the article is trying to convey?

“Probably the main takeaway of that is that all the people we talked to were very anxious to emphasize that they could be flexible. Clearly they do have boundaries . . . but what they wanted to emphasize is ‘yes, I could lift this, I could do that, that’s fine,’” said Lynda Clarke, the report’s author and a professor of religion at Concordia University in Montreal."

[Moonlight Graham]

The importance of the face in human communication is well established the scientific literature. The niqab is only imposed on women and not men which means it has no functional purpose its only purpose is to keep a woman hidden. I am aware that the claim is because of "modesty" but, unlike restrictions on clothing or hair, the niqab actually interferes with the wearers ability to communicate with others in public. The only reason for such a definition of modesty to evolve is because it was a tool that made it easier for men to control the public lives of women. It is simply irrational to suggest that a women would decide for themselves that handicapping their ability to communicate in public was a good thing. The fact that every country where the niqab is used widely has an abysmal record when it comes to women's rights is evidence that the niqab is ultimately a tool of repression even if some women today have been brainwashed into believing it is "for modesty".

While it certainly could have roots as as a tool for control by men over women, you still haven't provided any evidence for it other than your best guess. Interesting read: http://ccmw.com/women-in-niqab-speak-a-study-of-the-niqab-in-canada/

What about the women who choose on their own accord to don the veil for religious reasons, even against the wishes of their husband and/or family? Also, the Bible doesn't say Christians must go to church or go through with the sacrament of "confirmation" or pray on a rosary or making the sign of the cross, but it's still part of their religion for many. Something doesn't need to be in one's holy book to be a "religious requirement".

[TimG]

While it certainly could have roots as as a tool for control by men over women, you still haven't provided any evidence for it other than your best guess.

It is guess rooted in the science of human communication which is widely used to develop robots today. And that science says the face matters and choosing to hide your face is saying you do not wish to communicate with others in the society you live in. The discriminatory nature of the niqab (i.e. only women) is what makes it unequivocally a tool used to control women. If it was really about a "relationship with god" then men and women would wear it.

What about the women who choose on their own accord to don the veil for religious reasons, even against the wishes of their husband and/or family?

People can claim any number of wacky things for religious reasons but society has a right to decide what is acceptable and not acceptable. i.e. someone may claim that being nude is a requirement of their religion but society can say that is offensive to enough people that it is not acceptable. Someone else may claim that wearing a KKK hood is reflective of their religion but it would be deemed offensive as well.

Basically, you do not have a libertarian argument because there are plenty if personal "choices" which are restricted by society because they are offensive. The only question is whether the niqab is offensive enough to enough people to justify a restriction. My argument for it being offensive is that covering one's face prevents one from communicating effectively with people around you and that its roots are based on desire by men to control women and prevent them from having power in society by making women anonymous. I believe that is enough to justify a restriction at the citizenship ceremony but not enough to justify are restriction for people walking down the street.

Edited March 25, 2015 by TimG

[jacee]

People can claim any number of wacky things for religious reasons but society has a right to decide what is acceptable and not acceptable.

Within the law only. If it's not illegal it's nobody's business.

I believe that is enough to justify a restriction at the citizenship ceremony but not enough to justify are restriction for people walking down the street.

Well you lost that one.