.

[cybercoma]

it's not a religious issue because Islam does not require it.

You keep saying it's not a religious issue, but you don't get to define someone else's religion for them. Just as there are myriad observances in various sects of Christianity, the same goes for Islam. Even if you were from a different sect of Islam that didn't believe in the hijab, niqab, or burqa, it's not for you to tell someone else how they must observe their religion, especially when it has literally no bearing on you. If someone believes this is what God wants for them and it doesn't affect anyone else and isn't criminal, then that's their business. You don't get to tell someone who sees it as an observance of their faith that it has nothing to do with their faith. Just as they don't get to tell Christians how to observe their faith.

You know, Pentecostal women are not allowed to cut their hair, must keep their hair covered at all times, and have to wear very long skirts. Mennonites and other Anabaptists have a whole ton of observances. Orthodox Jews have a bunch of sexist requirements and force men to hide their faces behind giant unshaven beards. But nobody is telling those people how to live and how to observe their faiths. Nobody says, "it's not a requirement to have a beard to be Jewish," or "it's not a requirement to wear skirts down to your ankles to be a Christian." Nobody says those things because we recognize that people have the freedom to practice their religions as they please. That Canada respects people faiths and cultures.

So the question is, why do we care about Muslims? If it's not obvious that they're today's folk devil, then I really don't know what to tell you. Generations ago, Anglo Saxons had all kinds of things to say about Catholics. They were a threat to the state because the Pope was their leader; therefore, Catholics were inherently treasonous and a danger to society. They believed they were eating the body and blood of Christ, so Catholics must be cannibals. There was all kinds of hysteria around them and how they were ruining WASP society. Our treatment of Muslims today is exactly how we've treated "outsiders" for all of our history. A few generations from now they'll be looking back at this and saying to themselves, "what the hell was wrong with us back then? Why weren't they addressing the real problems? Were they too stupid examine things in detail that they had to just create a fictional adversary?"

[cybercoma]

Ironically, every woman who wears the niqab and every male she bows to also believes this.

Well, okay, they don't want to keep gays in the closet so much as under the ground.

It's good you have me on ignore, so you don't have to address how absolutely pathetic your comments are. Let's not pretend that Christians are any better when gays and trans people are beaten and killed over here for who they are. If Christians could have their regressive views codified into law, we would be stoning gays to death here too. Thankfully, we're a secular society. So neither Christians nor Muslims get their faith codified into law.

[Argus]

I believe that a large part of one's position depends on your attitude to immigration, refugees and superiority of Western values. Bigots, xenophobics and racists will have a knee jerk reaction based on the fact that a niqab is different and "not like us" so it should not be allowed.

While on the other side, misogynists, wife beaters, rapists and those who believe in slavery and genocide will support this as the expression of all their hopes and dreams about how society should treat the women they hate so much.

[BC_chick]

Yes, well, and a lot of people who don't like Muslims don't like them because so many embrace the very notions you are attacking, along with many other such retrograde, socially backward values.

People who like to think all 1.5 Muslims in the world are alike, sure.

[Evening Star]

Sure but both are abusive, needless and completely misogynistic superstitions.

Cybercoma is making my argument much more articulately than I would have but, just to add to what he is saying, even if the above is true, I don't see why a particular article of clothing should be banned. I would not even support the banning of Nazi paraphernalia.

What about high-heeled shoes? Only women wear these (usually), generally because they are considered attractive in our culture, which many feminists argue is a patriarchal one. Unlike the niqab, they can actually cause physical pain and injury in the long term. Should they be banned?

[BC_chick]

So the question is, why do we care about Muslims? If it's not obvious that they're today's folk devil, then I really don't know what to tell you. Generations ago, Anglo Saxons had all kinds of things to say about Catholics. They were a threat to the state because the Pope was their leader; therefore, Catholics were inherently treasonous and a danger to society. They believed they were eating the body and blood of Christ, so Catholics must be cannibals. There was all kinds of hysteria around them and how they were ruining WASP society. Our treatment of Muslims today is exactly how we've treated "outsiders" for all of our history. A few generations from now they'll be looking back at this and saying to themselves, "what the hell was wrong with us back then? Why weren't they addressing the real problems? Were they too stupid examine things in detail that they had to just create a fictional adversary?"

We don't. We also don't allow polygamy as practiced by some sects of Christianity. It's just as 'victimless' as wearing a sack and the women are willing participants. So why outlaw one and allow the other?

[BC_chick]

Cybercoma is making my argument much more articulately than I would have but, just to add to what he is saying, even if the above is true, I don't see why a particular article of clothing should be banned. I would not even support the banning of Nazi paraphernalia.

What about high-heeled shoes? Only women wear these (usually), generally because they are considered attractive in our culture, which many feminists argue is a patriarchal one. Unlike the niqab, they can actually cause physical pain and injury in the long term. Should they be banned?

There is no pseudo religious reason women wear high heels and in no culture in the world are women forced to wear high heels so while you bring up a great point, it's a bit of a different situation.

[Evening Star]

We don't. We also don't allow polygamy as practiced by some sects of Christianity. It's just as 'victimless' as wearing a sack and the women are willing participants. So why outlaw one and allow the other?

I would be open to considering the liberalization of laws about polygamy, actually. However, the legal recognition of a marriage has far-reaching consequences, affecting taxes, benefits, insurance, etc. I don't think an article of clothing is comparable.

[Evening Star]

There is no pseudo religious reason women wear high heels and in no culture in the world are women forced to wear high heels so while you bring up a great point, it's a bit of a different situation.

So it's OK to ban articles of clothing only when they have some connection to religion and cultural pressure? That matters more than whether they can cause bodily harm? I don't get that at all.

[cybercoma]

We already ban harmful clothing. Halloween costumes, for example, must be flame retardant. We also don't allow dyes and chemicals in clothing that can cause serious illness or harm. These regulations exist for people's health and safety. Banning the niqab at a citizenship ceremony does not improve the health and safety of the participant. These arguments just get more and more ridiculous.

[Bryan]

Link?

Is your Google broken?

[Black Dog]

Is your Google broken?

Is your link to the forum rules and guidelines broken?

[ToadBrother]

There is no pseudo religious reason women wear high heels and in no culture in the world are women forced to wear high heels so while you bring up a great point, it's a bit of a different situation.

In a free society, I'm not precisely sure why you think the state should be making such determinations to begin with.

Perhaps you can explain your version of freedom that decides what people can wear, and what context in which it is permissible.

[BC_chick]

In a free society, I'm not precisely sure why you think the state should be making such determinations to begin with.

Perhaps you can explain your version of freedom that decides what people can wear, and what context in which it is permissible.

It's oppressive to women. Freedom to oppress is not a freedom I agree with.

So it's OK to ban articles of clothing only when they have some connection to religion and cultural pressure? That matters more than whether they can cause bodily harm? I don't get that at all.

High heels and tight jeans for men come with some health risks (though not always), but there is no misogynistic taboo behind either of them that says women should not be seen! I can't believe how many people are defending this.

We already ban harmful clothing. Halloween costumes, for example, must be flame retardant. We also don't allow dyes and chemicals in clothing that can cause serious illness or harm. These regulations exist for people's health and safety. Banning the niqab at a citizenship ceremony does not improve the health and safety of the participant. These arguments just get more and more ridiculous.

Again, I agree that it's ridiculous to ban this at ceremonies, they need to be banned all together. And they will, as much as many will attempt to allow it to go on in the name of cultural sensitivity.

[ToadBrother]

It's oppressive to women. Freedom to oppress is not a freedom I agree with.

Whether you agree with it or not seems irrelevant. If a woman chooses to wear clothes I believe oppress her is her business, not mine. In a free society, freedom means others have to tolerate your personal choices, even if they find them profoundly wrong. Providing no one else is being harmed, I fail to see why you even think this is your business.

[Argus]

People who like to think all 1.5 Muslims in the world are alike, sure.

People who read the surveys of Muslim opinions and attitudes on Sharia, on ISIS, on Al Quaeda, yes.

[BC_chick]

Whether you agree with it or not seems irrelevant. If a woman chooses to wear clothes I believe oppress her is her business, not mine. In a free society, freedom means others have to tolerate your personal choices, even if they find them profoundly wrong. Providing no one else is being harmed, I fail to see why you even think this is your business.

So in a 'free society' why do we now allow polygamy when it's none of anyone's business and the women are willing participants?

[Bryan]

Is your link to the forum rules and guidelines broken?

No, but apparently the message system that was supposed to announce that you're the new admin of this site is.

[Black Dog]

So in a 'free society' why do we now allow polygamy when it's none of anyone's business and the women are willing participants?

Good question. Maybe we should.

[Black Dog]

No, but apparently the message system that was supposed to announce that you're the new admin of this site is.

Yeah, I guess they should look into that, but in the meantime: link?

[justme4567]

u ladies still arguing semantics and b.s?.....gezzzz simple we dont and wont support part of society walking about with their faces covered....worse if it legal for 1 then it is legal for all. i was hopin all the chattering meant the stay happened, anybody got any info on that? i hate reading papers too

[Michael Hardner]

Yes, by the by: asking for a link or cite is a valid request.

[Big Guy]

It's oppressive to women. Freedom to oppress is not a freedom I agree with.

Symbol - "a thing that represents or stands for something else, especially a material object representing something abstract."

Respectfully, if you see the niqab as a symbol of oppression of women and expect others to respect your view, why do not respect the right of others to view the niqab as a symbol of freedom of expression for women?

Do you believe that a symbol is an abstract representation?

Edited September 25, 2015 by Big Guy

[Peter F]

So in a 'free society' why do we now allow polygamy when it's none of anyone's business and the women are willing participants?

What we do not legally recognize polygamy with marriage certificates. We do allow any number of women to go live with a man if they so choose, to be treated as wives, but the state will only recognize one of the women as married to the man.

I am quite sure that this came about due to Christian heritage. There is really no reason for polygamy to not be recognized - except for the fact that the Common Law would have a hell of a time coming to terms with the consequences of multiple co-existing marriages.

Also, the polygamy laws are for the odd case where a man legally marries more than one woman but the women remain in ignorance

of the other marriages and so enter into a fraudulent marriage. I believe that is what the polygamy laws are directed against.

Edited September 26, 2015 by Peter F

[Argus]

Symbol - "a thing that represents or stands for something else, especially a material object representing something abstract."

Respectfully, if you see the niqab as a symbol of oppression of women and expect others to respect your view, why do not respect the right of others to view the niqab as a symbol of freedom of expression for women?

The belief that one has to accept the definitions any particular culture puts on a thing, or accept any value of their culture without judgement, is a sign of both moral and intellectual bankruptcy.

That women are stigmatized and oppressed by many elements of the fundamentalist interpretation of Islam is not one which can be honestly or intelligently contradicted.