.

[ToadBrother]

Reasonable? Like our euthanization laws? Or public nudity laws? Or forcing people to wear seatbelts?

Face it, we have all kinds of unreasonable laws but go ahead and make this personal about me if you can't defend your position when I point that out.

I'm not clear. Where is it I got personal?

[ReeferMadness]

We're not anarchists, we have many laws that interfere with personal freedoms. Several were mentioned on this thread and whether or not you personally agree with them, the fact remains that freedom does have limits.

I understand what seat belt laws are attempting to accomplish and I understand that there are good statistics that demonstrate their efficacy.

Can you say the same for a ban on the niqab?

[BC_chick]

I'm not clear. Where is it I got personal?

"quit viewing the State as your hammer to pound anyone who doesn't buy into your particular views into the ground."

So again, we're not anarchists. You said the state should not tell others what's good for them, yet, that's clearly what we often do.

I understand what seat belt laws are attempting to accomplish and I understand that there are good statistics that demonstrate their efficacy.

Can you say the same for a ban on the niqab?

Yes. Like how differently that woman's job interview might go if she wasn't covering her face in a cloth.

[ToadBrother]

"quit viewing the State as your hammer to pound anyone who doesn't buy into your particular views into the ground."

So again, we're not anarchists. You said the state should not tell others what's good for them, yet, that's clearly what we often do.

I still can't get at how you feel that was a personal attack. It was an assessment of your motives.

And how is having the cops arrest women in niqabs the conduct of an orderly free society?

[dialamah]

And how is having the cops arrest women in niqabs the conduct of an orderly free society?

What I would like to know is how a woman, banned from wearing a niqab in public, is even going to get to a job interview or to walk down the street, or have coffee on a park bench. MLW member BC_Chick has had no answer to that, so far.

[jazzer]

My God, are we still talking about this?? Look, I don't think most of us are comfortable with the niqab BUT we are a multicutural nation. We are made richer by other's customs and practices. We should be embracing these people and welcoming them instead of denying their right of expression.

Edited October 15, 2015 by jazzer

[BC_chick]

What I would like to know is how a woman, banned from wearing a niqab in public, is even going to get to a job interview or to walk down the street, or have coffee on a park bench. MLW member BC_Chick has had no answer to that, so far.

I need to explain how covering your face is a hindrance in having coffee on a park bench? Or why it would be off putting to many employers?

The first is because there is a cloth covering your face so you can't get the coffee to your mouth and the second is because the vast majority of Canadians are uncomfortable with niqabs and it therefore follows that employers would not want to have such an employee representing their company.

Edited October 15, 2015 by BC_chick

[ReeferMadness]

Yes. Like how differently that woman's job interview might go if she wasn't covering her face in a cloth.

So, you want to pass a law to restrict her rights because our society is intolerant?

If I dyed my hair purple and put a ring through my nose, it would likely impair my chances at a job interview. If I didn't bathe for a week, I know it would. How many things would you like to outlaw?

[BC_chick]

So, you want to pass a law to restrict her rights because our society is intolerant?

If I dyed my hair purple and put a ring through my nose, it would likely impair my chances at a job interview. If I didn't bathe for a week, I know it would. How many things would you like to outlaw?

I answered this when toadbrother brought up tattoos and piercings.

[dialamah]

I need to explain how covering your face is a hindrance in having coffee on a park bench? Or why it would be off putting to many employers?

The first is because there is a cloth covering your face so you can't get the coffee to your mouth and the second is because the vast majority of Canadians are uncomfortable with niqabs and it therefore follows that employers would not want to have such an employee representing their company.

No, you haven't explained how a niqab-wearing woman (whether by choice or oppression) is going to be able to even have a job interview or a coffee on a park bench if public niqab-wearing is banned.

Niqab-wearing women do get jobs; in France, I read of a woman who had a job but had to quit when the niqab was banned in public. She turned to making candies in her home.

Edited October 15, 2015 by dialamah

[ReeferMadness]

My God, are we still talking about this?? Look, I don't think most of us are comfortable with the niqab BUT we are a multicutural nation. We are made richer by other's customs and practices. We should be embracing these people and welcoming them instead of denying their right of expression.

You're right. We've beat this to death and the debate is going in circles. And there are 2 threads.

Harper has stopped talking about it - meaning that it has become nonproductive for even the Conservatives. So, time to give it up.

[dialamah]

You're right. We've beat this to death and the debate is going in circles. And there are 2 threads.

Harper has stopped talking about it - meaning that it has become nonproductive for even the Conservatives. So, time to give it up.

I know, I keep letting myself getting drawn back into it. I shall endeavor to sit on my hands. Although I still hope I get an answer to how these women's freedom would be improved if they were confined to their homes by a public ban on niqabs.

[ReeferMadness]

I know, I keep letting myself getting drawn back into it. I shall endeavor to sit on my hands. Although I still hope I get an answer to how these women's freedom would be improved if they were confined to their homes by a public ban on niqabs.

Good luck with that.

[BC_chick]

No, you haven't explained how a niqab-wearing woman (whether by choice or oppression) is going to be able to even have a job interview or a coffee on a park bench if public niqab-wearing is banned.

Niqab-wearing women do get jobs; in France, I read of a woman who had a job but had to quit when the niqab was banned in public. She turned to making candies in her home.

I didn't say they didn't ever get jobs I said it very much limits their abilities to do so.

Are you familiar with the number of people in Canada who are against niqabs? Something like 80% I believe? Well, those are same number of people who would potentially be interviewing a woman wearing niqab. Consider that when you say it would not make any difference.

In a perfect world, it shouldn't.... but we're talking about the imperfect world called earth.

[dialamah]

I didn't say they didn't ever get jobs I said it very much limits their abilities to do so.

Are you familiar with the number of people in Canada who are against niqabs? Something like 80% I believe? Well, those are same number of people who would potentially be interviewing a woman wearing niqab. Consider that when you say it would not make any difference.

In a perfect world, it shouldn't.... but we're talking about the imperfect world called earth.

Still haven't answered the question: If a niqab-wearing woman is confined to her house because of a public ban on niqabs, how is she going to get a job? How is she going to enjoy parks, park benches, or coffee in public? How exactly is this going to increase her freedom? Especially if wearing a niqab isn't her choice, but is being forced on her?

[TimG]

Does testifying in court require a niqab to be removed?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/top-court-rules-judges-may-order-witnesses-to-remove-niqab-1.1238057

In a split Supreme Court of Canada decision released Thursday, the seven judges largely upheld a lower court's ruling that the woman, known only as N.S. to protect her identity under a court-ordered publication ban, may have to remove her niqab.

...

"The Supreme Court has said demeanor matters." Chapman said she was disappointed that the top court relied on tradition, in going by the common law practice that faces are seen in a courtroom.

[TimG]

And will somebody be cross-examining people during the oath to determine if they're telling the truth?

Cross examination is not the relevant criteria. Common law holds that faces are shown during legal proceedings. If the oath is a mandatory part of the citizenship process then that implies has legal significance and should be treated as such. If it has no legal significance then it should be optional.

BTW: do you believe that employers should be entitled to ask someone to remove a mask for job interview? If not why not? Seems to me that assessing credibility is one of the most important objectives of a job interview and masks interfere with that process.

Edited October 15, 2015 by TimG

[BC_chick]

Still haven't answered the question: If a niqab-wearing woman is confined to her house because of a public ban on niqabs, how is she going to get a job? How is she going to enjoy parks, park benches, or coffee in public? How exactly is this going to increase her freedom? Especially if wearing a niqab isn't her choice, but is being forced on her?

You were on the thread when I addressed this, how is this coming up again?

As I said earlier, it's unfair to the women who came here when those laws existed to take them off and I proposed a solution of grandfathering in existing citizens but stipulating to new Canadians that it's no longer tolerated.

Phase them out.

[dialamah]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/top-court-rules-judges-may-order-witnesses-to-remove-niqab-1.1238057

An interesting case. It would seem that at this time, there is some leeway about whether or not she would have to remove her niqab.

Susan Chapman, lawyer for LEAF, the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund, reads the case differently. "The starting proposition here is that she's entitled to wear it [the niqab] until somebody demonstrates, namely the accused, that it will impact adversely on his fair trial rights ...The onus I see is on the accused."

[dialamah]

You were on the thread when I addressed this, how is this coming up again?

As I said earlier, it's unfair to the women who came here when those laws existed to take them off and I proposed a solution of grandfathering in existing citizens but stipulating to new Canadians that it's no longer tolerated.

Phase them out.

Sorry I missed your previous post on this, thanks for explaining it again.

Really, I am going to have to sit on my hands.

[On Guard for Thee]

Cross examination is not the relevant criteria. Common law holds that faces are shown during legal proceedings. If the oath is a mandatory part of the citizenship process then that implies has legal significance and should be treated as such. If it has no legal significance then it should be optional.

You're still trying to conflate it with a courtroom legal proceeding, which is faulty. Taking the oath is required but has nothing to do with showing ones face, so long as id'ing has been completed, without which one could not proceed to the oath ceremony.

[BC_chick]

Sorry I missed your previous post on this, thanks for explaining it again.

Really, I am going to have to sit on my hands.

Why? Because it's a possible way to respect existing Canadians and the wishes of the vast majority at the same time?

Oh the horror!

[dialamah]

Why? Because it's a possible way to respect existing Canadians and the wishes of the vast majority at the same time?

Oh the horror!

No, because the discussion is just going 'round in circles --- I had one last question, you answered, I thanked you, and I'm going to quit discussing it - "sit on my hands". No criticism of your solution was intended, merely my withdrawal from the thread.

[ToadBrother]

Why? Because it's a possible way to respect existing Canadians and the wishes of the vast majority at the same time?

Oh the horror!

Let's imagine some religious group deciding, for reasons wholly unconnected to the connotations of the Middle Eastern niqab, deciding on face coverings. How would you assess this situation? Would you insist that your blanket ban apply in all cases? Would it be based on the general design of the niqab versus some other face covering?

Saying "I want the niqab banned" seems simple, but opens up all sorts of issues. Worst of all, you've attempted to justify the ban in part by claiming that you have some knowledge of official Islamic orthodoxy, and are thus in a position to judge heterodox positions.

it's a slippery slope, exactly the kind of dull legislative or regulatory instrument that the courts tend to stomp on. I can see, to some extent, an appeal to public decency, though I think that's a pretty weak argument as well. At least it has the benefit of having some grounding in legal custom. But beyond that it simply becomes your belief as to its wrongness, not just as it reflects your views of feminism, but somehow how you feel Islam should be conudcted.

At any rate, I think we can all agree that despite current nominal disdain for the niqab, that it's unlikely we will even see a ban in the Federal public service, and no one is seriously arguing for a total ban. That wasn't even considered in Quebec. I would imagine the next government, Tory or otherwise, is going to be interested in picking fights with the Supreme Court based on shaky public decency rationales and assertions of Islamic orthodoxy versus cultural traditions. The niqab issue will die away, a small wedge issue writ large.

[TimG]

Saying "I want the niqab banned" seems simple, but opens up all sorts of issues.

FWIW, I do not support outright bans but it should be ok to require removal in any situation where communication is important. i.e. a workplace where the job requires collaboration with other team members or with customers.