.

[Hudson Jones]

I think it's important to see what the person at the centre of this issue thinks, instead of us assuming why she wears it and how she feels about:

Woman at centre of niqab debate says she’s educated, not oppressed

Zunera Ishaq wants Canada to know she is not an oppressed Muslim woman in a niqab, forced to stay at home and care for her children.

She grew up in a well-to-do, liberal neighbourhood in Multan, Pakistan, and later Lahore, where none of her family members wore hijabs, let alone niqabs. She used to think less of the women she saw who wore the face veil, assuming they were uneducated, until she took a college course with a professor who sported one.

“I started thinking, ‘If the educated ladies can wear it, I can go for it,’ ” she said. She read extensively on the subject and decided at 15 to wear it. While her father never voiced opposition to her decision, she got the impression he wasn’t a fan of it.

“My father never commanded us for anything, never directed us, never told us what to do, what not to do,” she said. While he was “hesitant” about his daughter’s choice because of the socially liberal circle they ran in, he encouraged Ms. Ishaq to consider what it would mean to wear the niqab before making her final decision.

When she decided to challenge the niqab ban in court and dug in her heels in the face of loud opposition from the federal government, her husband and other members of her family advised her to back down.

“I have tried to convince them with so many arguments,” she said. “ ‘It’s my legal right. See? The court has approved me two times. Don’t worry, I’m not doing anything illegal.’ ”

Ms. Ishaq understands there are times she must remove her veil for security reasons and has always complied when asked, whether it was when she was getting her photo taken for government ID or before boarding a plane. She is content to show her face to an official in private before taking her citizenship oath so she can be identified, but says she cannot understand why it’s necessary for her to remove her niqab during the public ceremony.

Globe and Mail

[Argus]

She grew up in a well-to-do, liberal neighbourhood in Multan, Pakistan, and later Lahore, where none of her family members wore hijabs, let alone niqabs. She used to think less of the women she saw who wore the face veil, assuming they were uneducated, until she took a college course with a professor who sported one.

“I started thinking, ‘If the educated ladies can wear it, I can go for it,’ ” she said. She read extensively on the subject and decided at 15 to wear it. While her father never voiced opposition to her decision, she got the impression he wasn’t a fan of it.

Thanks for confirming she's wearing it for purely cultural reasons, and it has nothing to do with religion.

[ReeferMadness]

Fine, but by law we don't allow it and the reason is history's patriarchal past.

I think that's historical revisionism.

The Edmunds Act also prohibited "bigamous" or "unlawful cohabitation" (a misdemeanor),[2] thus removing the need to prove that actual marriages had occurred.[1] It was passed in a wave of Victorian-era reaction to the perceived immorality of polygamy,[3] or at least polygyny, which was often compared to slavery.[

Women didn't get the right to vote in the US until 1920 so you can't tell me the law against bigamy was some backlash against patriarchy. It was enforced morality in the Victorian era.

No, I was talking about attitudes changing and laws changing toward egalitarianism.

You don't create egalitarianism by removing peoples rights to do things that don't cause harm.

[ReeferMadness]

Thanks for confirming she's wearing it for purely cultural reasons, and it has nothing to do with religion.

Which will make you feel much better about imposing your own attitudes and behaviors on her.

[Argus]

Which will make you feel much better about imposing your own attitudes and behaviors on her.

Naw, I think whatever the motivation it's equally stupid and misogynistic.

[BC_chick]

I think that's historical revisionism.

Women didn't get the right to vote in the US until 1920 so you can't tell me the law against bigamy was some backlash against patriarchy. It was enforced morality in the Victorian era.

You don't create egalitarianism by removing peoples rights to do things that don't cause harm.

I don't think my point came through I wasn't making a connection between women voting and bigamy laws. I was just citing two examples of attitudes that changed, both as we became more egalitarian.

Having said that, I'm taking (another) break from this thread. As a woman, the whole notion is offensive to me and I'm tired of arguing about something that is so black and white to me.

[bush_cheney2004]

Women didn't get the right to vote in the US until 1920....

Almost true....as women had the right to vote in many states and territories long before 1920. Having women voters was often a key political strategy in newer, western states. We now return to our regular Canadian programming.

[ReeferMadness]

I don't think my point came through I wasn't making a connection between women voting and bigamy laws. I was just citing two examples of attitudes that changed, both as we became more egalitarian.

My point is that the bigamy law had little or nothing to do with egalitarianism - it was about enforcing 19th century Victorian morality. The move to egalitarianism came later (which is why I cited the 1920 voting law).

Having said that, I'm taking (another) break from this thread. As a woman, the whole notion is offensive to me and I'm tired of arguing about something that is so black and white to me.

And there are women who tired of being told what they can and can't wear.

[cybercoma]

This decision sets a dangerous precedent that any custom that is introduced into Canada and is based on religious practices should be protected.

Did you read the court decisions? It really doesn't. The court even pointed out that the complainant happily uncovered and identified herself in private, even suggesting that this is required for citizenship. We know that the courts have to take it on a case-by-case basis as to whether or not a witness must unveil when giving testimony. These women cannot wear a niqab in their government issued photo ID either.

So your argument that this sets a precedent that we must accept any custom with the implication that it's all or nothing is completely wrong. We don't even accept this custom all or nothing. It has reasonable limits.

[cybercoma]

Fine, but by law we don't allow it and the reason is history's patriarchal past.

The reason is that our laws are based on particular European cultures that look down on polyamory. There's no reason consensual polyamorous relationships should be illegal. The debate would then be around legal benefits such as income splitting. It's not been challenged in the Supreme Court in any meaningful way, but I have to think that it wouldn't be a cut and dry case where they deny it. A legal challenge over polyamorous marriages does have a potential to pass, so long as the partners are full grown adults, capable of giving free consent, and are not relatives of anyone else in the relationship.

[Michael Hardner]

The reason is that our laws are based on particular European cultures that look down on polyamory.

So, as we progress and accept new lifestyles and move away from the suspicions of our religious past, we can accept polyamory too.

[cybercoma]

With the same sorts of reasonable limits that are on other marriages, I believe so. It will be many years away though. There's simply no political will nor any social outcry for it.

[The_Squid]

With the same sorts of reasonable limits that are on other marriages, I believe so. It will be many years away though. There's simply no political will nor any social outcry for it.

I think the government should get out of the marriage business altogether... there is no need for the state to declare what consenting adults can do... (what does this have to do with the niqab?)

Edited October 16, 2015 by The_Squid

[dre]

I know you guys think so little of Canadian citizenship it should basically be sold at corner stores in Islamabad, but our country has traditionally thought it important that newcomers demonstrate some level of commitment before becoming one of us.

It has nothing to do with thinking little of citizenship. Thats just a typical moronic strawman on your part. Immigrants have already been accepted and identified before the little ceremony where they swear allegiance to the queen of England. Its just a fun little celebration, theres even cake quite often!

[CITIZEN_2015]

Ottawa police are encouraging members of the Muslim community to report any abuse they encounter after three women wearing head scarves were verbally attacked by strangers, including one in a polling station.

I first heard it on CTV news but I couldn't believe it but then I found many links too. It was true

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/ottawa-police-ask-muslim-women-to-report-abuse-after-several-verbally-harassed.

Also couple of Muslim women were physically attacked by cowards in both Toronto and Montreal soon after the niqab issue was exploited by the conservative party and became a campaign policy.

If this is the type of Canada you wish to see where people are incited against each other based on race and religion and defenseless women attacked or abused or minorities hated or attacked then I suggest you vote for the conservative party of Canada on Monday.

Edited October 25, 2015 by CITIZEN_2015

[dialamah]

You Muslim haters out there, you can thank Mr. Harper and the conservative party for this with their divide and conquer policy to get the haters' votes.

Ottawa police are encouraging members of the Muslim community to report any abuse they encounter after three women wearing head scarves were verbally attacked by strangers, including one in a polling station.

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/ottawa-police-ask-muslim-women-to-report-abuse-after-several-verbally-harassed.

It may even make you kind of people happier to know that a couple of Muslim women were physically attacked by cowards in both Toronto and Montreal soon after the niqab issue was exploited by the conservative party and became a campaign policy.

If this is the type of Canada you wish to see where people are incited against each other based on race and religion and defenseless women attacked or abused or minorities hated or attacked then I suggest you vote for the conservative party of Canada on Monday.

These women were not even wearing a niqab, their faces were visible.

[CITIZEN_2015]

These women were not even wearing a niqab, their faces were visible.

Exactly. Being a Muslim was enough to be verbally abused. I could never guess this could ever happen in my Canada. I hope this is a nightmare which I can wake out of it soon. Look what they did to our Canada. Down with this conservative party.

Edited October 16, 2015 by CITIZEN_2015

[The_Squid]

I think it's terrible and I think Harper was race-baiting...

But I still think the niqab should be banned. Not everyone who agrees with Harper's point of view actually thinks that his race-baiting tactics during the election were a healthy way to discuss the issue.

[CITIZEN_2015]

I think it's terrible and I think Harper was race-baiting...

But I still think the niqab should be banned. Not everyone who agrees with Harper's point of view actually thinks that his race-baiting tactics during the election were a healthy way to discuss the issue.

Yes niqab should be banned especially for citizenship BUT this is not the issue. The issue I have is NOT because I support niqab but the manner in which the issue was exploited by Harper and his party to incite people and set Canadians against each other to build support based on hate of minorities (in this case Muslims) Ask yourself these questions - Who will be their target next?? Is this the country you wish to live where people are attacked (worst of all women are attacked)for their race or religion or looks or what they wear?? what group of people are next to be picked on and attacked? The Jews?, the Chinese?, Indians?, Eastern Europeans?, the Irish? Latin Europeans? And the list goes on.

Edited October 16, 2015 by CITIZEN_2015

[ReeferMadness]

I think it's terrible and I think Harper was race-baiting...

But I still think the niqab should be banned. Not everyone who agrees with Harper's point of view actually thinks that his race-baiting tactics during the election were a healthy way to discuss the issue.

Harper was race-baiting..... and I agree with him?

[dialamah]

I think it's terrible and I think Harper was race-baiting...

But I still think the niqab should be banned. Not everyone who agrees with Harper's point of view actually thinks that his race-baiting tactics during the election were a healthy way to discuss the issue.

What is a healthy way to discuss the issue that doesn't highlight the fact that this is a cultural behavior indulged in by a subset of a certain group?

In any case, these women were not wearing a niqab, yet enough 'bad feeling' has already been generated that these nuts felt they could express 'everybody's' feelings about Muslims.

[Smallc]

I think it's terrible and I think Harper was race-baiting...

I still see it as a culture war that Conservatives genuinely feel needs to be hashed out.

[CITIZEN_2015]

These are all interrelated. You cannot narrow down debates and discussions within the very narrowed title saying that anything outside but related to it must not be discussed. sure it is serious business when women are attacked (because of what is related to title, the niqab or feelings surrounding it) and we are just debating the pros and cons of the events.

[BC_chick]

I know. I'm spoofing.

[BC_chick]

My posts will likely get deleted again.