BC_chick Posted October 14, 2015 Report Posted October 14, 2015 But you haven't demonstrated why the Niqab needs to be restricted, beyond what really comes down to a mumbo jumbo argument about the specialness of an oath that would be compromised. Well, no. I actually think it's really dumb to ban niqab at a ceremony where someone has already proven their identity yet to allow it to go on in public. I'm for an all-out ban because it's a practice which limits a woman's ability to function and work and be independent. People often cite 'choice' as the argument, but then we go in circles because a choice made after years of religious dogma and brainwashing is not exactly a *free* choice. It's more of a Stockholm syndrome. Quote It's kind of the worst thing that any humans could be doing at this time in human history. Other than that, it's fine." Bill Nye on Alberta Oil Sands
BC_chick Posted October 14, 2015 Report Posted October 14, 2015 Which are unevenly enforced at best. But the law exists and it's a rebuttal to Reefermadness' post. Quote It's kind of the worst thing that any humans could be doing at this time in human history. Other than that, it's fine." Bill Nye on Alberta Oil Sands
ReeferMadness Posted October 14, 2015 Report Posted October 14, 2015 Well, I'd definitely rather see naked people than women who can't even drink a cup of coffee in public because she's been brainwashed to think that anything bad that a man does to her is her own fault for not covering up. But hey, who am I make that call? I'm just pointing out the limits of freedom since that's the biggest case for the niqab. I wouldn't be opposed to lifting the ban on public nudity. Flashers would have to get their kicks some other way. Of course freedoms have limits and nobody would debate those limits where harm can be reasonably demonstrated. My freedom to burn tires in my backyard impinges on my neighbor's right to breathe clean air. I haven't heard anyone here provide any evidence someone wearing a niqab harms anyone else. So, the question we're left with is what is the utility of laws that only serve to punish people who offend public sentiment? And I argue there isn't any. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
dre Posted October 14, 2015 Report Posted October 14, 2015 That's why my ability to reason is so stunted! Its also why my stunting abilities are so reasoned! Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
ToadBrother Posted October 14, 2015 Report Posted October 14, 2015 Well, no. I actually think it's really dumb to ban niqab at a ceremony where someone has already proven their identity yet to allow it to go on in public. I'm for an all-out ban because it's a practice which limits a woman's ability to function and work and be independent. People often cite 'choice' as the argument, but then we go in circles because a choice made after years of religious dogma and brainwashing is not exactly a *free* choice. It's more of a Stockholm syndrome. If that's what you are in favor of, then a Charter challenge is certain, and at that point I think you have to admit the arguments for a ban on the niqab are simply very weak, and likely to fail. In a free society, the limitations on what individuals can do are necessarily of narrow scope. I don't like the niqab, but neither do I want the state telling people what they can wear. If you don't like the niqab, the appropriate response here is to make your argument as to why you don't like it, and accept that someone else has no obligation to agree with you, or to abide by your views. Quote
ReeferMadness Posted October 14, 2015 Report Posted October 14, 2015 But the law exists and it's a rebuttal to Reefermadness' post. I have 2 responses to you rebuttal: Like the law against nudity, the law against public intoxication was implemented during a time more inclined to moral puritanism. It could be reasonably argued that intoxicated people could pose a danger to those around them due to tendencies of some intoxicated people to fight. Either way, I don't think it supports a the law against the niqab. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
Argus Posted October 14, 2015 Report Posted October 14, 2015 And we have the Tory campaign machine in a nutshell. Identify the demographic that you think can deliver you seats, and identify the demographic you think can't, and try to pit the two against each other. Oh quit your sanctimonious whining. All parties do the same damn thing. Why do you think Trudeau increased taxes on the 1% in order to play the generous benefactor for the 'middle class"? Why do you think he's going to immigrant groups and promising to increase the number of family class, especially elderly immigrants allowed into Canada? Why do you think Mulcair is running around promising to vote against TPP? Harper is doing nothing unique, nothing the other parties haven't been doing for decades. You people are simply unbalanced when it comes to him and conservatives. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
ToadBrother Posted October 14, 2015 Report Posted October 14, 2015 Oh quit your sanctimonious whining. All parties do the same damn thing. Why do you think Trudeau increased taxes on the 1% in order to play the generous benefactor for the 'middle class"? Why do you think he's going to immigrant groups and promising to increase the number of family class, especially elderly immigrants allowed into Canada? Why do you think Mulcair is running around promising to vote against TPP? Harper is doing nothing unique, nothing the other parties haven't been doing for decades. You people are simply unbalanced when it comes to him and conservatives. None of that is race/ethnic baiting. Sorry, Argus, even your posts confirm that when you talk about the niqab, you're talking about Islam. Quote
ReeferMadness Posted October 14, 2015 Report Posted October 14, 2015 Well, no. I actually think it's really dumb to ban niqab at a ceremony where someone has already proven their identity yet to allow it to go on in public. I'm for an all-out ban because it's a practice which limits a woman's ability to function and work and be independent. People often cite 'choice' as the argument, but then we go in circles because a choice made after years of religious dogma and brainwashing is not exactly a *free* choice. It's more of a Stockholm syndrome. Hmmm.... I call for more evidence - that the niqab causes Stockholm syndrome and that banning it will help. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
BC_chick Posted October 14, 2015 Report Posted October 14, 2015 If that's what you are in favor of, then a Charter challenge is certain, and at that point I think you have to admit the arguments for a ban on the niqab are simply very weak, and likely to fail. In a free society, the limitations on what individuals can do are necessarily of narrow scope. I don't like the niqab, but neither do I want the state telling people what they can wear. If you don't like the niqab, the appropriate response here is to make your argument as to why you don't like it, and accept that someone else has no obligation to agree with you, or to abide by your views. As I mentioned earlier, wearing the niqab is not a religious requirement so I don't see how it's any different than a pastafarians when it comes to the Charter of Rights. Quote It's kind of the worst thing that any humans could be doing at this time in human history. Other than that, it's fine." Bill Nye on Alberta Oil Sands
ReeferMadness Posted October 14, 2015 Report Posted October 14, 2015 As I mentioned earlier, wearing the niqab is not a religious requirement so I don't see how it's any different than a pastafarians when it comes to the Charter of Rights. Did Harper outlaw wearing colanders during the taking of oaths? Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
ToadBrother Posted October 14, 2015 Report Posted October 14, 2015 (edited) As I mentioned earlier, wearing the niqab is not a religious requirement so I don't see how it's any different than a pastafarians when it comes to the Charter of Rights. How can you say it's not a religious requirement? Just because it's not a religious requirement of most strains of Islam hardly means that that those who are members of strains of the religion that do view it as a requirement are not sincere. The Pastafarian stunt fails the most important test of religious belief; which is sincerity. Sincerity is the only thing a court can really test, because even within the same denominations of any given religion there can be a wide array of views. Orthodoxy ceased to be a test in liberal western societies around the time of John Locke. Edited October 14, 2015 by ToadBrother Quote
BC_chick Posted October 14, 2015 Report Posted October 14, 2015 Hmmm.... I call for more evidence - that the niqab causes Stockholm syndrome and that banning it will help. Stockholm syndrome is a term used for people who end up having sympathy for their abusers and believe that the abuse is for their own good. Your evidence, therefore, is the number of women who supposedly to wear a niqab out of 'choice'. Quote It's kind of the worst thing that any humans could be doing at this time in human history. Other than that, it's fine." Bill Nye on Alberta Oil Sands
ReeferMadness Posted October 14, 2015 Report Posted October 14, 2015 Stockholm syndrome is a term used for people who end up having sympathy for their abusers and believe that the abuse is for their own good. Your evidence, therefore, is the number of women who supposedly to wear a niqab out of 'choice'. Thank you - I know what Stockholm syndrome is. I was looking for evidence that the niqab is a sign of Stockholm syndrome and that removing the niqab will itself do some good. The women who have gone on record defending their right to wear the niqab didn't sound oppressed to me. You can postulate that's due to Stockholm syndrome but I think a little evidence is in order. And if you prove that the niqab is evidence of Stockholm Syndrome, then what? Do you think the women will no longer be oppressed when they remove their niqabs? If the women are oppressed, help the women. If you're right, they will take off their niqabs on their own when they are no longer oppressed. I don't see how banning the niqab will help anyone. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
dre Posted October 14, 2015 Report Posted October 14, 2015 I'm for an all-out ban because it's a practice which limits a woman's ability to function and work and be independent. People often cite 'choice' as the argument, but then we go in circles because a choice made after years of religious dogma and brainwashing is not exactly a *free* choice. And what type of penalty would you like to see imposed on women that wear this garment? We gonna arrest them? Fine them? Jail them? And where will this ban extend to? Public places? Private places? We gonna storm residences where reported niqab wearing occurs? What about other garments that can be potentially demeaning to women, or that their husbans sometimes bully them into wearing? We gonna start making a list? And do you REALLY trust the government of Canada to do be doing ANY of this? State control seems extreme to me, and problem wont be that effective. Why not start with some basic education and support for these women? Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
BC_chick Posted October 14, 2015 Report Posted October 14, 2015 How can you say it's not a religious requirement? Just because it's not a religious requirement of most strains of Islam hardly means that that those who are members of strains of the religion that do view it as a requirement are not sincere. The Pastafarian stunt fails the most important test of religious belief; which is sincerity. Sincerity is the only thing a court can really test, because even within the same denominations of any given religion there can be a wide array of views. Orthodoxy ceased to be a test in liberal western societies around the time of John Locke. Sincerity is not the issue, we are discussing the Charter and religious freedom when the niqab is NOT a religious requirement. It's a cultural one and not only that, but one which is practiced in the worst of the worst countries when it comes to women's rights (or lack thereof). It's a ridiculously patriarchal tradition which robs women of their identity and ability to function. Quote It's kind of the worst thing that any humans could be doing at this time in human history. Other than that, it's fine." Bill Nye on Alberta Oil Sands
BC_chick Posted October 14, 2015 Report Posted October 14, 2015 And what type of penalty would you like to see imposed on women that wear this garment? We gonna arrest them? Fine them? Jail them? And where will this ban extend to? Public places? Private places? We gonna storm residences where reported niqab wearing occurs? What about other garments that can be potentially demeaning to women, or that their husbans sometimes bully them into wearing? We gonna start making a list? And do you REALLY trust the government of Canada to do be doing ANY of this? State control seems extreme to me, and problem wont be that effective. Why not start with some basic education and support for these women? I don't know, it's a touchy issue I know. Off the top of my head, why not grandfather-in existing niqab wearers who came to this country while it's legal but ban it thereafter? You can have your niqab wearing license and show it to a female police if you want to be treated like a human sack, but at least we send a message that new Canadians must respect egalitarian laws of Canada whereby women are human beings who should work and function in public. Quote It's kind of the worst thing that any humans could be doing at this time in human history. Other than that, it's fine." Bill Nye on Alberta Oil Sands
ToadBrother Posted October 14, 2015 Report Posted October 14, 2015 Sincerity is not the issue, we are discussing the Charter and religious freedom when the niqab is NOT a religious requirement. It's a cultural one and not only that, but one which is practiced in the worst of the worst countries when it comes to women's rights (or lack thereof). It's a ridiculously patriarchal tradition which robs women of their identity and ability to function. You're oversimplifying to the point of absurdity. There are clearly a number of Muslims who feel it is a religious requirement. And really what is the difference between a cultural and religious requirement? The courts are never going to open that door. They're not going to ask "Is this the prevalent belief within this religious group?" They're going to keep doing what they have been doing, which is to ask "Is this a sincerely held religious belief." Your view on whether the niqab is a part of Islamic orthodoxy is irrelevant, as is, in fact, the views of a majority of Muslims on whether the niqab is a part of Islamic orthodoxy. We have not required religious orthodoxy as any kind of test in nearly two hundred years. You're arguing as if there is some sort of Central Religious Authority that decides what any particular religion or sect views as a general or orthodox belief, but there isn't, nor will there ever be. If someone genuinely believes that wearing the niqab is a matter of faith, it becomes completely irrelevant what anyone else, within their religion or outside of it thinks. Quote
ToadBrother Posted October 14, 2015 Report Posted October 14, 2015 I don't know, it's a touchy issue I know. Off the top of my head, why not grandfather-in existing niqab wearers who came to this country while it's legal but ban it thereafter? You can have your niqab wearing license and show it to a female police if you want to be treated like a human sack, but at least we send a message that new Canadians must respect egalitarian laws of Canada whereby women are human beings who should work and function in public. That's almost worse than an outright ban. A "niqab license"? Seriously? Quote
BC_chick Posted October 14, 2015 Report Posted October 14, 2015 (edited) That's almost worse than an outright ban. A "niqab license"? Seriously? No, I'd prefer an outright ban, but I was asked how to do this in a fair manner and I think grandfathering in existing niqab wearers is the way to go since they chose this country based on that pretext. How you want to implement that is your choice. License could be an option. How else do you prove you were here before? ETA - I thought by my tone ("license to wear your sack") it was obvious that I was ridiculing the whole notion that we even have to have this discussion. Edited October 14, 2015 by BC_chick Quote It's kind of the worst thing that any humans could be doing at this time in human history. Other than that, it's fine." Bill Nye on Alberta Oil Sands
ReeferMadness Posted October 14, 2015 Report Posted October 14, 2015 ... which robs women of their identity and ability to function. You're making a lot of statements that aren't backed up by anything other than your own convictions. I don't doubt your sincerity but that's not a good basis for enacting legislation. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
ReeferMadness Posted October 14, 2015 Report Posted October 14, 2015 No, I'd prefer an outright ban, but I was asked how to do this in a fair manner and I think grandfathering in existing niqab wearers is the way to go since they chose this country based on that pretext. How you want to implement that is your choice. License could be an option. How else do you prove you were here before? What about we look for evidence that someone is actually being oppressed and then deal with the oppression? Wearing sunglasses on a cloudy day could be a sign that a woman is being abused - but it would be silly to outlaw sunglasses. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
ToadBrother Posted October 14, 2015 Report Posted October 14, 2015 No, I'd prefer an outright ban, but I was asked how to do this in a fair manner and I think grandfathering in existing niqab wearers is the way to go since they chose this country based on that pretext. How you want to implement that is your choice. License could be an option. How else do you prove you were here before? I don't want it implemented at all. I think arresting people for wearing a face veil, or heck, even fining them, flies in the face of every notion of individual liberty that I hold dear. Frankly, all your solutions are worse than the disease. In a free society, you try to reason with people, to convince them to your point of view, you don't just go around demanding Parliament pass laws forcing your views on other people. Quote
dre Posted October 14, 2015 Report Posted October 14, 2015 As I mentioned earlier, wearing the niqab is not a religious requirement so I don't see how it's any different than a pastafarians when it comes to the Charter of Rights. Wearing a cross on a chain isnt a religious requirement either nor is it mandated by the bible. But its CAN be a religious expression, depending on who wears it and why. The charter does not require the kind of litmus test you are attempting to apply here. Religious expression does not have to be expression that is required by a certain religion. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
BC_chick Posted October 14, 2015 Report Posted October 14, 2015 You're making a lot of statements that aren't backed up by anything other than your own convictions. I don't doubt your sincerity but that's not a good basis for enacting legislation. Because so many doors are wide open for niqab-wearing women. No, of course it's not oppressive. Gah, sorry for my tone, RM, I just can't believe how many people actually defend such a heinous misogynist practice. Quote It's kind of the worst thing that any humans could be doing at this time in human history. Other than that, it's fine." Bill Nye on Alberta Oil Sands
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.