dialamah Posted October 14, 2015 Report Posted October 14, 2015 (edited) 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. If a woman wears a niqab in public either at the behest of her family/husband or because she views it as an important part of her faith, and the government bans it, what do you think will happen? Do you think she'll be leaving the house to have a job? Do you think making it illegal for her to appear in public is going to create more independence for her? 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. Inasmuch as I believe that any religion 'brainwashes' people, the actual definition of 'brainwashing' is to make someone adopt radically different beliefs through systematic and sometimes forceful indoctrination. I fail to see how someone, at the age of 15 or 29, voluntarily converts to Islam and thereafter begins wearing the veil has been 'brainwashed' in the strict sense of the word. Especially when a sizable number of these women are doing so against their family's wishes. This is not to say that some women who wear the niqab or burka haven't been indoctrinated by their family and culture, but no more so than a lifelong Catholic or Jewish person. Abuse can happen in any family of any religion, or even in families of no religion. A niqab-wearing woman may come from an abusive family, but it's also possible that she does not. Edited October 14, 2015 by dialamah Quote
BC_chick Posted October 14, 2015 Report Posted October 14, 2015 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. For sure. I demand Parliament passes laws where women's identities are not robbed of them due to misogynist beliefs. 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
dialamah Posted October 14, 2015 Report Posted October 14, 2015 (edited) Your evidence, therefore, is the number of women who supposedly to wear a niqab out of 'choice'. Here is information on women who choose to wear the niqab: https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/sites/default/files/behind-veil-20150401.pdf http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/10/11/quebec-niqab-canada_n_8277626.html http://ccmw.com/women-in-niqab-speak-a-study-of-the-niqab-in-canada/ And one from a woman who was forced to wear a niqab: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10323303/I-was-forced-to-wear-the-veil-and-I-wish-no-other-woman-had-to-suffer-it.html Edited October 14, 2015 by dialamah Quote
ReeferMadness Posted October 14, 2015 Report Posted October 14, 2015 (edited) 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. I'm not defending anything. I'm saying that plenty of bad laws have been passed by well-meaning people. If a guy is oppressing his wife and she wears a niqab and it's outlawed, she takes off the niqab. Is she no longer oppressed? Of course she is. At best, you've masked the problem (sorry for the pun). Edited October 14, 2015 by ReeferMadness 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
Peter F Posted October 14, 2015 Report Posted October 14, 2015 (edited) It is not a 'magical property' - a visible face is a basic element of human communication. Without a visible face communication is impaired. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/oath-to-the-queen-upheld-by-ontario-court-of-appeal-1.2735431 The court is also said this about the oath: So the court has already ruled that charter rights are not a blanket exemption to the rules of tradition. True, the ontario court ruled that charter rights are not a blanket exemption to the rules of tradition. However, they did not say that rules of tradition are blanket exemptions to charter rights. The case you reference was about certain individuals wanting to not make an oath to the queen. "...But to obtain a commitment to our form of government from those writing to become Canadian citizens. If there is a violation of the appellants' rights to freedom of expression, it is justified." The whole point of the oath is to obtain the commitment. Thus the necessity of actually swearing the oath to the Queen as an actual commitment to our form of government. IE: no revolutions or treason allowed. This woman wearing the niquab did just that: swore an oath. signed the document that swears the oath. She removed her get-up to be properly identified by an official of the court. She proved that she is who she says she is. She did it in compliance with the requirements of decorum too. She wasn't laughing or sneering or rolling her eyes (but might have been crossing her fingers)... and some official or other stood near enough to actually hear her utter the oath. To claim that the oath is invalid because we didn't see her lips move (which is/was the precise requirement of the Harper Government policy) is ridiculous. Edited October 14, 2015 by Peter F Quote A bayonet is a tool with a worker at both ends
ToadBrother Posted October 14, 2015 Report Posted October 14, 2015 Because so many doors are wide open for niqab-wearing women. No, of course it's not oppressive. Lots of doors are closed to people with bright orange hair or tattooed faces. Do you wish to ban certain colors of hair dye or facial tattoos? Gah, sorry for my tone, RM, I just can't believe how many people actually defend such a heinous misogynist practice. If that's what you think we're doing, then you've invoked a strawman of what we are saying. I'm not defending the niqab. I find it barbaric. Heck, I find the way woman dress in a number of extreme Ultra-Orthodox Jewish sects barbaric. I find putting hundreds of metal studs in your face and tattooing snakes on your face and arms and having devil horns surgically implanted beyond barbaric. While I find the niqab awful, I simply cannot justify its banning, even as a matter of public decency. I cannot see it as being as harmful as someone exposing their genitals on the street. I'm sorry, I just don't agree with you, and I am very certain that if this ever ended up in the Courts because Parliament decided to enact a ban, it would be rejected. The only way it could stand is if the Not Withstanding Clause were invoked, and since that requires the legislation be re-passed every five years, even that amounts to kicking it down the road. Quote
ToadBrother Posted October 14, 2015 Report Posted October 14, 2015 For sure. I demand Parliament passes laws where women's identities are not robbed of them due to misogynist beliefs. But that's not what you're doing. You're demanding Parliament pass laws that enforce what you view as right. Quote
BC_chick Posted October 14, 2015 Report Posted October 14, 2015 Lots of doors are closed to people with bright orange hair or tattooed faces. Do you wish to ban certain colors of hair dye or facial tattoos? If that's what you think we're doing, then you've invoked a strawman of what we are saying. I'm not defending the niqab. I find it barbaric. Heck, I find the way woman dress in a number of extreme Ultra-Orthodox Jewish sects barbaric. I find putting hundreds of metal studs in your face and tattooing snakes on your face and arms and having devil horns surgically implanted beyond barbaric. While I find the niqab awful, I simply cannot justify its banning, even as a matter of public decency. I cannot see it as being as harmful as someone exposing their genitals on the street. I'm sorry, I just don't agree with you, and I am very certain that if this ever ended up in the Courts because Parliament decided to enact a ban, it would be rejected. The only way it could stand is if the Not Withstanding Clause were invoked, and since that requires the legislation be re-passed every five years, even that amounts to kicking it down the road. If any of the things you mention had their roots in a tradition in which women were robbed of their identity and oppressed, then I'd be inclined to agree. 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 If any of the things you mention had their roots in a tradition in which women were robbed of their identity and oppressed, then I'd be inclined to agree. Lots of things have their root in women being robbed of identity. My wife took my last name, a tradition that was largely based on women's status as chattel whose ownership was transferred from father to husband. Are you saying that should be outlawed, even where a woman does it of her own free will? Quote
eyeball Posted October 14, 2015 Report Posted October 14, 2015 A Canadian woman in a niqab is going to have a heck of a time making friends, getting a job, driving, or sitting on a park bench to enjoy her lunch. And that is what will ultimately cause them to adopt new customs. The same natural process that all immigrants go through. There is no need to force it except for short term political..."gain". Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
eyeball Posted October 14, 2015 Report Posted October 14, 2015 She's been brainwashed. noun brain·wash·ing \ˈbrān-ˌwȯ-shiŋ, -ˌwä-\ Definition of BRAINWASHING So how come the brain washers along with the misogynists get such a free pass? Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
eyeball Posted October 14, 2015 Report Posted October 14, 2015 Christianity is pretty misogynistic, and depending on the sect, you can find some pretty subjugated women. You are less aware of them because they don't wear a niqab. Is this the reason the misogynists get their free pass? Going after misogyny means...going after misogynists. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Argus Posted October 14, 2015 Report Posted October 14, 2015 Why can't a public oath be taken with a face covering? Is there some sort of magic in a public oath that requires the mouth be visible? I did mention earlier, a guy who had to retake the oath because one of the observers said he didn't see his lips move... 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 I did mention earlier, a guy who had to retake the oath because one of the observers said he didn't see his lips move... And so the magic requires the lips to move? Quote
Argus Posted October 14, 2015 Report Posted October 14, 2015 So your claim is that an oath is a magic lie detector, but it only works if you can see their mouth. Is that your position? Is taking the oath a requirement under the law and supported by constitutional history? Yes. That being the case, and no matter how you might mock the very notion of an oath, it seems to me that there should be some ability to determine if someone is actually speaking. 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
eyeball Posted October 14, 2015 Report Posted October 14, 2015 It's like listening to someone trying to present a cogent argument for the existence of chem-trails. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
ToadBrother Posted October 14, 2015 Report Posted October 14, 2015 Is taking the oath a requirement under the law and supported by constitutional history? Yes. That being the case, and no matter how you might mock the very notion of an oath, it seems to me that there should be some ability to determine if someone is actually speaking. Was there some question the woman in question did not take the oath, when she was finally allowed to? Beyond that, as has been pointed out, the policy requiring the veil be taken off was not part of the law, nor had Parliament given the Government the power to change policy, so clearly, as I said to TimG, the rather old Common Law precept of "what is not forbidden is allowed" takes effect. If you think face veils should be removed for the oath, then the appropriate course of action is to seek a change to the legislation. The Government has absolute no right to simply invent rules, unless Parliament has explicitly authorized the Government to do so. You seem to be a big fan of Parliamentary sovereignty, and yet, when Government goes beyond what Parliament has authorized, all of a sudden, that's just a-okay. Quote
Argus Posted October 14, 2015 Report Posted October 14, 2015 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. And even the stupid niqab is a nothing issue except that it has all the politically correct running around windmilling their arms and screaming in horror - even though virtually the whole country is like "Meh, we hate the stupid thing. Ditch it". 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 And even the stupid niqab is a nothing issue except that it has all the politically correct running around windmilling their arms and screaming in horror - even though virtually the whole country is like "Meh, we hate the stupid thing. Ditch it". The Tories fanned these flames. And I thought we were talking about wearing it during the taking of an oath. Now suddenly you want to ban it everywhere? I can't wait for you to get back to asserting that all Muslims approve of it, except when it's convenient for you to asser the opposite. You're so damned confused on this issue, the only thing I can be certain of is that you're opposed to whatever your fevered imagination thinks someone else isn't opposed to. Quote
Argus Posted October 14, 2015 Report Posted October 14, 2015 And so the magic requires the lips to move? That has been the rule for quite some time. 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. That being the case you can't take the oath from a bathroom stall, or while hiding behind the curtains, and I don't see how you can demonstrate you're taking it with a bag over your head either. 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
Argus Posted October 14, 2015 Report Posted October 14, 2015 (edited) The Tories fanned these flames. And I thought we were talking about wearing it during the taking of an oath. Now suddenly you want to ban it everywhere? Learn to read. I've never made such a suggestion. The Tories didn't fan these flames. YOU, and the cadre of other extreme politically correct types in politics and media created this out of what had been a minor court case. Certainly the Conservatives have used the clamour, to some extent. But the only reason this has been at the top of the media play list over the past month is because of the Left. I can't wait for you to get back to asserting that all Muslims approve of it, Again, learn to read. I've never made any such suggestion. Go ahead and find where I did. Edited October 14, 2015 by Argus 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
BC_chick Posted October 14, 2015 Report Posted October 14, 2015 Lots of things have their root in women being robbed of identity. My wife took my last name, a tradition that was largely based on women's status as chattel whose ownership was transferred from father to husband. Are you saying that should be outlawed, even where a woman does it of her own free will? I was discussing the niqab for the way it limits a woman's life to function and you brought up tattoos and piercing to which I countered that I'd be inclined to agree if the practice was rooted in misogyny. Your wife taking your last name, though questionable tradition in this day and age, does not affect her life in any way. The niqab and burka notwithstanding, I can't think of any misogynist traditions which limit a woman's ability to get a job, make friends or eat a sandwich in public. Can you? 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 I was discussing the niqab for the way it limits a woman's life to function and you brought up tattoos and piercing to which I countered that I'd be inclined to agree if the practice was rooted in misogyny. Your wife taking your last name, though questionable tradition in this day and age, does not affect her life in any way. The niqab and burka notwithstanding, I can't think of any misogynist traditions which limit a woman's ability to get a job, make friends or eat a sandwich in public. Can you? So even if a woman could demonstrate she does it of her own free will, you feel you have a right to determine what she wears more than she does? It sounds to me like you've simply replaced misogyny with another form of authoritarianism. "We're doing this for your own good" has a pretty dubious history. Quote
Argus Posted October 14, 2015 Report Posted October 14, 2015 "We're doing this for your own good" has a pretty dubious history. It seems to me 'we're doing it for your own good' reflects the history of Canada and most other civilizations. Kathleen Wynne is imposing a new pension scheme on Ontarions. Why? "We're doing it for your own good" is the best answer available. Many, many, many other government schemes, programs, policies and regulations are similarly inspired. You can't do all kinds of stuff "for your own good". 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 It seems to me 'we're doing it for your own good' reflects the history of Canada and most other civilizations. Kathleen Wynne is imposing a new pension scheme on Ontarions. Why? "We're doing it for your own good" is the best answer available. Many, many, many other government schemes, programs, policies and regulations are similarly inspired. You can't do all kinds of stuff "for your own good". I wonder if there should be a version of Godwin's Law for Wynne. Beyond that, it's apples and oranges. A pension scheme is hardly an issue of civil liberties. Quote
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.