.

LemonPureLeaf · February 28, 2015

I plainly dont trust Muslims. I think they are waiting for the numbers to get high enough before they can change the country. And even I think the judge went too far. If she was wearing hijab, I have no problem with that. If it was a niqab then that shouldn't be allowed.

Bonam · February 28, 2015

I don't entirely agree with this statement. It's great to say that these women have won the right to wear their choice of 'face gear'. The problem is that these women have not really 'chosen' to wear this 'face gear'. A lot of folks jump on the band wagon of letting them exercise their religious rights, blah, blah, blah. The fact remains, that these women are being held to a servant role of hiding their face to please the men of their religion.

In most cases, this isn't their choice. It is the choice of the men of the household. When they come to Canada, we should do everything we can to demonstrate to these women that they do actually have .a choice. They don't need to cover their face.

For the most part, I agree. It's interesting that the other left wing posters here ignore your comment because it doesn't fit their narrative.

One thing to note, however, is that many Muslim women coming to Canada really don't have a choice not to wear whatever their husband wants them to wear. In many cases, they've grown up deprived of the opportunity to get any education or the chance to learn any useful skills besides how to please their husbands. If they stopped wearing their "face gear" (or obeying any of the other whims of their husbands), they could be turned out of the house by their husbands and would find themselves jobless, helpless, and alone in a foreign country.

jacee · February 28, 2015

I don't entirely agree with this statement. It's great to say that these women have won the right to wear their choice of 'face gear'. The problem is that these women have not really 'chosen' to wear this 'face gear'. A lot of folks jump on the band wagon of letting them exercise their religious rights, blah, blah, blah. The fact remains, that these women are being held to a servant role of hiding their face to please the men of their religion.

In most cases, this isn't their choice. It is the choice of the men of the household. When they come to Canada, we should do everything we can to demonstrate to these women that they do actually have .a choice. They don't need to cover their face.

But they can if that's their religious choice.

.

eyeball · February 28, 2015

In most cases, this isn't their choice. It is the choice of the men of the household. When they come to Canada, we should do everything we can to demonstrate to these women that they do actually have .a choice.

Including using force? I do not get how you cultivate a sense of choice in someone by forcing it on them - it's just so fundamentally contradictory.

They don't need to cover their face.

Which I think many will come to learn and to believe more naturally from their daughters and grand-daughters as they grow up Canadian and come to chafe and rebel against the old ways.

I don't know, maybe I have a different perspective on immigrant women and families and the tensions they face, I have a daughter married to a Chinese fellow from a very traditional family and a son in a long term relationship with a woman from a Hindu family that hasn't got a clue about the relationship. My daughter has a sister in law from Fiji and another from Indonesia. My son's daughter agrees with me even if she still hasn't come out of her closet to her family. She's in a pretty tough spot alright. It's really hard not to believe that force would only makes things worse.

It's a little funny when our multi-cultural family gets together. The great grand-parents usually have this faintly repressed sour-pussed look about them, and the great grand-kids are oblivious to it all. My Chinese son-in-law and his brothers crack me up the most - they all picked names for their kids that are filled with L's and R's.

Edited February 28, 2015 by eyeball

Bob Macadoo · February 28, 2015

For the most part, I agree. It's interesting that the other left wing posters here ignore your comment because it doesn't fit their narrative.

One thing to note, however, is that many Muslim women coming to Canada really don't have a choice not to wear whatever their husband wants them to wear. In many cases, they've grown up deprived of the opportunity to get any education or the chance to learn any useful skills besides how to please their husbands. If they stopped wearing their "face gear" (or obeying any of the other whims of their husbands), they could be turned out of the house by their husbands and would find themselves jobless, helpless, and alone in a foreign country.

I can't remember who said it but the points regarding culture, plastic surgery, and denim skirts hasn't been addressed.

The coverings are a "penance" of their cultural religion no different than pentecostal women and their non make-up faces and denim skirts. They have the choice not to partake but they know what that means to their personal faith. We accept that cultural religious practice...... we aren't walking around with slacks/lip gloss trying to save them.

We also don't ban 40 yo women who walk into court with perky DD's that the 70 yo geezer on her arm made her get. We either accept personal affectation, no matter the reason, for all or none......not for those that make you think they're hiding a bomb vest or those who you think must be of weaker will than your feminist brand and honestly must save them.

Edited February 28, 2015 by Bob Macadoo

cybercoma · February 28, 2015

And all that has exactly what to do with her...

Well, you see, if someone believes people should be able to wear a niqab when it's their choice, they must obviously believe we should murder apostates and homosexuals. It's, like, exactly the same thing, man. Edited February 28, 2015 by cybercoma

cybercoma · February 28, 2015

I don't entirely agree with this statement. It's great to say that these women have won the right to wear their choice of 'face gear'. The problem is that these women have not really 'chosen' to wear this 'face gear'. A lot of folks jump on the band wagon of letting them exercise their religious rights, blah, blah, blah. The fact remains, that these women are being held to a servant role of hiding their face to please the men of their religion.

In most cases, this isn't their choice. It is the choice of the men of the household. When they come to Canada, we should do everything we can to demonstrate to these women that they do actually have .a choice. They don't need to cover their face.

You want to provide support for the statement that "in most cases this isn't their choice"? Clearly in the OP this was her choice. She even went to court to fight for it, claiming that it was her free choice to do so. More importantly there is research in Canada that shows that many women wear the niqab or hijab against their families' wishes. You're making ethnocentric assumptions that are indicative of a feminist mindset that ignores theories of intersectionality. This is a woman, yes, but she's also a Muslim who faces discrimination based on her religion and culture. Telling her that she shouldn't wear the niqab because some women are forced to wear it against their will ignores her free will to wear it as an expression of her faith and culture. That's as oppressive as patriarchal control over women. You're just flexing ethnocentric control over her religious and cultural expression instead. Look into theories of intersectionality and recognize your own ethnocultural privilege here.

Edit: That studied is referred to in the National Post article from earlier.

According to a study released last year by the Canadian Council of Muslim Women, niqab-wearing women in Canada constitute a very small sub-culture sustained by “determined individuals.”

Their reasons for wearing one are highly personal and individual, the study reported, but “religious obligation” and “expression of Muslim identity” were cited most often. Many women wear a niqab against family wishes, the study noted.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/02/16/zunera-ishaq-the-woman-who-fought-to-wear-a-niqab-during-her-citizenship-ceremony/

Edited February 28, 2015 by cybercoma

cybercoma · February 28, 2015

For the most part, I agree. It's interesting that the other left wing posters here ignore your comment because it doesn't fit their narrative.

Or because we hadn't seen it yet, but go ahead and make ridiculous assumptions.

Keepitsimple · February 28, 2015

I don't entirely agree with this statement. It's great to say that these women have won the right to wear their choice of 'face gear'. The problem is that these women have not really 'chosen' to wear this 'face gear'. A lot of folks jump on the band wagon of letting them exercise their religious rights, blah, blah, blah. The fact remains, that these women are being held to a servant role of hiding their face to please the men of their religion.

In most cases, this isn't their choice. It is the choice of the men of the household. When they come to Canada, we should do everything we can to demonstrate to these women that they do actually have .a choice. They don't need to cover their face.

That's my fundamental opposition to the Niqab - certainly as it relates to the Oath but also in daily life. It is at odds with Canada's core value of equality and flies in the face of Womens' Rights. We simply cannot passively accept the subjugation of women in our society - and that's what it is. I'm pretty sure if we had more women posters on this Forum, we'd here more comments like yours.

cybercoma · February 28, 2015

Bull crap. You don't give a flick about women's rights in Canada, as evidenced by your responses to the missing and murdered indigenous women and issues of sexual assault/harassment. You only care when they're Muslim, so you can vilify our generation's folk devils. You completely ignore the fact that this woman does this of her own free will and took it to court to have the choice to do so. If you had read the article that's been posted several times in this thread already you would see:

While Ms. Ishaq knows some Muslim women who stopped wearing veils after moving to Canada, she said she saw no need to stop the practice. She acknowledges that some wives and daughters are forced by their families to wear a niqab, but it has always been a personal decision for her going back to when she was 15.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/02/16/zunera-ishaq-the-woman-who-fought-to-wear-a-niqab-during-her-citizenship-ceremony/

So don't give me this crap about protecting women's rights, when it's plainly clear that you care more about oppressing Muslims than protecting women.

msj · February 28, 2015

I think it's funny that some people will believe a Muslim woman is wearing religious clothing on her own free will because she's a believer but when an Islamist flys a building into an airplane it has nothing to do with religion.

Oh, and I am obviously a "racist" for pointing this out. Oh, and probably sexist too....

.

Edited February 28, 2015 by msj

cybercoma · February 28, 2015

I think it's funny that some people will believe a Muslim woman is wearing religious clothing on her own free will because she's a believer but when an Islamist flys a building into an airplane it has nothing to do with religion.

Oh, and I am obviously a "racist" for pointing this out. Oh, and probably sexist too....

.

If you think wearing a niqab is exactly like murdering innocent people, then you should be locked up.

msj · February 28, 2015

If you think wearing a niqab is exactly like murdering innocent people, then you should be locked up.

If you actually think that is my point then you should read it again and again until you achieve comprehension.

Edited February 28, 2015 by msj

cybercoma · February 28, 2015

If you actually think that is my point then you should read it again and again until you achieve comprehension.

You're comparing the two as if there's some kind of equivalence here. You want to compare the two, it's the free will to choose to wear a niqab and the free will to choose to murder innocent people. Do you get that?

msj · February 28, 2015

I'm talking about belief influencing behaviour.

As in enough people believing in a foolish book and its ridiculous notions leading to entire groups of people oppressing other groups of people based on things like gender and not sharing the same beliefs etc....

Islam is the mother lode of bad ideas.

It leads directly to oppressed women and Islamist flying planes into buildings.

Michael Hardner · February 28, 2015

As in enough people believing in a foolish book and its ridiculous notions leading to entire groups of people oppressing other groups of people based on things like gender and not sharing the same beliefs etc....

We've been down this path before and nobody has explained why the silly ideas of the bible aren't to be blamed for bad behavior by non-Muslims. As near as I can figure, it's just part of a circular reasoning that blames both the book and the behavior for causing each other, ie. the people behave badly because of the book, but Christian people don't believe their silly book you see because they are better people...

Keepitsimple · February 28, 2015

Bull crap. You don't give a flick about women's rights in Canada, as evidenced by your responses to the missing and murdered indigenous women and issues of sexual assault/harassment. You only care when they're Muslim, so you can vilify our generation's folk devils. You completely ignore the fact that this woman does this of her own free will and took it to court to have the choice to do so. If you had read the article that's been posted several times in this thread already you would see:

So don't give me this crap about protecting women's rights, when it's plainly clear that you care more about oppressing Muslims than protecting women.

Are you referring to my last post? Before I reply how insane and insulting your comments are, I want to make sure you were referring to me - and not MSJ.

Edited February 28, 2015 by Keepitsimple

jacee · February 28, 2015

I think it's funny that some people will believe a Muslim woman is wearing religious clothing on her own free will because she's a believer but when an Islamist flys a building into an airplane it has nothing to do with religion.

Oh, and I am obviously a "racist" for pointing this out. Oh, and probably sexist too....

.

Let's see ... Christian Jehovah's Witness women don't wear pants and Anders Breivik is/is not a Christian terrorist.

How are those things related again msj?

I'm just not getting your point I guess.

Is Anders Breivik A 'Christian Terrorist'?

msj · February 28, 2015

We've been down this path before and nobody has explained why the silly ideas of the bible aren't to be blamed for bad behavior by non-Muslims. As near as I can figure, it's just part of a circular reasoning that blames both the book and the behavior for causing each other, ie. the people behave badly because of the book, but Christian people don't believe their silly book you see because they are better people...

On my way out for the day but you should check out Sam Harris and in particular his 3 hour long interview on "The Young Turks" a few months ago where he explains this.

Tomorrow I will see if I can find the link.

Edited February 28, 2015 by msj

February 28, 2015

We've been down this path before and nobody has explained why the silly ideas of the bible aren't to be blamed for bad behavior by non-Muslims. As near as I can figure, it's just part of a circular reasoning that blames both the book and the behavior for causing each other, ie. the people behave badly because of the book, but Christian people don't believe their silly book you see because they are better people...

The silly ideas of the bible would be blamed for the bad behaviour of non Muslims, if they were Christians, and acting in a certain way because they thought the Bible was telling them to. Simple really. The ones doing the silliness would be using their interpretation, while other, not so silly types would be using their interpretation.

There are many Muslims and Christians who don't believe their silly book enough to actually act on it. Only the percentages differ.

Edited February 28, 2015 by bcsapper

February 28, 2015

Let's see ... Christian Jehovah's Witness women don't wear pants and Anders Breivik is/is not a Christian terrorist.

How are those things related again msj?

I'm just not getting your point I guess.

Is Anders Breivik A 'Christian Terrorist'?

Why would he not be a Christian terrorist? According to that article, he seems to identify as one. I mean, that's a dead giveaway, isn't it?

Edited February 28, 2015 by bcsapper

Michael Hardner · February 28, 2015

The silly ideas of the bible would be blamed for the bad behaviour of non Muslims, if they were Christians, and acting in a certain way because they thought the Bible was telling them to. Simple really.

Ok, so bigotry in Christians that is found in the bible can be blamed on the religion ?

There are many Muslims and Christians who don't believe their silly book enough to actually act on it. Only the percentages differ.

If it's only the percentages, then we can agree that there isn't a fundamental difference between such people... it all evens out over time.

Keepitsimple · February 28, 2015

Bull crap. You don't give a flick about women's rights in Canada, as evidenced by your responses to the missing and murdered indigenous women and issues of sexual assault/harassment. You only care when they're Muslim, so you can vilify our generation's folk devils. You completely ignore the fact that this woman does this of her own free will and took it to court to have the choice to do so. If you had read the article that's been posted several times in this thread already you would see:

So don't give me this crap about protecting women's rights, when it's plainly clear that you care more about oppressing Muslims than protecting women.

OK - I'm confident you were replying to my post now. Your insults are so misplaced that they demonstrate your inability to have any perspective at all on these issues.

1) Oppressing Muslims? Give me a break. Niqab-wearers are but a tiny, tiny, tiny percentage of Muslims - and yes, I strongly believe that they are worn through a combination of subjugation and paternal dominance. As for mainstream Muslims and my personal attitude - couldn't care less what path people choose to God - as long as they respect my path, should I have one. I've got friends that are Muslims and I have other acquaintances who I suspect might be Muslim but I couldn't care less because we're usually playing tennis. Do I abhor all the killing of Muslims by other Muslims in parts of the world? You bet I do. Does it confuse me? Totally. Do I subscribe to some sort of reasonable accommodation? I think it's a discussion that is starting to rear it's head - and it's a valuable one that has to be respectfully conducted. We cannot passively accept and "welcome" every cultural and religious quirk that might be at odds with our Charter.

2) Murdered and Missing Women. That's another low blow that simply doesn't merit a response. All I can say is that I feel a tremendous sadness for all those living on dysfunctional reservations.....I wish I had the answers to how we quickly address the problems that plague First Nations - there's plenty of fault on both sides. Accountability and property rights for women are but a small start - but incrementalism is better than nothing.

February 28, 2015

Ok, so bigotry in Christians that is found in the bible can be blamed on the religion ?

If it's only the percentages, then we can agree that there isn't a fundamental difference between such people... it all evens out over time.

I know you're going to hate this, but bigotry in Christians can be blamed on the Bible if the Bible is to blame. It's the same with Muslims, or any religion. I don't blame Buddha for the Chinese hating the Japanese, I blame Nanjing.

If a Christian yells God is Great as he commits a vile act I would say go ahead and blame his religion. I certainly would.

As to the percentages, that's the only argument. Everyone knows there are some nutters out there, wherever you look. It just so happens that in the latter part of the 20th Century, and the early bit of the 21st, there is an inordinately large number of Islamic nutters.

Edited February 28, 2015 by bcsapper

Argus · February 28, 2015

We've been down this path before and nobody has explained why the silly ideas of the bible aren't to be blamed for bad behavior by non-Muslims.

Presumably you mean by Christians. And their behaviour certainly can be explained by the bible if their actions are motivated by the words in the bible - unless, of course, their interpretation is far outside the mainstream. Even hen, one can examine the words in the bible to determine if the person had some justification in their beliefs.

Recalling previous discussions here I cannot think of a time when those opposing gay rights or abortion were disassociated from Christian beliefs by their opponents. Nor would they choose to make it so.

Why, then, this rush to dissociate the behaviour of Musims who are following their religion and who clearly state the motivation for their actions and behaviour is their religious beliefs? You can certainly find justification for most of what Muslim terrorists do in their religion.

the people behave badly because of the book, but Christian people don't believe their silly book you see because they are better people...

Christians have church hierarchies which have altered their interpretation of the messages in the bible over the centuries. Muslim scholars have not done anything similar. In fact, the interpretation last made on he bible is hundreds of years old, and was and remains considered absolute. Any attempt to interpret the words and messages different is regarded as heresy and blasphemy.

Btw, would you refer to the Koran as a 'silly book' when speaking to a Muslim?

Edited February 28, 2015 by Argus