.

[On Guard for Thee]

Well, given what happened to the existing culture, one could argue that's a pretty good reason for insisting anyone landing here now does.

What happened to the existing culture

[Black Dog]

Now we're actually starting a debate......and on the contrary, I do have an answer - although it's just a tiny step towards an answer. Your question is: What does forcing women to remove their face coverings at certain times do to advance the cause of equality? Well - every journey starts with the first step - and that first has to be ridding ourselves of the paralysis of political correctness on this issue - to take a stand that the niqab is a symbol of oppression....and this (the Oath) is a perfect opportunity to take a tiny step in that direction.

So, you're comfortable with arbitrary exercises of state power to restrict the constitutionally-protected expression of religious beliefs as long as you disagree with those religious beliefs. Because of course there's no dangerous precedent there, no sir. Not that that would be a concern: a niqab ban would be unlikely to survive a challenge to the SCC. That's the long and short of it.

It won't be "solved" with one action - but a number of careful, incremental actions that encourages people to discard their niqabs and to make it clear to immigrants who subscribe to this culture that discarding the niqab is one of the very few concessions that they will be asked to make in exchange for the bountiful future that they seek.

The notion that forcing people to go against their religious beliefs, however wrong headed they might be, will lead them to start questioning said beliefs is a bit far-fetched, particularly if you start with the assumption that niqab wearers are bound by a patriarchal and ultra conservative set of religious and cultural practices that stand in direct opposition to the forces of modernity.

I said this back in 2011 when this policy was first enacted: if you think women wearing the niqab are victims here, do you really think they would be allowed to be put in a situation where they would have to compromise these beliefs? Forcing these women to take of their niqabs at citizenship ceremonies or in court will simply mean fewer women will end up at citizenship ceremonies or in court. Not to mention the hypocrisy and paternalism inherent in the idea that forcing women to take something off is better than forcing them to put something on.

Edited March 19, 2015 by Black Dog

[Black Dog]

Well, given what happened to the existing culture, one could argue that's a pretty good reason for insisting anyone landing here now does.

Actually it's more an argument for getting vaccinated and ensuring you have superior firepower than any newcomers.

[Argus]

For the same reason you wear pants and underwear...modesty. Years ago, my training officer pointed out that when the Europeans arrived on our shores, they didn't adopt the values of the existing culture.

But women don't habitually wear these garments even in most Muslim countries. So if they're used to wearing this garment in their home countries despite that it still says these are extremely religious orthodox Muslims. And we know much about the social views of such people.

[Keepitsimple]

I said this back in 2011 when this policy was first enacted: if you think women wearing the niqab are victims here, do you really think they would be allowed to be put in a situation where they would have to compromise these beliefs? Forcing these women to take of their niqabs at citizenship ceremonies or in court will simply mean fewer women will end up at citizenship ceremonies or in court. Not to mention the hypocrisy and paternalism inherent in the idea that forcing women to take something off is better than forcing them to put something on.

OK....so you previously agreed that the niqab is a symbol of oppression - by extension, that also means that you consider them victims of a sort, does it not? So I'll ask you Black Dog, what do you suggest can be done to counteract this oppression here in Canada? You've dismissed the tine step that I suggested....OK, what's your contribution? Nothing? Leave it alone? Accept it? Leave the immigration doors open for more oppression and intolerence?

[Argus]

Which we are made to understand through Immigration authorities that they attempt to weed those ones out and not issue any

travel documents.

That is not my understanding. They only look for those who are terrorist supporters. While terrorist suppporters would come, in large part, from this population, most of them are not on any sort of list nor actively involved with any sort of terrorist groups.

But I certainly think their children advance the cause for equality and shuffling the old ways of misogyny/abuse

to the trash bin .

That would be nice if true. But we've seen evidence that the children of immigrants, born in Canada, can actually be MORE zealous than their parents. That is hardly a hopeful sign for the future.

In findings that will reverberate in both immigration and security policy, support for extremism was found to be just as high among Muslims born in Canada or other industrialized countries as among those coming from oppressive dictatorships.

http://www.macdonaldlaurier.ca/much-good-news-and-some-worrying-results-in-new-study-of-muslim-public-opinion-in-canada/

Edited March 19, 2015 by Argus

[Black Dog]

OK....so you previously agreed that the niqab is a symbol of oppression - by extension, that also means that you consider them victims of a sort, does it not? So I'll ask you Black Dog, what do you suggest can be done to counteract this oppression here in Canada? You've dismissed the tine step that I suggested....OK, what's your contribution? Nothing? Leave it alone? Accept it? Leave the immigration doors open for more oppression and intolerence?

Accepting the existence of things and ideas you don't agree with, whether it's the niqab or offensive cartoons, is the price of living in a free and open society. That being said, I think there are things the state can do to promote integration and values of equality that stop well short of violating religious freedoms. However these would involve working with these particular communities, not against them as the Tories seem dead set on doing (even as they keep the flow of immigrants a steady one).

[eyeball]

If the the state was going after the oppressors instead of the victims they might have a case to make but they're not so they don't.

Has anyone heard Harper or a Conservative mention taking action against men in any of this anywhere?

[On Guard for Thee]

Just listened to an interview with 3 Canadian Muslim women, 2 of which wear the niqab, the other used to but decided to switch to the hijab after a number of years. One of the women said her husband had argued for her NOT to wear the niqab because he thought people would look at him as having forced her to wear it. The other, not married, said she got the same comments from her father. They both chose to wear it anyway. Makes you wonder just whos approach may be the oppressive one.

[Keepitsimple]

Accepting the existence of things and ideas you don't agree with, whether it's the niqab or offensive cartoons, is the price of living in a free and open society. That being said, I think there are things the state can do to promote integration and values of equality that stop well short of violating religious freedoms. However these would involve working with these particular communities, not against them as the Tories seem dead set on doing (even as they keep the flow of immigrants a steady one).

How about a concrete example of this "integration"? We're only talking about a tiny number of ultra-paternalistics. How do we "promote their integration" without as you say "violating religious freedom".....and without tarring the 99% of Muslims who adapt to Canada really well? Your mealy-mouthed words do nothing to address what you admit is a symbol of oppression - and the oppression itself - a symbol that Islam does not view as a religious requirement. It's not about accepting things that we don't agree with - it's about being forced to accept things that are simply wrong. Oppression of women in Canada (or anywhere) - direct or indirect - is wrong! Now what do we do about it?

[Keepitsimple]

If the the state was going after the oppressors instead of the victims they might have a case to make but they're not so they don't.

Has anyone heard Harper or a Conservative mention taking action against men in any of this anywhere?

And what would you say if he did?

[Black Dog]

How about a concrete example of this "integration"? We're only talking about a tiny number of ultra-paternalistics. How do we "promote their integration" without as you say "violating religious freedom".....and without tarring the 99% of Muslims who adapt to Canada really well?

Not marginalizing the women who are oppressed already is a start.

Your mealy-mouthed words do nothing to address what you admit is a symbol of oppression - and the oppression itself - a symbol that Islam does not view as a religious requirement. It's not about accepting things that we don't agree with - it's about being forced to accept things that are simply wrong. Oppression of women in Canada (or anywhere) - direct or indirect - is wrong!

A distinction without a difference. Lots of people in our society are forced to accept things that in their view are simply wrong: ask any opponent of abortion or gay marriage.

Now what do we do about it?

The real question is "what can we do about it?" I mean we could restrict immigration, but the Tories don't seem too crazy about that idea and it doesn't get to what you say is the heart of the matter, which is the oppression of women. When it comes to those that are already here, one could I suppose try engaging with them and asking them for their opinions instead of just assuming they are all just one big amorphous blob of victimhood. Policy wise, though, I think the answer to the question is really "not a hell of a lot."

[eyeball]

And what would you say if he did?

That it's about fricken time someone finally put the blame where it belongs.

What would you say?

[Keepitsimple]

That it's about fricken time someone finally put the blame where it belongs.

What would you say?

Then why don't you bring it up as a point to debate instead of using it indirectly to beat Harper with. Really - it's a valid point - how would you go about "finally put the blame where it belongs"?

[Black Dog]

Then why don't you bring it up as a point to debate instead of using it indirectly to beat Harper with. Really - it's a valid point - how would you go about "finally put the blame where it belongs"?

Well he had no problem describing the niqab as "rooted in a culture that is anti-woman" so I dunno why he couldn't just point they finger at the men in that culture as the main offenders if that's what he believes.

[eyeball]

Then why don't you bring it up as a point to debate instead of using it indirectly to beat Harper with. Really - it's a valid point - how would you go about "finally put the blame where it belongs"?

Either force men to wear blinders or just let nature take it's course and 2nd 3rd generations leave their old ways behind like most every other immigrant group.

[cybercoma]

Forcing these women to take of their niqabs . . . in court will simply mean fewer women will end up . . . in court.

Imagine for a second the implications of that in terms of violence against women, despite these guys (and not the government mind you) invoking that as the excuse for banning it.

[cybercoma]

If the the state was going after the oppressors instead of the victims they might have a case to make but they're not so they don't.

Exactly. Mind you the government never said they were doing it to fight the oppression of women. That would be a ridiculous position to take for a government that can't even be bothered opening an inquiry into the missing and murdered indigenous women of Canada.

[eyeball]

Harper needs a strategy in time for the next election which means he needs to use force. So, he either forces women or men. Going after men as you point raises uncomfortable inconvenient issues. Waiting for a generation or two is also out meaning Harper is forced to go after women which is what he's opted to do which requires going through this ridiculous search for a superior moral justification where none exists.

[Keepitsimple]

Exactly. Mind you the government never said they were doing it to fight the oppression of women. That would be a ridiculous position to take for a government that can't even be bothered opening an inquiry into the missing and murdered indigenous women of Canada.

We've got a thread on that so I don't want to belabor the point but since you raised it.....an average of 40 aboriginal women are murdered or go missing each year. 90% of the cases are solved and the vast majority of the murderers are people they knew - in other words - other Aboriginals. It's a circuitous argument - we know the problems - alcohol, drugs, poverty, the Band system, etc., etc. A national enquiry does nothing but bring up the same issues - and the same roadblocks.

Edited March 19, 2015 by Keepitsimple

[cybercoma]

I know. No problem whatsoever to you conservatives, despite the RCMP and damn near everyone else calling for action.

[guyser]

I was going to post the RCMP report, in which it clearly states Native woman disappear and get murdered far beyond the rest of the women in this country.

[cybercoma]

I was going to post the RCMP report, in which it clearly states Native woman disappear and get murdered far beyond the rest of the women in this country.

It's just drunken indians doing what they do, according to some people here.

[Argus]

I was going to post the RCMP report, in which it clearly states Native woman disappear and get murdered far beyond the rest of the women in this country.

And do native men disappear and get murdered beyond the rest of the men in this country? Oh, the report didn't look into that? I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that aboriginal men are murdered a lot more than is the norm too. Nor do we need studies to tell us why. As the Tories have said, there have been 40 studies on this issue already.

From the CBC writeup.

The report states 44 per cent of murdered aboriginal women were found to have a criminal record, while 63 per cent were found to have consumed intoxicants just before their deaths. A smaller number of victims (12 per cent) had worked in the sex trade.

And who is killing them?

Aboriginal women are most likely to be murdered by an acquaintance (30 per cent), spouse (29 per cent), or family member (24 per cent).

The solution rate is 88% vs 89% for the general population, which is pretty good given the lifestyle of some of them. The rate of murders by strangers is less than 8%, roughly identical between aboriginal and non-aboriginal women.

edited to add. Yes, aboriginal men are murdered at a higher rate than aboriginal women. Where are the cries for special reports and studies!?

Between 1980 and 2012, 14 per cent of female murder victims with a known ethnicity were aboriginal, far exceeding their 4 per cent share of the female population, according to Statistics Canada. But 17 per cent of male murder victims were also aboriginal during that time. In total, nearly 2,500 aboriginal people were murdered in the past three decades: 1,750 male, 745 female and one person of unknown gender.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/08/22/aboriginal_men_murdered_at_higher_rate_than_aboriginal_women.html

Edited March 20, 2015 by Argus

[On Guard for Thee]

And do native men disappear and get murdered beyond the rest of the men in this country? Oh, the report didn't look into that? I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that aboriginal men are murdered a lot more than is the norm too. Nor do we need studies to tell us why. As the Tories have said, there have been 40 studies on this issue already.

From the CBC writeup.

The report states 44 per cent of murdered aboriginal women were found to have a criminal record, while 63 per cent were found to have consumed intoxicants just before their deaths. A smaller number of victims (12 per cent) had worked in the sex trade.

And who is killing them?

Aboriginal women are most likely to be murdered by an acquaintance (30 per cent), spouse (29 per cent), or family member (24 per cent).

The solution rate is 88% vs 89% for the general population, which is pretty good given the lifestyle of some of them. The rate of murders by strangers is less than 8%, roughly identical between aboriginal and non-aboriginal women.

edited to add. Yes, aboriginal men are murdered at a higher rate than aboriginal women. Where are the cries for special reports and studies!?

Between 1980 and 2012, 14 per cent of female murder victims with a known ethnicity were aboriginal, far exceeding their 4 per cent share of the female population, according to Statistics Canada. But 17 per cent of male murder victims were also aboriginal during that time. In total, nearly 2,500 aboriginal people were murdered in the past three decades: 1,750 male, 745 female and one person of unknown gender.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/08/22/aboriginal_men_murdered_at_higher_rate_than_aboriginal_women.html

So having a record or drinking a beer is some sort of reason that somehow offsets being murdered...I guess we can say at least the bigotry is not just aimed at one particular non white culture. How inclusive!