.

[On Guard for Thee]

Oops, BC,s getting his jollies from CBC...again.

[eyeball]

Great argument on your part. I'm convinced. </sarcasm>

So, you went back and read what you wrote? You still seriously maintain native Americans are like the arrivers to use your parlance, who need to comply to....the arrived?

Like I said, you presented one of the most ridiculous arguments this thread and issue have produced this far bar none.

[jacee]

http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/i-used-to-dislike-the-niqab-harper-showed-me-how-wrong-i-was/article23580767/?service=mobile

In real life, youll find here no sign of a woman who's being submissive or who has been oppressed. On the contrary, you'll find five women all of whom are thoughtful, independent and articulate to the point of eloquence.

Heres what else they have in common.

They all are or intend to be Canadians proud Canadians.

They all take their religion very seriously.

They all chose by themselves to wear the niqab, even when a husband or father tried to dissuade them.

Those who wear it say the niqab brings them closer to their religion and their god.

All readily remove their niqab when required for practical or official purposes.

Every one of them insists she never encountered any trouble when wearing their niqab until the prime minister of Canada chose, out of the blue, to make trouble for them all.

.

Edited March 24, 2015 by jacee

[On Guard for Thee]

Interesting article. One thing that keeps echoing, although I bet most of us already know the answer, is I wonder why Harper aint got the cajones to actually speak with this woman, since he is in such a hurry to take away her rights. He probably knows his ad nauseum talking points would get trumped without Mr. Speaker to hide behind.

[TimG]

In real life, youll find here no sign of a woman who's being submissive or who has been oppressed. On the contrary, you'll find five women all of whom are thoughtful, independent and articulate to the point of eloquence.

Does not change the fact that the niqab exists as a means to oppress women by preventing them from participating as individuals in public life. Hiding one's face is a fundamentally anti-social act and hinders communication with others. Many resources are spent on robots that can mimick human face movements because science has shown that human face is a key part of how humans communicate with each other. Niqabs are designed to stop this communication. Finding a few "Uncle Toms" to support the practice does not make acceptable. Edited March 24, 2015 by TimG

[jacee]

Does not change the fact that the niqab exists as a means to oppress women by preventing them from participating as individuals in public life. Hiding one's face is a fundamentally anti-social act and hinders communication with others. Many resources are spent on robots that can mimick human face movements because science has shown that human face is a key part of how humans communicate with each other. Niqabs are designed to stop this communication. Finding a few "Uncle Toms" to support the practice does not make acceptable.

Finding an uncle tim to tell women what they 'should' want isn't acceptable either.

.

[guyser]

Hiding the face is an institution designed to prevent women from participating as equals in society.

In one persons estimation.

One person. Yay!

When I hide my face in the winter I still participate as an equal.

Funny how that works huh?

This is inconsistent with Canadian values.

Au contraire, this country values accommodation , not banning a single piece of clothing cuz that would be dumb......and against our values telling a woman what she can wear.

They are many other cases where we expect people to park their values at home.

Who's values ...yours ?

For example, if a group of men refused to swear the oath to a female judge they would be told to shove off. Accommodation is not an absolute right.

Face palm.

[Keepitsimple]

In one persons estimation.

One person. Yay!

Au contraire, this country values accommodation , not banning a single piece of clothing cuz that would be dumb......and against our values telling a woman what she can wear.

Who's values ...yours ?

Face palm.

Make that two people. As for Canadian values, I'll put the Canadian value of gender equality - written into our Charter - ahead of your shallow "telling a woman what to wear" comment anytime. Gender Equality trumps always wearing a niqab in the eyes of the vast, vast majority of Canadians - even those who are Muslim. So yes, they are my values - but the important ones don't seem to be yours. But guess what? Those few who choose to wear the niqab can still do so - it's their right......they just have to make reasonable accommodations with our various bureaucracies - as our Charter suggests.

[On Guard for Thee]

Make that two people. As for Canadian values, I'll put the Canadian value of gender equality - written into our Charter - ahead of your shallow "telling a woman what to wear" comment anytime. Gender Equality trumps always wearing a niqab in the eyes of the vast, vast majority of Canadians - even those who are Muslim. So yes, they are my values - but the important ones don't seem to be yours. But guess what? Those few who choose to wear the niqab can still do so - it's their right......they just have to make reasonable accommodations with our various bureaucracies - as our Charter suggests.

Our charter has already suggested that reasonable accommodation allows women the right to wear what they want. And guess what, it doesnt make a dent in gender equality. So I guess that problem is solved.

[guyser]

Our charter has already suggested that reasonable accommodation allows women the right to wear what they want. And guess what, it doesnt make a dent in gender equality. So I guess that problem is solved.

Bingo !

People are soooo scared of a piece of cloth. I wonder how they manage their days , especially when probably one or two ever see a niqb or burqa in a month.

[Smallc]

Bingo !

People are soooo scared of a piece of cloth.

That's not even close to true. People don't have issue with the dress, but rather the dehumanizing nature of it. It's designed to control and separate.

[On Guard for Thee]

That's not even close to true. People don't have issue with the dress, but rather the dehumanizing nature of it. It's designed to control and separate.

The humans who choose to wear it would likely think it must be true. Otherwise why all the hubbub.

[jacee]

That's not even close to true. People don't have issue with the dress, but rather the dehumanizing nature of it. It's designed to control and separate.

Then don't wear it.

.

[guyser]

That's not even close to true.

If it isnt true, then why are there people up in arms all worried about it?

Their own arguments belie your position.

People don't have issue with the dress, but rather the dehumanizing nature of it.

Yes well, they do have an issue with the dress, when they call it rags , when they call it sheets , when they opine about bags over their heads...then they have issues with it.

It's designed to control and separate.

All manners of dress are used for separation. The control issue is a non starter simply because we do not know what control issues there are in even half of the people who wear something.

Do bikers wear logos on their back to be known as separate?

Do young hockey players wear a team jacket to separate them from other kids?

Do kids wear Button Down dress shorts and Khakis like their dads or do they generally prefer something cool and hip?

Do some Muslim women wear the hijab or Burqa to be separate?

Do Jewish men wear a Yarmulke for their honour of faith?

Yup, both do and both are not enshrined in thjeir respective religion although for both there are certain sects who claim that they are.

[Argus]

We dont, nor should we, establish our charter rights based on polls. That would make us no more than a bunch of flakes like are falling on the east coast currently.

So you believe that in a democratic society the people should not have any say in the rules of how their society is run? Have I got that right?

[Argus]

No it happens when men can't control themselves. You think it's just a myth that men do that? Do you have a daughter by any chance?

How far out on this ludicrous bit of a limb do you want to crawl in your defense of a medieval wife beating culture?

[jacee]

Make that two people. As for Canadian values, I'll put the Canadian value of gender equality - written into our Charter - ahead of your shallow "telling a woman what to wear" comment anytime. Gender Equality trumps always wearing a niqab in the eyes of the vast, vast majority of Canadians - even those who are Muslim. So yes, they are my values - but the important ones don't seem to be yours. But guess what? Those few who choose to wear the niqab can still do so - it's their right......they just have to make reasonable accommodations with our various bureaucracies - as our Charter suggests.

It seems to have escaped your notice that gender equality means women wear what they want without deferring to men's demands.

.

[jacee]

So you believe that in a democratic society the people should not have any say in the rules of how their society is run? Have I got that right?

Not in what I wear, thanks.

.

[Argus]

Heres what else they have in common.

They all are or intend to be Canadians proud Canadians.

They all take their religion very seriously.

This is the issue you Lefties seem to be so blind to. They all take their religion very seriously.

What does that religion tell them? Oh, never mind. You don't want to know that. Besides, if it's bad they clearly won't pay any attention to it.

Edited March 24, 2015 by Argus

[On Guard for Thee]

So you believe that in a democratic society the people should not have any say in the rules of how their society is run? Have I got that right?

Nope, you are wrong again. It was people who drafted the rules and people who protect ad apply them. And its people who mark their X on a ballot when the time comes.

Edited March 24, 2015 by On Guard for Thee

[Argus]

In one persons estimation.

One person. Yay!

Pretty much any thoughtful person who has looked at the religiously inspired cultural values of Muslim soieties says the same thing, actually.

From the Toronto Star, of all places...

In the case of the burqa, and even , the hijab, I'm on the side of Lebanese-born French novelist Amin Maalouf. Maalouf writes: “Traditions deserve to be respected only insofar as they are respectable — that is, exactly insofar as they themselves respect the fundamental rights of men and women.” Or, as Canadian Irshad Manji writes in The Trouble with Islam, “We shouldn't let multicultural bromides anesthetize our brains any further.”

So that's clear to me. The burqa and niqab represent a tradition that views women as sexual objects, temptresses who, with the flash of an ankle, can bring men (weak creatures incapable of resisting this temptation) to their knees. It's a repugnant value system and I reject it. So should all Canadians who embrace secular feminism. So let's ban the burqa, the niqab, and while we're at it, the hijab.

http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2010/12/17/niqab_debate_what_should_canada_do.html

Edited March 24, 2015 by Argus

[Argus]

Nope, you are wrong again. It was people who drafted the rules and people who protect ad apply them. And its people who mark their X on a ballot when the time comes.

But you are clearly suggesting that once the rules are written Canadians have no right to even suggest they or even their interpretation be changed.

[Keepitsimple]

It seems to have escaped your notice that gender equality means women wear what they want without deferring to men's demands.

.

Not me - but clearly it has escaped your notice. When you talk with other Muslims, they will tell you that niqab wearers are deferring to men's demands. They subscribe to an ultra-patriarchal sect of Islam where men rule. Clearly, you feel that this false choice trumps Gender Equality.

Edited March 24, 2015 by Keepitsimple

[On Guard for Thee]

But you are clearly suggesting that once the rules are written Canadians have no right to even suggest they or even their interpretation be changed.

Wrong again. It can be amended. Its called the 7-50 formula.

[On Guard for Thee]

Not me - but clearly it has escaped your notice. When you talk with other Muslims, they will tell you that niqab wearers are deferring to men's demands. They subscribe to an ultra-patriarchal sect of Islam where men rule. Clearly, you feel that this false choice trumps Gender Equality.

No one has said religions arent ever oppressive. (How many women priests do you know). The women I heard interviewed the other day were clearly not deferring to mes demands. One in particular said she had to argue with her husband as he wanted her not to wear it for fear people would think of him as you probably would. Jumping in with both feet to start banning this or that based on preconceived notions is folly. And unconstitutional it turns out.