.

[eyeball]

Bad analogy. In this case, the sanction falls upon the victim, not the perpetrator.

Exactly. If people were talking about making men wear blinders this concern over oppression would ring a lot truer.

Instead it smacks of moral entrepreneurship and political opportunism and underscores a level of public gullibility that's undermining my faith in humanity I'm chagrined to say.

[eyeball]

I do agree though that many of the people who want to ban it are doing it for the wrong reasons.

I think the bigger point is that they're doing it in a manner that is even more oppressive than the oppression it seeks to remedy.

[BC_chick]

What we do not legally recognize polygamy with marriage certificates. We do allow any number of women to go live with a man if they so choose, to be treated as wives, but the state will only recognize one of the women as married to the man.

I am quite sure that this came about due to Christian heritage. There is really no reason for polygamy to not be recognized - except for the fact that the Common Law would have a hell of a time coming to terms with the consequences of multiple co-existing marriages.

Also, the polygamy laws are for the odd case where a man legally marries more than one woman but the women remain in ignorance

of the other marriages and so enter into a fraudulent marriage. I believe that is what the polygamy laws are directed against.

There is an element of law in it, perhaps, but by and large we view polygamous societies as misogynist and hence we don't even attempt to accommodate the lifestyle. I'm sure if we were so live and let live about them as we are about Muslims, we could find a way to address the legalities of their complex relationships.

The niqab and burka are a reflection of a jealous and controlling belief system (don't look at my wife!). It limits the jobs and lives of these women, but somehow we just shrug it off as cultural differences.

Yet we frown upon a women in polygamous relationships and see them as willing participants to their victimhood. That makes no sense.

[BC_chick]

Symbol - "a thing that represents or stands for something else, especially a material object representing something abstract."

Respectfully, if you see the niqab as a symbol of oppression of women and expect others to respect your view, why do not respect the right of others to view the niqab as a symbol of freedom of expression for women?

Do you believe that a symbol is an abstract representation?

As I've said several times, the symbol that the niqab represents is a jealous, controlling male over a female's body (don't look at my wife!).

Just because the woman has been brainwashed to believe it, doesn't make it right.

[kimmy]

I do think a woman ought to be allowed to wear a bag on her head if she thinks she must. But honestly, I think that if I ranked rights in order of those that I'd be willing to fight and die for to those that I couldn't possibly care less about, this would be right at the bottom of the list.

A woman's right to wear a stupid bag on her head in accordance with stupid cultural norms brought from some stupid third-world outhouse are right on the borderline between "I couldn't care less" and "I could care less, but just barely" for me.

-k

[Peter F]

The niqab and burka are a reflection of a jealous and controlling belief system (don't look at my wife!). It limits the jobs and lives of these women, but somehow we just shrug it off as cultural differences.

Yet we frown upon a women in polygamous relationships and see them as willing participants to their victimhood. That makes no sense.

Oh yes, I am sure that in most cases the niqab and burka are as you say, part of a male domination thing for fear the woman will take up with other men and bringing their own manliness into question.

But, do we need a law to prohibit this? Many in our society right now buy into all sorts of mysoginist thinking and behaviour, well short of criminal law too.

We don't ban those things though we may frown upon them. We don't ban women from relationships with men who treat them badly.

As you and I know there's little to be done about such things and we let all sorts of it flow on by with a shake of our heads and a resolve to never let that

happen to us. What laws could we use? Thou shalt not walk one pace behind your husband upon summary conviction $500.00 fine? Loss of citizenship?

[Peter F]

and then there's the ceremonial aspect. Is it necessary to actually see the applicants lips move? Is the document they sign and is witnessed not good enough? During the treason trial will the applicants defence be "yah I was there but - very important point here - I didn't actually utter the oath! I just pretended I did". Does magic citizenship dust float on the air and need to be imbibed through open mouths or you don't really become a citizen?

This need to see the lips move is akin to superstition. Black cats, Blue legal papers, Lower case name-printing and uttering oaths. Same thing.

There was a time when Ceremony served a very important purpose back before books and literacy when memory and the remembering of official events was a going concern. Back then there'd be a fancy ceremony with all sorts of important nobles and other authority figures in all their regalia. Face coverings would be removed so's witnesses could remember who was there and who said what. But we don't need that anymore. We don't remember shit because we have everything written down and official documents issued. No need for the ceremony anymore except as a warm personal memory for the people who take part.

*lordy, I hate spellcheck.*

Edited September 26, 2015 by Peter F

[WestCoastRunner]

Oh yes, I am sure that in most cases the niqab and burka are as you say, part of a male domination thing for fear the woman will take up with other men and bringing their own manliness into question.

But, do we need a law to prohibit this?

I feel that we need to show women who choose to wear the niqab that it isn't something that Canadians encourage in our free society where women are treated as equals. There is no need for women to hide themselves especially during this ceremony. As I have said previously, by banning the niqab we are sending a message to women that Canadians respect women and they do not need to hide. It may take them a while to understand our culture, but I would hope they would get it eventually. Polygamy is another story, especially here in BC. A good topic for another thread.

I have no problem sending a message to women seeking citizenship in Canada that disallows them from wearing the niqab during this ceremony.

[WestCoastRunner]

But we don't need that anymore. We don't remember shit because we have everything written down and official documents issued. No need for the ceremony anymore except as a warm personal memory for the people who take part.

The warm personal memory also sends a message what is meant by being a Canadian woman. Canadians do not condone women having to hide their faces.

[WestCoastRunner]

Symbol - "a thing that represents or stands for something else, especially a material object representing something abstract."

Respectfully, if you see the niqab as a symbol of oppression of women and expect others to respect your view, why do not respect the right of others to view the niqab as a symbol of freedom of expression for women?

Do you believe that a symbol is an abstract representation?

Covering a woman's face is a symbol of oppression. I have never seen a man cover his face. Have you?

Edited September 26, 2015 by WestCoastRunner

[WIP]

I feel that we need to show women who choose to wear the niqab that it isn't something that Canadians encourage in our free society where women are treated as equals. There is no need for women to hide themselves especially during this ceremony. As I have said previously, by banning the niqab we are sending a message to women that Canadians respect women and they do not need to hide. It may take them a while to understand our culture, but I would hope they would get it eventually.

Oh yeah, that's going to work! How much time did you spend thinking through the logic of this? If it's not a freewill decision, and a woman is coerced by husband or family to wear a niqaab, what will be the result of the ban? You likely won't see her in public at all, and the ban will be interpreted as a rejection of their religion and culture and an attempt to impose western culture on them....which has a lot of things we can't brag about either!

[Peter F]

Canadians do not condone women having to hide their faces.

Mostly true, of course. But! Is it necessary that we demand immigrants abandon a sincerely held belief immediately? I don't think it is.

Woman, on this side of the world - and very often in muslim lands also - do not have to hide their faces. Those that voluntarily wear such things really do not believe, as you and I do, that their face coverings are symbols of oppression. They see it as a symbol of modesty or even fashion.

Those that do in fact see it as oppression will very soon stop wearing such things in our particular culture. Those that don't see it as oppression will continue to wear it.

By forbidding the wearing of these things is telling people what they must believe, Just as telling women they must wear these things is telling them what they must believe. At some point the individual gets to determine how they dress to reflect their own beliefs.

Edited September 26, 2015 by Peter F

[Hal 9000]

The Burka and Niqab aren't really necessary, but the Hijab is still a pretty sexy look.

[drummindiver]

I apologize if this was brought up, but why are Muslims (non religious) beliefs more important than other ppls actual religious beliefs. One is religious, one is not, yet the one that is not gets the exemption. Crazy judicial system.

http://www.therebel.media/here_s_an_easy_way_to_spot

[cybercoma]

Oh yes, I am sure that in most cases the niqab and burka are as you say, part of a male domination thing for fear the woman will take up with other men and bringing their own manliness into question.

While I'm sure this is true in a lot of cases, it's pretty tough to reconcile this line of thought with the fact that many women here wear the niqab against the wishes of their family. There are men who believe it makes them look abusive and like misgynists, but their wives and sometimes daughters wear it anyway. We should be taking a moment to listen to these women explain why they wear it.

[Michael Hardner]

Crazy judicial system.

Interesting case - religious accommodation should be the same for all religions

[cybercoma]

I apologize if this was brought up, but why are Muslims (non religious) beliefs more important than other ppls actual religious beliefs. One is religious, one is not, yet the one that is not gets the exemption. Crazy judicial system.

http://www.therebel.media/here_s_an_easy_way_to_spot

Muslim beliefs aren't. Niqabi women in Alberta have to show their face on their drivers licenses too.

[cybercoma]

Interesting case - religious accommodation should be the same for all religions

And it is if you look into it.

[cybercoma]

There are cases where security or identification concerns rightfully trump the religious practice: for example, when taking a driver’s license photo or going through airport security. Muslim women are also sometimes required — on a case-by-case basis — to remove their veils while testifying in court

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/national-post-view-court-was-right-to-strike-down-niqab-ban-during-citizenship-ceremony

[Evening Star]

The Burka and Niqab aren't really necessary, but the Hijab is still a pretty sexy look.

This is from a Finnish street style blog from about 10 years ago but I thought it was pretty striking (as a look; she's too young for me at this point).

[Evening Star]

I like the plaid niqab in this picture too.

[drummindiver]

This is from a Finnish street style blog from about 10 years ago but I thought it was pretty striking (as a look; she's too young for me at this point).

Sorry, hijab as fashion?

See, that's fair. Call it fashion.

Do not claim religious privilege however.

[ToadBrother]

So in a 'free society' why do we now allow polygamy when it's none of anyone's business and the women are willing participants?

Got me. I'd make it legal. Providing only one set of benefits (tax credits, EI, welfare, etc.) was made available, it's none of my business if three or more people want to live in some sort of arrangement.

As long as children and animals aren't harmed, I keep my nose out of it. There are lots of people who live in a way I find distasteful. You think wearing a niqab is bad, what about women who live as submissives in a BDSM relationship.

Would you like to ban that as well?

[WIP]

While I'm sure this is true in a lot of cases, it's pretty tough to reconcile this line of thought with the fact that many women here wear the niqab against the wishes of their family. There are men who believe it makes them look abusive and like misgynists, but their wives and sometimes daughters wear it anyway. We should be taking a moment to listen to these women explain why they wear it.

I should have thought of that one also! I had heard before that this and other forms of Islamic dress can be a personal statement on how important they consider their religion.

I'm just glad that we still have a Supreme Court that tries to follow higher principles than polling numbers or political affiliation.....which is at least reason #85 to get Harper the hell out of the Prime Minister's Office! I'm sure that turning our Court into a tool for conservative activism (SCOTUS) is high on his priority list if he successfully divides the Opposition this time!

[Argus]

, and the ban will be interpreted as a rejection of their religion and culture

Good. I wholeheartedly reject her religion and culture. So do most Canadians.