.

[eyeball]

Gosh, I wonder exactly what that act defines as 'Barbaric Cultural Practices'. Child marriages, clitoral removal, death by stoning (or any other means) - that all would make sense. But those were already illegal in Canada, so why would another law be needed? What else not covered in our already existing laws is in this legislation? Or is it just an unnecessary law created for optics?

At a time when people call authorities if they see 12 year olds by themselves? It'll be a busy law I bet.

[cybercoma]

those were already illegal in Canada, so why would another law be needed?

And why would we need to spend money on a "special task force" to combat something that's so rare as to be practically non-existant here? It's window dressing to appear tough on crime when it would accomplish literally nothing.

[eyeball]

It's probably only seems rare because there's so much that goes unreported.

[Black Dog]

It's probably only seems rare because there's so much that goes unreported.

Sarcasm? How do you know how much of it goes unreported if it is unreported? And will adding a different hotline change that? Dialing 9-1-1 is too hard for some?

[eyeball]

Sarcasm?

Sorry...dammit I'm always forgetting this...

/sarcasm off.

[angrypenguin]

Let's call a spade a spade.

"Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act" is simply the Conservative party turning up the heat ahead of the debates tonight.

[Black Dog]

And why would we need to spend money on a "special task force" to combat something that's so rare as to be practically non-existant here? It's window dressing to appear tough on crime when it would accomplish literally nothing.

That's not true. It will accomplish its goal of fostering xenophobia and paranoia.

Sorta related.

Edited October 2, 2015 by Black Dog

[PIK]

Lowell green was saying how it is white male editors and journalists that are fanning the flames, by saying it is 0k for women to wear them while muslim female reporters are writing how evil these face coverings are.

[Black Dog]

Lowell green was saying how it is white male editors and journalists that are fanning the flames, by saying it is 0k for women to wear them while muslim female reporters are writing how evil these face coverings are.

Cool story bruh. Who the **** is Lowell green and why should we care?

Edited October 2, 2015 by Black Dog

[Guest]

Are Muslim female reporters actually saying how evil these face coverings are? I would say that would be relevant. Not to the issue of choice, but to the issue of perception.

[cybercoma]

That's not true. It will accomplish its goal of fostering xenophobia and paranoia.

Sorta related.

I'm truly surprised people don't see this for the kind of bottom of the barrel gutter politics that it is. O Canada, I guess.

[cybercoma]

Lowell green was saying how it is white male editors and journalists that are fanning the flames, by saying it is 0k for women to wear them while muslim female reporters are writing how evil these face coverings are.

Who cares what any reporters are saying. Do you know who's opinion matters on these things? The women who want to wear them. You ever read what they have to say about it? Particularly those who are going against their families' wishes and wearing them anyway?

[Black Dog]

Are Muslim female reporters actually saying how evil these face coverings are? I would say that would be relevant. Not to the issue of choice, but to the issue of perception.

I think the fact that only a tiny minority of women within the Muslim population wear these things shows there's not widespread support for the practice. But I don't think that matters to the people for whom this is a red meat issue.

[Guest]

I think the fact that only a tiny minority of women within the Muslim population wear these things shows there's not widespread support for the practice. But I don't think that matters to the people for whom this is a red meat issue.

Sure, and I support their right to wear them, being pro choice and all. But it's nice to know that Muslim women reporters are calling them evil. If they are.

[TimG]

I think the fact that only a tiny minority of women within the Muslim population wear these things shows there's not widespread support for the practice. But I don't think that matters to the people for whom this is a red meat issue.

Just like a tiny minority of married gay would be lawyers will want to attend TWU yet that does not stop the left from getting up in arms because of the 'symbolism' created by a code of conduct that does not recognize gay marriages.

[Argus]

Gosh, I wonder exactly what that act defines as 'Barbaric Cultural Practices'. Child marriages, clitoral removal, death by stoning (or any other means) - that all would make sense. But those were already illegal in Canada, so why would another law be needed? What else not covered in our already existing laws is in this legislation? Or is it just an unnecessary law created for optics?

You mean like crimes?

[Argus]

That's not true. It will accomplish its goal of fostering xenophobia and paranoia.

You mean like the Liberal party banning the wearing of the niquab in government buildings in Quebec?

Edited October 2, 2015 by Argus

[Argus]

Cool story bruh. Who the **** is Lowell green and why should we care?

An enlightened and sensitive classical liberal who is always sensitive and inclusive.

[dialamah]

But it's nice to know that Muslim women reporters are calling them evil. If they are.

I'm not sure how a face covering can be 'evil'. It can be disliked, either by the wearer or by the viewer, but in and off itself it has no moral value.

People who do not like see it as a symbol of oppression to women. They are no doubt correct.

People who like it see it as a symbol of faith. They are no doubt correct.

Conservative politicians see it as a way to whip up the electorate, get some votes. They are also correct.

[TimG]

Conservative politicians see it as a way to whip up the electorate, get some votes. They are also correct.

Liberal and NDP politicians see grandstanding on this issue as a way to whip of votes. This is also correct.

What is your point?

[Guest]

I'm not sure how a face covering can be 'evil'. It can be disliked, either by the wearer or by the viewer, but in and off itself it has no moral value.

People who do not like see it as a symbol of oppression to women. They are no doubt correct.

People who like it see it as a symbol of faith. They are no doubt correct.

Conservative politicians see it as a way to whip up the electorate, get some votes. They are also correct.

I would say the oppression of women is evil. It's a little subjective, I know, but there it is.

[dre]

I would say the oppression of women is evil. It's a little subjective, I know, but there it is.

Thats why the state should not be telling them what they can and cant wear.

Theres enough real work that needs to be done in Ottawa that the government ought not to be involving itself in fassion.

[Guest]

Thats why the state should not be telling them what they can and cant wear.

Theres enough real work that needs to be done in Ottawa that the government ought not to be involving itself in fassion.

Yes, I agree.

[TimG]

Thats why the state should not be telling them what they can and cant wear.

Except the state does limit what people are allowed to wear. For example, one cannot walk nude down the street and the only rational reason for the rule is because it is offensive to a large number of Canadians. Niqabs are no different in the sense that they are offensive to a lot of people. Edited October 2, 2015 by TimG

[dialamah]

I would say the oppression of women is evil. It's a little subjective, I know, but there it is.

I agree that the oppression of women, or anyone, is evil. But until they, themselves, are ready to make that determination, we can't do a lot about it. Like domestic abuse or drug addiction - the victim can end up in the hospital multiple times, they can be offered all kinds of help, but until they figure it out, no amount of trying to forbid certain behaviour is going to work.

Banning the niqab entirely would probably make Canadians in general more comfortable. It will do nothing to help currently oppressed women become less-oppressed; in fact, it's more likely to create more oppression because some women will no longer be leaving the house. They'll become completely invisible. Anyone who says the niqab should be banned to help women is deluding themselves.