.

[dialamah]

Exempt 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.

The laws against nudity are also applied to everyone equally, regardless of their societal niche. A ban on the niqab targets a very tiny minority.

[CITIZEN_2015]

Interesting enough the conservatives are quite ready to make a 19 billion dollar trade deal with a country which has the worst human rights records when it comes to women and which forces women to wear neqab and violates their very basic human rights by depriving them even from the right to drive. That is of course Saudi Arabia. All I can say is shame on hypocrites.

Edited October 2, 2015 by CITIZEN_2015

[Evening Star]

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.

I'd be open to changing these laws as well.

[Evening Star]

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

Do they? Can you estimate what percentage of the vote shifted to the NDP as a result of this issue? Polls have shown overwhelming support for the Con/Bloc position, especially in Quebec, which had been an NDP base. And, again, there would have been no issue if the Tories did not create a policy and fight the courts on it in the first place. The Opposition is just responding.

[TimG]

I'd be open to changing these laws as well.

And you would find that a large number of people would disagree with you. The point is what is considered acceptable garb in public is a question determined by the majority and you can't argue there is some fundamental right to wear whatever you want wherever you want.

[ironstone]

How about a political candidate running in an election....wearing the niqab?Would you lefties be just fine with that?

[Guest]

And you would find that a large number of people would disagree with you. The point is what is considered acceptable garb in public is a question determined by the majority and you can't argue there is some fundamental right to wear whatever you want wherever you want.

I would say that that is exactly what one can argue. As much as I abhor the practice of women being required to cover their faces, for religious or cultural reasons, if a women says she has made that choice, and the law doesn't specifically prohibit it, (driver's licences, passports, etc) then I can't see how she can be told she cannot wear one.

[Guest]

How about a political candidate running in an election....wearing the niqab?Would you lefties be just fine with that?

Not a lefty, but I can't see how that would be a problem either, if it was clearly her choice. (or at least, she was willing to pretend it was).

[ironstone]

Not a lefty, but I can't see how that would be a problem either, if it was clearly her choice. (or at least, she was willing to pretend it was).

So you don't need to see the face at all?How about a party leader?A Prime Minister?

[cybercoma]

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.

I'm offended by your posts. How about you stop posting then, hmm?

This is absolutely hilarious coming from someone who has made numerous arguments that people who are offended by various kinds of hate speech need to "suck it up." Now you're saying the government should be in the business of telling women what they can and can't wear because it might offend you. You have absolutely no credibility with such a hypocritical flip flop by introducing "offence" into the equation.

Edited October 2, 2015 by cybercoma

[TimG]

This is absolutely hilarious coming from someone who has made numerous arguments that people who are offended by various kinds of hate speech need to "suck it up."

Where did I say that I was personally for the ban? I was simply pointing out the arguments are not necessarily compelling. My personal preference is for maximum tolerance of different views (and garb). That also means I have no issue with a private Christian university having a code of conduct which some people find offensive. So if anyone is a hypocrite it is you because you argue for freedom to offend here while demanding that it be denied when you are the one being offended. Edited October 2, 2015 by TimG

[cybercoma]

So do you support a woman's right to wear a niqab during the citizenship ceremony if it's her free choice?

[Argus]

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.

Really? As I recall, some time ago, the authorities decided that in all occasions where they thought a domestic assault might have occurred they were to charge the presumably guilty party, even when the spouse denied it or refused to press changes. The presumption being that they were under too much pressure, and not really capable of seeing what was in their own better interests. I haven't heard a lot of objection to this ongoing policy, which I believe has been in place in pretty much all Canadian cities for decades now.

So what is wrong with presuming <these> women need assistance too, regardless of what they say?

[Argus]

Interesting enough the conservatives are quite ready to make a 19 billion dollar trade deal with a country which has the worst human rights records when it comes to women and which forces women to wear neqab and violates their very basic human rights by depriving them even from the right to drive. That is of course Saudi Arabia. All I can say is shame on hypocrites.

Are you suggesting we should not trade with countries which violate human rights? Because that would pretty much shut us out of most of the world.

[bush_cheney2004]

Are you suggesting we should not trade with countries which violate human rights? Because that would pretty much shut us out of most of the world.

True...it would even shut out Canada trading with itself.

[TimG]

So do you support a woman's right to wear a niqab during the citizenship ceremony if it's her free choice?

I think that the citizenship ceremonies should be discontinued if people think they are such a joke that no rules should apply to what clothing is acceptable or not. Once citizenship is approved they can sign a document and collect their id at the passport office. No need for a public ceremony.

[cybercoma]

I think that the citizenship ceremonies should be discontinued if people think they are such a joke that no rules should apply to what clothing is acceptable or not. Once citizenship is approved they can sign a document and collect their id at the passport office. No need for a public ceremony.

Regardless, we have ceremonies. Do you support their right to wear the niqab at those ceremonies?

[dialamah]

Really? As I recall, some time ago, the authorities decided that in all occasions where they thought a domestic assault might have occurred they were to charge the presumably guilty party, even when the spouse denied it or refused to press changes. The presumption being that they were under too much pressure, and not really capable of seeing what was in their own better interests. I haven't heard a lot of objection to this ongoing policy, which I believe has been in place in pretty much all Canadian cities for decades now.

So what is wrong with presuming <these> women need assistance too, regardless of what they say?

Again you prove my point. The *victim* does not take action to help themselves until they are ready to do so. It doesn't matter if their mother tells them how bad the spouse is, or if the cops arrest, charge and jail the spouse - until the victim decides not to be a victim, he/she will just take the spouse back over and over and over.

Every Canadian in Canada could carefully explain to the niqab-wearing-woman exactly why she shouldn't wear the niqab; we might even be right in our reasons. We could ban it in government offices, in workplaces and on the street. She'll ignore our good advice, and she'll simply refrain from leaving the house, unless it's a dire emergency. She might even decide to wear her niqab through this dire emergency, despite whatever laws or societal disapproval she faces. Until SHE decides to remove the niqab any action WE take to do so is pointless, other than to make OURSELVES feel better.

[TimG]

Regardless, we have ceremonies. Do you support their right to wear the niqab at those ceremonies?

Only if I see similar acceptance of "offensive" actions in other contexts (such as the TWU code of conduct). If it is simply another example the "progressives" deciding what is offensive and imposing their views on everyone else then I do not support it. i.e. I want to see some quid quo pro. Edited October 2, 2015 by TimG

[cybercoma]

It's a pretty simple yes or no question. This has nothing to do with any other issue. On this issue alone, do you support a woman's right to wear the niqab? This has nothing to do with Trinity or any other issue.

[dialamah]

Do you support their right to wear the niqab at those ceremonies?

That's a good question. I personally don't like the niqab, so my *preference* would be that they not wear it. Niqab wearing women look strange to me, I am uncomfortable with what it implies about that woman's culture and by extension, my own - we aren't that far from a completely male-dominated, patriarchal society. I think it would show respect on their part to remove it given that we are a different culture; on the other hand, why am I more entitled to respect for what I believe, than they are for what they believe?

I also support the idea that people should have as much freedom to make their own choices as possible. I worry that a niqab-ban in *some* places will lead naturally to a niqab-ban in other places and that these womens' freedoms would become more and more limited not just by legal means, but also by societal disapproval. Even just the "discussion" of this issue emboldened some boys to attack a woman in order to remove her niqab. How much worse would it be if niqabs were banned sometimes, in some places?

So, in the end, I'd support their right to wear a niqab during the ceremony, despite my personal preference that they do not.

Edited October 2, 2015 by dialamah

[CITIZEN_2015]

Are you suggesting we should not trade with countries which violate human rights? Because that would pretty much shut us out of most of the world.

I am suggesting that on one hand they condemn oppression of women and see neqab as a sign of oppression on one side of their mouth and at the same time having a friendly relationship with the biggest oppressor of women, namely The regime in Saudi Arabia. On one hand condemning human right violations by their adversary (Iran) and at the same time making an ally and friend out of other oppressive regimes like Saudi Arabia.

Edited October 5, 2015 by CITIZEN_2015

[TimG]

It's a pretty simple yes or no question. This has nothing to do with any other issue. On this issue alone, do you support a woman's right to wear the niqab? This has nothing to do with Trinity or any other issue.

I answered the question. If we have a society where people accept that others are free to do and say offensive things then I support it. If we have a society where the majority gets to decide what offensive things are prohibited then I do not support it because I find it offensive and so do a majority of Canadians. What kind of society do we have? The examples like TWU suggest it is latter. Edited October 2, 2015 by TimG

[cybercoma]

Your opinion on the matter depends on what everyone else's opinions are on unrelated matters, eh? That's a silly position.

[Smallc]

Not a lefty, but I can't see how that would be a problem either, if it was clearly her choice.

I agree. I don't like the idea of the niqab at all, and I often don't think it is a choice. If it is, who am I to judge?