Jump to content

Recommended Posts

On 11/2/2017 at 2:38 PM, Goddess said:

1.  It's a garment long used to oppress women.

2. It's currently experiencing a revival all around the world because Islamic extremists are promoting it and Muslims and people who don't really care about what it represents are all buying into it.

Check out what the word "Muruna" means in Muslim? Sure they say that they want to get along and assimilate but can you really trust them when they say that?  From what I have observed so far, assimilating is not of their program and agenda. Hey, you never know. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/9/2015 at 5:35 PM, eyeball said:

They arrest gay people in Egypt too.

Egyptian and Canadian right-wingers definitely go the extra mile to prove that conservatism is the stupidest ideology on the planet.

 

Because the vast majority of Canadians do not subscribe to the stupidest ideology on the planet.

The CPC party has no position or policy on the face covering as far as I know.  I don't know where you are coming from.  Rather presumptuous.  It was already reported something like 2/3 or 70% of Canadians agree with bill 62 in Quebec.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, blackbird said:

The CPC party has no position or policy on the face covering as far as I know.

What you don't know is almost legendary.

I don't know where you are coming from.  Rather presumptuous.  It was already reported something like 2/3 or 70% of Canadians agree with bill 62 in Quebec.

All that tells us is that %70 of Canadians are racist assholes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, eyeball said:

What you don't know is almost legendary.

 

 

All that tells us is that %70 of Canadians are racist assholes.

The face covering is a mark of a backward-thinking culture and ideology that devalues women as mere chattels.  It has no place in a modern society that professes to respect women as equals.  Anyone who can't see that is woefully blind of the reality.  Ignorance is bliss.

Edited by blackbird
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, blackbird said:

The face covering is a mark of a backward-thinking culture and ideology that devalues women as mere chattels.  It has no place in a modern society that professes to respect women as equals.  Anyone who can't see that is woefully blind of the reality.  Ignorance is bliss.

Backwardness is to force people to dress the way they dont want. Backwardness is to see women as sex objects. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/12/2017 at 12:13 PM, eyeball said:

What you don't know is almost legendary.

 

 

All that tells us is that %70 of Canadians are racist assholes.

Tell us 70% of canadians are sick and tired of having a sick and tired religion forced onto us. So eyeball, why do you hate women so much? Something happen while you were young?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Altai said:

Backwardness is to force people to dress the way they dont want. Backwardness is to see women as sex objects. 

Funny how muslim women that have made it here hate it, but western women thinks it is cool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This will always be a circular argument.

None of us, I think, support subjugating women the way the intent of full body coverings like the burka or the niqab indicate but banning those things infringe on people's religious freedoms. 

It's clear people don't really take the tenants of Islam seriously. Because nothing in Islam says people need to cover their face in public. But Islam does preach hating the non-believer and plenty "Muslims" ignore that part of their religion. However there's a large cohort that do. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, PIK said:

Tell us 70% of canadians are sick and tired of having a sick and tired religion forced onto us. So eyeball, why do you hate women so much? Something happen while you were young?

If womens rights is an issue here the answer is definitely not to use the state as fassion policy and ban them from wearing certain garments. Instead we should spend that money on education, and empowering muslim women.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, dre said:

If womens rights is an issue here the answer is definitely not to use the state as fassion policy and ban them from wearing certain garments. Instead we should spend that money on education, and empowering muslim women.

So you'd support public schools saying that Women covering their faces is a bad thing? 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 11/13/2017 at 3:55 PM, Boges said:

So you'd support public schools saying that Women covering their faces is a bad thing? 

I would support public schools saying the women have the right to choose to wear (or not wear) whatever they want. Canadians do not dictate to others what is right or wrong, good or bad. It is your body, and you have a right to express yourself however you want. It is common practice in Canada to use facial photographs for identification purposes, and sometimes you will be required to prove identity. In contemporary Canadian culture, facial expressions play an important role in communications. If you are testifying before a judge & jury, then they may need to see your facial expressions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

I would support public schools saying the women have the right to choose to wear (or not wear) whatever they want. Canadians do not dictate to others what is right or wrong, good or bad. It is your body, and you have a right to express yourself however you want. It is common practice in Canada to use facial photographs for identification purposes, and sometimes you will be required to prove identity. In contemporary Canadian culture, facial expressions play an important role in communications. If you are testifying before a judge & jury, then they may need to see your facial expressions.

And you're naive to believe that wearing a Hijab is an actual choice for most women. So even saying they should have a choice is being as culturally insensitive as saying it shouldn't be allowed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Boges said:

And you're naive to believe that wearing a Hijab is an actual choice for most women. So even saying they should have a choice is being as culturally insensitive as saying it shouldn't be allowed. 

I have no concerns about cultural sensitivity, one way or the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Goddess said:

How do we do that?

I dont have all the answers. But I do know, that while the problem is worse muslim households right now, patriarchy is not a muslim problem. Millions of woman live in male dominated homes, and are subject to abuse, pressure, etc. I guess women need to keep fighting for equality, and we should help them in any way we can. Support structures, education, laws, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dre said:

I dont have all the answers. But I do know, that while the problem is worse muslim households right now, patriarchy is not a muslim problem. Millions of woman live in male dominated homes, and are subject to abuse, pressure, etc. I guess women need to keep fighting for equality, and we should help them in any way we can. Support structures, education, laws, etc.

I think we are gradually dealing with our problems with patriarchy in Western culture.  Women have fought  and continue to fight against it.  But how do you deal with it when it is religiously mandated that women are second class and must be covered at all times, and that mentality is brought to a new country and being actively promoted where that sort of thing is not acceptable to the local culture because no one wants to go back to stone-age religious or cultural beliefs?

Men have never had to deal with what women have had to deal with in regard to patriarchy.  Given enough influence, I can easily see society going BACK to these kinds of archaic beliefs - you will have Muslims wanting it and you will have Westerners - both men and women - who are content to shrug their shoulders and say, "Well, since it's done in the name of a religion and we have religious freedom here, so there is no harm to anyone."

I think religious freedom should have limits. Others feel there should be no limit to religious freedom.  Their priority is religious freedom over all else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Goddess said:

I think religious freedom should have limits. Others feel there should be no limit to religious freedom.  Their priority is religious freedom over all else.

Yes, the limits of religious freedom are when it violates the laws of our country.

Do you think that we should force people to eat pork if they choose to abstain due to religious freedom? Do we need a specific law that says one must consume pork once a week?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Yes, the limits of religious freedom are when it violates the laws of our country.

Do you think that we should force people to eat pork if they choose to abstain due to religious freedom? Do we need a specific law that says one must consume pork once a week?

Dietary restrictions and preferences are not anywhere near the same as wearing the symbol of extreme Islam, and the denigration and dehumanization of women.  Whether a person eats pork or not - how does that affect society? Forced burka/niqab DOES affect society, it affects the women who wear it, it affects their children, it affects men and how they view/treat women, it is an affront to women and a reminder of how easily we can go back to women being second class citizens, barely human.

The essence of a democratic society is that civic participation is extended to all.  Deliberately preventing an entire gender from participating in society as identifiable individuals is a slap in the face to the entire foundation of our society.  The essense of the burka is  that women are not recognized as individuals, not empowered to make their own decisions.  The whole point of it is to impede interaction outside the home.

While authorities cannot interfere witih what people do inside their homes, the public wearing of burkas is a statement that women are unequal and must be segregated.  Like a KKK march or the wearing of swastikas, it is an assault on the legal place of women in society and an intimidating statement of bigotry against them.

If radicals are prevented from making public statements about the inferiority of certain races, why should they be permitted to assert the inferiority of an entire gender?

Muslims are free to believe whatever they want but a public display that dehumanizes women as a gender by treating their faces and bodies as obscene is a violation of the norms of our society.

Islamophiles can deny it all they want, but a French study found that 77% of girls who wear the hijab do so because of threats. http://www.weeklystandard.com/article/14126

Many women who defy the burka and hijab by posting pictures of themselves without it are threatened with blackmail and violence.

The burka divides women into "good girls" and "whores" and gives rapists religious ammunition to justify their crime.  In response to a gang rape, the Cheif Mufti of Australia said, "If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred." 

The burka doesn't just isolate the woman, it also covers up abuse.  In Afganistan, 87% of women report being victims of domestic abuse.  http://section15.ca/features/news/2008/07/04/afghan_women/  In Pakistan, that number goes as high as 90%.

This is an especially vital issue in Western countries where spousal abuse is a serious crime, so the abuser has even MORE motivation to hide the abuse.  The Muslim community is in denial about its abuse rates and the burka is one of the reasons why.

Do you still want to compare it to whether someone chooses to eat pork or not?

 

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

On 30/11/2017 at 3:54 PM, Goddess said:

Dietary restrictions and preferences are not anywhere near the same as wearing the symbol of extreme Islam, and the denigration and dehumanization of women.

Everything you said is so true, really wish you could stand up in the HOC and say that to Mr. Trudeau. Much more incisive than what smiling Speer says.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/12/2017 at 4:37 PM, Altai said:

Backwardness is to force people to dress the way they dont want. Backwardness is to see women as sex objects. 

Then why do women dress as sex objects?? Maybe women like sex to?

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/1/2017 at 10:16 PM, OftenWrong said:

 

 

Everything you said is so true, really wish you could stand up in the HOC and say that to Mr. Trudeau. Much more incisive than what smiling Speer says.

Scheer is feeling his way. The left wing media is just waiting for him to fall so they can rip him apart, to save trudeaus job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...