Even Muslim countries ban the NIqab - so why not Canada?

[dialamah]

41 minutes ago, Goddess said:

I wonder why so many of them are fighting in the courts to not be flexible and show their face when required?

Cite?

Wait.  Are you talking about Canadian Courts or those in other countries?

Edited February 5, 2018 by dialamah

[Goddess]

31 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Cite?

Really?  Did you miss the one who fought for the right to not show her face during the Canadian Citizenship Oath?  Pretty sure you didn't.

These don't say "flexible" to me.  Respect for other cultures is a 2-way street.

Fighting to wear it during the Citizenship Oath:

Quote

 

In 2011, then immigration minister Jason Kenney announced new rules banning face coverings for people taking the Canadian citizenship oath.

Until then, a citizenship clerk or other official could pull aside a woman wearing a niqab at the ceremony and have the woman lift it for identification.

But the law came under court scrutiny after Zunera Ishaq, a Pakistani woman living in Mississauga, Ont., argued that the ban violated her rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In February 2015, a Federal Court judge ruled that women can wear a niqab while taking the oath.

 

Fighting to wear it in courtrooms:

Quote

 

In April 2013, an Ontario judge ruled that a woman had to remove her niqab to testify in a sexual assault case.

The decision came after the judge applied a new test set out by the Supreme Court of Canada dealing with witnesses wearing a veil.

In the split decision, the majority ruled that judges have to do a four-part test to determine if a Muslim woman can be allowed to wear a niqab when testifying:

• Does she have a sincere belief in her religion?
• Does wearing a veil create a serious risk to trial fairness?
• Is there any other way to accommodate her?
• If no, does what the court called the "salutary" effects of ordering her to remove her niqab outweigh the "deleterious" effects of doing that?

The woman had been fighting for six years for the right to wear her niqab during the trial of her uncle and cousin, who were accused of sexually assaulting her when she was a child in the 1980s.

The woman decided to “compromise” in early 2014, and testified without her niqab with the public excluded from the courtroom, her lawyer told the National Post. The sexual assault charges against the men were withdrawn by the Crown.

 

Fighting to wear it in classrooms:
 

Quote

 

Naima Atef Amed of Montreal was a permanent resident when she was taking a government-sponsored French classes at CÉGEP de Saint-Laurent. The Egyptian immigrant wore a niqab to class for religious reasons. In 2009 she was expelled from the course when she refused to remove the niqab. "The CÉGEP maintains the school tried to accommodate Amed but that she refused to compromise in class, causing tension for other students," CBC News reported in 2010.

She enrolled in another French course at a community centre but was again expelled once government officials found out.

Quebec Immigration Minister Yolande James said at the time that those who want to receive public services must show their face.

"Here our values are that we want to see your face," she said.

 

Fighting to wear it at all times:

I'm sure you're aware of the uproar when Bill 94 was introduced, requiring  people who wear face coverings in Quebec to remove them if they work in the public sector or do business with government officials.

Fighting to wear it when voting:

Quote

 

In 2007, Quebec's chief returning officer said Muslim women would be able to wear a niqab when receiving a ballot for the provincial election, a position that set off fierce debate. Party leaders urged him to reverse the decision, which he eventually did. A similar controversy arose in Quebec six months later during federal byelections.

On the Elections Canada website, it currently says if an elector wearing a face covering arrives to vote, the deputy returning officer will ask the elector to show their face.

"If the elector agrees to remove their face covering, the election official will follow regular voting procedures," the website says.

"If the elector does not wish to remove their face covering, the deputy returning officer will advise the elector that they must provide two pieces of authorized identification, one proving their identity and the other proving their identity and address, and then take an oath attesting to their eligibility to vote."

If that is done, regular voting procedures will follow.

 

Edited February 5, 2018 by Goddess

[Goddess]

So, they don't want to take it off for governmental anything, for judicial anything, not for school or university, not for work, not for voting, not for anything out in public.

So where are all these "flexible" times when they can show their face?

[dialamah]

No, didn't miss the one re: citizenship oath.  But she did remove it for proper identification prior.   So, she was flexible in removing her face covering when necessary; the court ruled she was within her rights to wear it during the "ceremony". 

Re: witness in court.  By your own cite, the woman eventually chose to remove her niqab to testify.

Re: wearing a face covering for voting.  Elections Canada does not require picture ID to vote.  Thus, I could show up at your polling station, after having stolen a prescription bottle and a library card from you, and vote in your name.  If picture ID is not a necessity when voting, what difference does it make if one's face is visible?

But I ask you about all of these situations... is there a problem with our rights in Canada to challenge our systems?  Isn't that what too many countries lack?  Perhaps instead of being angry at the people who do so, be grateful that they, and we, can.  If you don't like the decisions of the courts, that is hardly the fault of those who submit and win challenges.  

 

Edited February 5, 2018 by dialamah

[Goddess]

4 minutes ago, dialamah said:

No, didn't miss the one re: citizenship oath.  But she did remove it for proper identification prior.   So, she was flexible in removing her face covering when necessary; the court ruled she was within her rights to wear it during the "ceremony". 

Re: witness in court.  By your own cite, the woman eventually chose to remove her niqab to testify.

Re: wearing a face covering for voting.  Elections Canada does not require picture ID to vote.  Thus, I could show up at your polling station, after having stolen a prescription bottle and a library card from you, and vote in your name.  If picture ID is not a necessity when voting, what difference does it make if one's face is visible?

But I ask you about all of these situations... is there a problem with our rights in Canada to challenge our systems?  Isn't that what too many countries lack?  Perhaps instead of being angry at the people who do so, be grateful that they, and we, can.  If you don't like the decisions of the courts, that is hardly the fault of those who submit and win challenges.  

 

My point was in regard to the claim that they are "flexible" in showing their faces.

Last summer there was a young Muslim girl at a Mall here in Edmonton who tried to make a scene by going into a shoe repair shop that had a sign on the door that faces needed to be seen upon entering - no face coverings, no balaclavas.  The store owner didn't want a lengthy civil rights battle so he now has to allow it all in his shop.  

I see a lot of flexibility on the part of Canadians, as you pointed out above.  Not much on the part of Muslims.

I see respect for other cultures as a 2-way street.  You see it as Canadians must capitulate to Islam, but Islam doesn't have to do anything to accomodate Canadian culture, which is open and relies on seeing the face to build trust.

Perhaps I would feel differently about it if there was more flexibility and respect on the part of Muslims.  Perhaps I would feel differently if these garments were actually a part of the religion and not the uniform of Muslim extremists, enforced and promoted by extremists.

[dialamah]

12 minutes ago, Goddess said:

So, they don't want to take it off for governmental anything, for judicial anything, not for school or university, not for work, not for voting, not for anything out in public.

So where are all these "flexible" times when they can show their face?

These women will take it off, in private, for licenses and passports and where visual ID is required - perhaps to enroll in school or prove who they are prior to giving witness in court.   And, while I personally am not comfortable with not being able to see someone's face in school, on the street or even on the witness stand, I also don't think that it's a requirement that I do.

And, are people "required" to show their face?  There used to be a guy in a neighborhood I lived in who always wore a beekeeper's outfit when outside (maybe inside too, I don't know).  Perhaps he was nuts and protecting himself from alien rays, or maybe he was allergic to sunlight, but for whatever reason his face was always covered.  Should that not have been allowed?

[dialamah]

2 minutes ago, Goddess said:

You see it as Canadians must capitulate to Islam, but Islam doesn't have to do anything to accomodate Canadian culture, which is open and relies on seeing the face to build trust.

That's a retarded statement to make about someone you don't even know.

[Goddess]

2 minutes ago, dialamah said:

maybe he was allergic to sunlight, but for whatever reason his face was always covered.  Should that not have been allowed?

Yup.  That's exactly what I'm saying - people allergic to sunlight should not be allowed to cover up if Muslim women aren't allowed to cover up.    

[Goddess]

Just now, dialamah said:

That's a retarded statement to make about someone you don't even know.

So which parts of Islamic ideology do you feel that Canadians should NOT capitulate to? Anything?  You seem to always argue that it is Canadians who must submit to Islamic wants and desires, that it is Canadians who must be tolerantand accepting of Muslim culture, never the other way around.

[dialamah]

6 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Yup.  That's exactly what I'm saying - people allergic to sunlight should not be allowed to cover up if Muslim women aren't allowed to cover up.    

Perhaps you misunderstand me.  

If the issue is that we should be able to see people's faces, does it apply equally to everyone all the time, or just to Muslim women?  

I am assuming that someone allergic to sunlight, or just nuts, would uncover for ID purposes in a 'safe space' whatever that meant for them.

Edited February 5, 2018 by dialamah

[Goddess]

1 minute ago, dialamah said:

Perhaps you misunderstand me.  

If the issue is that we should be able to see people's faces, does it apply equally to everyone all the time, or just to Muslim women?  

I am assuming that someone allergic to sunlight, or just nuts, would uncover for ID purposes in a 'safe space' whatever that meant for them.

It's hard to hold a discussion on it with someone who believes wearing harmful, extremist religious garments is exactly the same as someone with an actual medical condition having to cover up to protect themselves.

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, Goddess said:

No.  I just believe it's far less a matter of "choice" than it's purported to be.  Sort of like when a mugger says "Gimme all your money or I'll kill you."  there's really only one "choice" to make.

All the same, there are exceptions and you're quite happy that the state be far more like your mugger - 'take off your hijab or we'll arrest you".  Given your choice, we'll be far less like the tolerant Canada we grew up in and more like Iran.

[DogOnPorch]

5 minutes ago, Goddess said:

It's hard to hold a discussion on it with someone who believes wearing harmful, extremist religious garments is exactly the same as someone with an actual medical condition having to cover up to protect themselves.

 

There are people who would see you covered if push comes to shove...right here at this forum.

[dialamah]

7 minutes ago, Goddess said:

So which parts of Islamic ideology do you feel that Canadians should NOT capitulate to? Anything?  You seem to always argue that it is Canadians who must submit to Islamic wants and desires, that it is Canadians who must be tolerantand accepting of Muslim culture, never the other way around.

I argue for "choice" and I support our country's commitment to our own laws, even if it means I have to put up with women dressed in ugly, body-covering clothes, or paying someone $10,000,000 because we abrogated his rights.  Some people seem to feel different standards or laws should apply depending on whether they personally approve of the folk in question.

Islamic Ideology doesn't even come into it.  If people think dressing a certain way gets them into heaven, then they can dress that way if they want.

If someone thinks that God wants them do harm to others, and they do, then they should go to jail.  

[Goddess]

12 minutes ago, dialamah said:

If the issue is that we should be able to see people's faces, does it apply equally to everyone all the time, or just to Muslim women? 

This is the logical fallacy known as "False Dilemma".

 

[dialamah]

9 minutes ago, Goddess said:

It's hard to hold a discussion on it with someone who believes wearing harmful, extremist religious garments is exactly the same as someone with an actual medical condition having to cover up to protect themselves.

This is your disapproval and opinion but it is not necessarily fact.  But as long as you think your opinion and disapproval are the same thing as facts, then you are right ... there is no discussion to be had.  

[Goddess]

1 minute ago, dialamah said:

This is your disapproval and opinion but it is not necessarily fact.  But as long as you think your opinion and disapproval are the same thing as facts, then you are right ... there is no discussion to be had.  

I've talked and quoted and cited many of the harmful effects - psychologically, emotionally, socially, physically.  Yes, it has my disapproval.

I've asked you before to list all the benefits of hijabs and burkas.  Please tell us how beneficial it is.

[?Impact]

1 minute ago, Goddess said:

list all the benefits of hijabs and burkas

How about the benefits of neckties, vests, one-sleeved shirts, furry sandals, etc?

[dialamah]

5 minutes ago, Goddess said:

This is the logical fallacy known as "False Dilemma".

 

Really?  False dilemma is an either/or proposition, whereas I am asking you if you think everybody should be expected to show their face, or just Muslim women?  

Possible responses are:

Yes, all people should be expected to show their faces at all times;

No, it depends on context and circumstances; 

People should be allowed to cover theor faces, unless its religiously motivated;

People should be able to do what they want;

Other - perhaps you (or someone) have a response I haven't thought of?

We could discuss how to reach women who are really being forced by family to cover up; that might be a more productive conversation and is more in line with what your concern seems to be - that women aren't covering up from a truly free choice, but due to familial pressure.  So how do we identify and help those women?

 

[Goddess]

Just now, ?Impact said:

How about the benefits of neckties, vests, one-sleeved shirts, furry sandals, etc?

Are there harmful effects to wearing those?  I know if you wear your necktie too tight, it can cause some problems.  Are people dying over vests and furry sandals?  

[dialamah]

6 minutes ago, Goddess said:

I've talked and quoted and cited many of the harmful effects - psychologically, emotionally, socially, physically.  Yes, it has my disapproval.

I've asked you before to list all the benefits of hijabs and burkas.  Please tell us how beneficial it is.

I am not arguing against your claim that its harmful. I am arguing against the notion that we, as individuals or a country, have the right or even obligation to determine for these women, what they should or should not wear.  If a woman says its her choice to wear it, we should respect that, imo.  Calling her extremist or telling her she has no right to be in Canada because of what she is wearing is wrong, imo.

[Goddess]

4 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Calling her extremist or telling her she has no right to be in Canada because of what she is wearing is wrong, imo.

It is extremist - it's the ideology of radical Islam.  

I have never said they have "no right" to be in Canada.  (<<<----- Ad Hominem)

[Goddess]

 

17 minutes ago, dialamah said:

False dilemma is an either/or proposition, whereas I am asking you if you think everybody should be expected to show their face, or just Muslim women?  

It is exactly False Dilemma.  You present it as: We EITHER allow everyone to cover their faces OR no one is allowed to under any circumstances.

[?Impact]

I wonder what one thinks of these ladies?

[dialamah]

29 minutes ago, Goddess said:

It is extremist - it's the ideology of radical Islam.  

I have never said they have "no right" to be in Canada.  (<<<----- Ad Hominem)

Ok, I am perhaps making the mistake of thinking that by extremist you mean "out to kill".  If by extremist you simply mean a more fundamental and less mainstream version, then I agree.

Also, the "no right in Canada" was not specifically referring to you, but is what some people will say.  Still, I was not clear, so don't blame you for taking it personally.