Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

Forgive the non-mainstream source but there are plenty of corroborating articles out there - but this one seemed to sum things up quite nicely. The "fear mongering" that the Harper government is accused of is hardly that - and if the media would take the time to educate Canadians, we'd all be better for it......knowledge does tend to temper the divisiveness that the opposition parties would like to propagate....

I pointed out the rules in Egypt and in other Muslim countries to my niqab defending friends on Newstalk 580 in Ottawa and was told that didnt matter because those were not democratic countries. Funny, I was told requiring women to show their faces in certain situations was anti-Muslim, yet presented with evidence to the contrary of course the argument changed.

Well, Im not going to change the argument.

Niqab supporters have been claiming for years now, not months, that we must accept the creeping sharia that says niqabed women cannot show their face to anyone but another woman, if at all, out of respect for their religion. If that argument is true, and I disagree whole-heartedly, then Islamic universities and the government of an Islamic country like Egypt must hold some sway.

If the most prestigious Islamic university in the Sunni world can ban niqabs and the Egyptian government can require their removal for voting then surely we can do the same here. Islam has been in Canada for more than a century, with the niqab only coming to this country with the push of Saudi Wahabism here and around the world.

In Egypt they have been dealing with Islam for centuries, the vast majority of its inhabitants are Muslim, I think they know what they are doing.

Other Muslim countries have restrictions on the niqab as well.

Tunisia, Turkey and Azerbaijan all ban the niqab.

Turkey, to answer my radio colleagues that dont believe we should look to Muslim countries like Egypt for our guidance on the niqab, is actually a democracy. So too is France, Belgium and Holland three European countries that have banned the niqab outright.

Link: http://www.therebel.media/canada_s_proposed_niqab_restrictions_mild_compared

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It always becomes about what our beloved, infalible, handed down to us by the gods, charter has to say, which is ultimately the rock they choose to hide behind every time they run out of other arguments, as if the charter can't somehow be wrong, yes, it's good for women and our society in general that we simply accept this practice, and even if it isn't, but but but, the charter. There is no right or wrong, there is, THE CHARTER, in all it's glorious perfection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Forgive the non-mainstream source but there are plenty of corroborating articles out there - but this one seemed to sum things up quite nicely. The "fear mongering" that the Harper government is accused of is hardly that - and if the media would take the time to educate Canadians, we'd all be better for it......knowledge does tend to temper the divisiveness that the opposition parties would like to propagate....

Link: http://www.therebel.media/canada_s_proposed_niqab_restrictions_mild_compared

Gee... the last I read is that Egypt tried to ban the niqab but that it was overturned. True that some businesses put in their own bans, and that many (like Canada) dislike the idea of the niqab, but has the government actually really "banned" it?

Or is your "non-mainstream" news source twisting the facts just a little bit?

As for Turkey, they have had a head-scarve ban like FOREVER, but have, in fact, RELAXED those rules in 2013,. Furthermore, the ban in Turkey does not result in fewer people actually wearing it. Instead, it just means that women who wear it are arrested and persecuted by the government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'They arrest gay people in Egypt too.'

So, arrest gays, but too progressive to wear niqab.

Your argument is?

That the suggestion we should follow Egypt's example because its such a progressive place compared to us is the stupidest idea yet to emerge from the ridiculous spectacle conservatives have been putting on display around this issue

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That the suggestion we should follow Egypt's example because its such a progressive place compared to us is the stupidest idea yet to emerge from the ridiculous spectacle conservatives have been putting on display around this issue

It's definitely in the top 5 but the stupidest? I don't know - we have have to form a panel of judges.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact is, a regime as twisted as the one residing in Egypt isn't ridiculous enough to think the niqab is a good idea in court or schools. Yet, our own left wing here at home thinks it' s fine in all circumstances.

That is the epitome of ridiculousness.

btw, Pakistan, that fortress of forward thinking and human rights agrees. No niqab in courts or schools.

So why do you left wingers insist it's ok here in Canada?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So why do you left wingers insist it's ok here in Canada?

Speaking for myself it's because I think a state enforced ban is worse.

  • It completely misses the mark, the misogynists
  • it reinforces the idea that women have less say in how they dress than society does
  • the state shouldn't stick it's nose in people's wardrobes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even Muslim countries ban niqab why not Canada !!!!!!

Because Canada unlike Muslim countries is a democracy (unless conservatives take over again) that is why freedom of choice is important unlike Muslim countries. Do you wish Canada to stoop to the level of those Muslim countries. If you desire such a country like Muslim countries then I suggest voting for conservative party may accomplish just that. Really I am surprised at your post Keepitsimple!!!! Really.!!!!!!!

Edited by CITIZEN_2015
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No Niqab in Public and/or Official Situation in Canada

By Exegesisme

According to CONSTITUTION ACT, 1982, (1)


" Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:"

Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms

"Rights and freedoms in Canada

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."

Equality Rights​

"Equality before and under law and equal protection and benefit of law

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

Marginal note: Affirmative action programs

(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. "

Wearing niqab publically and/or officially is unconstitutional. The reasons are:

1, Wearing niqab publically and/or officially makes unequal recognition of identity between the one wearing niqab and the one not wearing niqab.

2, The legal rights of self protection of each Canadian citizen should be equal, and these equal rights should not be different because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

3, Each Canadian citizen and/or each group of Canadian citizens should understand the duty of conscience as a Canadian citizen or a group of Canadian citizens.




Edited by Exegesisme
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The government has already allowed the Turban in the RCMP, I believe , so how can they stop the Niqab? If a government official sees who the woman is, what's the big deal.....what no gun registry to keep Harper's base supporting him? As I said before, what kind of person could support this corrupt party?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


I fail to see where the Charter guarantees me the right to 'recognize or identify' anyone else. Walking down the street the other day, I saw a guy wearing a cap, covered by a hoodie, with a full, bushy beard. I could see his eyes, but barely. Shall I demand he shave and remove his headgear to honor my 'Charter rights'?

Every day, I see people (especially females of Asian descent) wearing dust masks as they attempt to protect themselves from pollution. Should they also be forbidden to wear a 'mask'?

And what is 'equal rights of self-protection' supposed to mean? I'm *guessing* it means that if someone is wearing a niqab, the non-wearing niqab person is somehow at risk? Which is ridiculous, since niqab wearing women do not pose a threat to me or anyone else, any more than another individual I might see in public. In fact, I daresay I'm at less risk of being attacked/killed by a woman wearing a niqab than I am by a bearded white man wearing a ball cap.

In any case, it looking hopeful that Harper will not have the chance to even think of passing such poor legislation.

Edited by Charles Anthony
--SNIP-- deleted re-copied Opening Post
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter which other country does it, its still an infringement on personal rights. And, even if the goal were to help these women avoid/escape subjugation, it wouldn't work.

Yes well stated comments. No democratic government has the right to decide for adult women what is good for them. No mistake, I am very much against niqab but we live in a democracy and that is what separates us from other countries where citizens are risking their lives to achieve what we have and the conservative party of Canada wishes to destroy it.

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.

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.

  • Similar Content

    • By ReeferMadness
      When it comes to budget cuts, police seem to always be sacrosanct. I've seen cuts to teachers, social workers, scientists, all kinds of admin staff and almost every other type of government employee. But not police. Nor, come to think of it, fireman.
      This editorial claims that policing costs have risen faster than the rate of inflation in Canada (at all 3 levels of government) despite a falling crime rate. It also claims that police resources are used inefficiently with $100k a year policeman doing all kinds of work that could be done by lesser trained staff.
      Perhaps when marijuana is legalized, that would be a good opportunity to examine policing needs. Maybe there is an opportunity to redirect resources towards supporting people, not prosecuting them.
    • By ReeferMadness
      Harper and the Conservatives have been responsible for so many negative, divisive and disgraceful actions that it's hard to keep track of all of them. So, I thought it would be helpful to have a thread to catalogue them.
      Here is an opening list:
      - Ran huge deficits caused by ill-advised and ineffective tax cuts
      - Politicized non-partisan institutions by using or squabbling with the incombents; including the GG, Elections Canada, the PBO, and the SCC
      - Dramatically increased the centralization of power in the PMO
      - Interfered in the internal workings of the Senate
      - Appointed the most partisan and corrupt senators
      - Gutted environmental rules and laws
      - Used the CRA to attack environmental groups and charities that disagreed with his policies
      - Gagged scientists to prevent information that would not support his pro-oil agenda from reaching the public
      - Defunded pure scientific research in favour of applied science that would help his industry friends
      - Destroyed scientific documents with no assurance that they were digitized first
      - After being elected on a platform of accountability, did everything possible to evade accountability
      - Was found in contempt of parliament
      - Systematically interfered in the ability of Parliament to perform its duties by withholding information, proroguing parliament and writing omnibus bills so massive they couldn't properly be debated
      - Undermined democracy by deliberately disenfranchising groups of voters that are not inclined to vote for him and by changing media rules to better allow for negative campaiging
      - Damaged our international reputation through one-sided support of Israel and against the Palesinians
      - Damaged our international reputation and climate change efforts by withdrawing from Kyoto.
      This list isn't even close to being complete. There is a website called shd.ca
      Note: if you want to debate the actions of Chretien, Wynne, Pierre Trudeau, or anyone else, you're welcome to open a different thread.
    • By Go.Leafs
      I'm not talking about Harper, Mulroney, Martin or any one politician. I am talking about any and all politicians who uses their position to conceal felony crimes by having files sealed or investigations derailed, or refusing to fund an inquiry. Because they have authorities to control and manipulate investigative agencies and regulatory bodies and bureaus, they effectively can get away with a lot of graft and corruption. This is especially true when they can hand-pick the heads of these agencies who then run interference for them if their are "irregularites".
      So, since they have this unique ability to delay and derail investigations, should we not have a special law that eliminates he statute of limitations for their crimes, or at least do not start the clock until they leave office? A good example is the Schreiber scandal. Mulroney could not be criminally prosecuted because the statute of limitations expired. But we did not learn of the accusations for years because he made damn sure everything was so well hidden.
      I thnk such a law might make these pols realize that their impunity is only temporary and they might actually be held legally responsible for their criminal adventures - eventually. Politicians that are lawyers and know how to manuever the legal system and shop judges are even more likely to get away with super crimes. What do you guys think?
    • By Go.Leafs
      Canada has signed many international treaties that accept migration and immigration of all people to be a right and not a privilege. Almost all of our ancestors were immigrants. Yet now we look down upon today's immigrants and deny them the same opportunities our great grandparents had. I think this is a bit shameful and unethical.
      Even if they create a temporary tax burden, I think skilled and educated immigrants should be granted admission and given one year to prove themselves - sort of "probationary immigration" I guess I would call it. If after one year they cannot be self-sustaining and productive to society, and able to speak English or France, they can be shown the door. My guess is that 80% of these immigrants have value to Canada - even if it is taking the unwanted jobs the rest of us reject.
      Canada cannot grow to its maximum potential without more people. Just my opinion.
    • By Exegesisme
      The Unconstitutional Political Practice Should Be Ended Soon
      By Exegesisme
      The definition of democracy: is ruled by the omnipotent majority. In a democracy, an individual, and any group of individuals composing any minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of the majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man.(1)
      The definition of republic: A republic is a representative democracy with a written constitution of basic rights that protect the minority from being completely unrepresented or overridden by the majority.(1)
      From the definitions of democracy and republic, I found that politically a republican regime is more advanced than a democratic regime, and a republic is developed for overcoming the trap of democracy. The definition of republic includes the good part meaning of democracy, but the definition of democracy does not the more advanced meaning of republic. If I have right to choose, I choose to live in a republican regime other than a democratic regime, and I choose to live in a more republican regime other than a less republican regime. The reason is that, if I am one of majority, I dislike the omnipotent power, and if I am one of minority, I hope my fundamental rights are in good protection.
      As I measure the politics in Canada, I believe that it is a republic other than a pure democracy. We have a written constitution, we have the Chapter of Rights and Freedoms. However, I also notice that, in political practice, because of the Canadian political history, even the rights and freedoms of the representative function of a MP are under the limitation of the discipline of her or his own party.
      "Whether MPs should act as delegates or trustees, both views of representation are constrained by another reality of Canada's parliamentary tradition: party politics and discipline. Most MPs are members of a political party and, as such, are required to follow the wishes of their party when deliberating and acting in the House. In Canada party discipline is much more acute than in other western democracies. In the United States and the United Kingdom, for example, representatives enjoy considerably more freedom from their parties. Canadian MPs, however, are expected to follow the direction set by their parties' leadership and caucus — even when that direction is in opposition to their views or the demands of their constituents."(2)
      This corrupt custom, the discipline of a party has been put over the constitutional rights and freedoms, and also over the representative function, is unconstitutional, and should be ended as fast as we can. We, the Canadian people, should ask strongly that each MP should be really responsible for her or his riding, and we need more republic and good democracy, we do not need a false democracy!
      (1) http://www.diffen.com/difference/Democracy_vs_Republic

      (2) http://mapleleafweb.com/features/house-commons-introduction-canadas-premier-legislative-body
  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Create New...