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

[WestCoastRunner]

But really, if you're not even going to read it, why should I even bother wading into the conversation? Enjoy standing on your soapbox.

I can post links refuting your links. So what. I see this over and over again. Edited October 14, 2015 by WestCoastRunner

[cybercoma]

So what. Don't bother recognizing your ethnocentric views. I don't care. Literally no one is supporting anyone who forces a woman to wear a niqab. Likewise, many posters are not supporting anyone who forces a woman to take it off. Some people are pro-choice, others aren't. That's what this comes down to and you simply refuse to recognize that as you constantly argue for imposing your Western beliefs on Muslim women without ever recognizing what they want.

Why? Because you're going to be their saviour. You know what's best for them, like oh so many imperialists before you.

Edited October 14, 2015 by cybercoma

[On Guard for Thee]

Yes and those women also choose to not side with Canadian women's rights.

Perhaps you should reflect on the interview with Zunera Ishaq.

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/popup/audio/player.html?autoPlay=true&clipIds=2676790953

Keep in mind as well, many years ago a Sikh RCMP officer rallied to be able to wear his head covering whilst on duty. Everybody freaked out, he wo his case, and guess what, Canada didn't come apart.

[WestCoastRunner]

Perhaps you should reflect on the interview with Zunera Ishaq.

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/popup/audio/player.html?autoPlay=true&clipIds=2676790953

Keep in mind as well, many years ago a Sikh RCMP officer rallied to be able to wear his head covering whilst on duty. Everybody freaked out, he wo his case, and guess what, Canada didn't come apart.

Come on! There's a big difference between a man covering his hair and a Human being covering their face in public. I again ask this question. Have you ever seen a man hide his face in public?

[Guest]

Perhaps you should reflect on the interview with Zunera Ishaq.

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/popup/audio/player.html?autoPlay=true&clipIds=2676790953

Keep in mind as well, many years ago a Sikh RCMP officer rallied to be able to wear his head covering whilst on duty. Everybody freaked out, he wo his case, and guess what, Canada didn't come apart.

Some people freaked out. Most people just shrugged and got on with their lives. I actually argued the point with Doug Christie on some public service TV channel at the time.

With the Niqab, it's the same to me as polygamy. There might be a woman out there who actually does want to marry some lecherous old git in Bountiful or Utah, but I bet she's in a small minority. There will be others who do it because they genuinely believe a supernatural being is going to reward them if they do. Or maybe punish them if they don't. It doesn't matter. People should be allowed to do stupid things if they want to. That's what choice is about.

That all changes when other humans try and force them, but good luck getting anyone to admit to that.

[WestCoastRunner]

[quote name="bcsapper" post="1103959" timestamp="

With the Niqab, it's the same to me as polygamy. There might be a woman out there who actually does want to marry some lecherous old git in Bountiful or Utah, but I bet she's in a small minority. There will be others who do it because they genuinely believe a supernatural being is going to reward them if they do. Or maybe punish them if they don't. It doesn't matter. People should be allowed to do stupid things if they want to. That's what choice is about.

That all changes when other humans try and force them, but good luck getting anyone to admit to that.

To me this is about falling backwards in women's rights in Canada.

[Big Guy]

Everyone on this forum hides behind their anonymity. Why are you singling out folks who disagree with you? Even you hide behind your anonymity.

I only single out those who would be ashamed to be associated with their posts. The criteria I shared with another poster:

"2. Use language that would be acceptable as a letter to the editor.

3. Ask yourself - If given the opportunity, would I add my name to my post and accept the consequences of my published views? If you would, then send the message. If not, then ask yourself why not?"

Is the same criteria that I use. There are some on this board who know my real name because I often do send letters to editors and also contribute to newspaper columns. Some of my posts are copies of those submissions which can be searched with the right search engine.

There has never been a message that I have posted here that I would be ashamed to attach my real name to.

[ReeferMadness]

It's not outrageous and I will provide a link to a study recently done with 100 niqab wearing women in Canada and what their thoughts are on women's rights in Canada. I can't post it on my iPhone.

If your point is that on average, women who wear niqabs have more conservative views than women who don't that's probably true. But so what?

First, there's a big problem with applying legal sanctions to groups based on averages. On average, Bill Gates and I have an average net worth of $38 billion. That says nothing about either of us. The women that I heard defending the wearing of the niqab didn't sound oppressed to me.

And there's a bigger problem. It sounds like your real concern is that these women have conservative views about women's rights (as do people of other religions and belief systems but I'll leave that aside for the moment). How will removing niqabs change their views? If they're oppressed, will they really be less oppressed if you take off the niqab? Do they have a say in whether they are oppressed or not?

Laws should have a defined outcome and preferably a way of measuring the outcome. And laws limiting individual rights should be able to demonstrate that there is some harm that is caused by people exercising those rights. What harm is done by Muslim wearing the niqab and what outcome are you hoping to achieve by outlawing it?

[WestCoastRunner]

I only single out those who would be ashamed to be associated with their posts.

There has never been a message that I have posted here that I would be ashamed to attach my real name to.

You are taking a great leap and choosing which posters are ashamed to be associated with their posts. How can you possibly single out posters under your strict guidelines?

[Guest]

To me this is about falling backwards in women's rights in Canada.

I don't disagree. The only point I disagree with you on is the choice. Regardless of what the Niqab means, or represents, I can't see banning it where identity is not an issue.

[On Guard for Thee]

Come on! There's a big difference between a man covering his hair and a Human being covering their face in public. I again ask this question. Have you ever seen a man hide his face in public?

You mean other than that time I told a funny story that had racist overtones when one of the crew was a black guy? Seriously though, let's get down to what we are really talking about here, a woman deciding to cover her face during a ceremony, after she has already been properly id'd in private, to become a Canadian citizen. If I thought people, anybody, was coming here to try and take away our charter rights, I would be standing at the border with a god damn ax to greet them. I don't see that happening in this case.

[Guest]

I only single out those who would be ashamed to be associated with their posts. The criteria I shared with another poster:

No, you just single out those who post something you would be ashamed to be associated with.

[ReeferMadness]

Huffpost has a timely blog on this topic.

The same Privy Council survey asked Canadians to indicate why they supported such a ban. Among the main reasons offered were the insistence on facial identification, the need to respect our cultural norms, to adopt Canadian culture and/or to follow our laws and rules. A mere two per cent of survey respondents explicitly stated that the niqab discriminates against women which is the offered the strongest rationale for the ban.

[Big Guy]

No, you just single out those who post something you would be ashamed to be associated with.

I disagree. If you post something that you would submit to a newspaper under your real name then good for you. I am sure that the posts to which I refer, the kinds of ideas that are prominent on KKK and other white supremacy sites, would never be submitted under real names. I may be wrong and have often been mistaken. Early in the Canadian involvement in Afghanistan, I fired off a number of articles with views that were not popular at the time.

A few national papers did publish them and I did get some interesting feedback. Some of my submissions are still on the DND and the Esprit de Corps web pages.

If I am singling anyone out I am singling out those who would be ashamed to add their name to their questionable views.

If you would be ashamed to do so then ask yourself why.

[Guest]

I disagree. If you post something that you would submit to a newspaper under your real name then good for you. I am sure that the posts to which I refer, the kinds of ideas that are prominent on KKK and other white supremacy sites, would never be submitted under real names. I may be wrong and have often been mistaken. Early in the Canadian involvement in Afghanistan, I fired off a number of articles with views that were not popular at the time.

A few national papers did publish them and I did get some interesting feedback. Some of my submissions are still on the DND and the Esprit de Corps web pages.

If I am singling anyone out I am singling out those who would be ashamed to add their name to their questionable views.

If you would be ashamed to do so then ask yourself why.

I don't know of anyone on here who would fit that bill. Granted, there are those (or maybe it's the same person every time, I can't tell) who post those kind of posts deliberately, but other than that, I've never seen a KKK post on here. Unless you think disagreeing with barbaric cultural practices is KKK? I thought they carried out those themselves.

[Big Guy]

You are taking a great leap and choosing which posters are ashamed to be associated with their posts. How can you possibly single out posters under your strict guidelines?

Does the idea that one should not post views of which you are ashamed a "strict guideline"? Do you post views of which you are ashamed?

And if you do then why would you?

You and I can post anything here within the guidelines as interpreted by the moderators. Does that mean that we allow some stranger to decide on the acceptable limits of our views and if it is OK with them then it must be OK?

I am accustomed to being responsible for my views and suffering the consequences of choosing to publish an unpopular opinion.

That is why I call those who state something anonymously that they would never do in real life as cowards.

[dialamah]

So here's the thing. It's not a symbol of religion. If it were I'd be on board. It's a symbol of repression of women. The women who voluntarily choose to wear this garment are very conservative and are against many women's rights for equality. Canada does not want to take a step backwards for women's rights.

You, looking in from the outside, with no understanding (or even apparently any desire to understand) the many different influences of culture and religion, women's individual experience, - you, ignoring all of this, declare the niqab is not a symbol of faith, but a symbol of oppression.

The women who wear the niqab wear it as a symbol of faith, and no matter how often or how loudly you say "But it's not in the koran, therefore it doesn't count", you are not going to change their personal experience and belief. You are not going to persuade them that you are on the side of women's rights, because in their mind, you are the one who wants to take away their choice.

The minute you take away a woman's right to choose, whether its abortion or to wear the niqab, you take a step backwards for women's rights. The minute you tell a woman she cannot wear the niqab because you think it represents oppression, you remove from her the right to her own self-determination; you tell her you do not respect her ability to think for herself, to choose what is right for her. You become the oppressor, under the common delusion of all oppressors that "Its for their own good, because they're too stupid to decide for themselves."

[Big Guy]

I don't know of anyone on here who would fit that bill. Granted, there are those (or maybe it's the same person every time, I can't tell) who post those kind of posts deliberately, but other than that, I've never seen a KKK post on here. Unless you think disagreeing with barbaric cultural practices is KKK? I thought they carried out those themselves.

I believe that to defeat your enemy you must understand them. I am familiar with many white supremacy web pages. I have also studied Hitler. I had wondered how a whole country can be manipulated by a small group into committing and condoning genocide.

I see posts and views being shared here which try to rationalize exactly the same ideas under the cover of intellectual surmise and nationalism.

When I read that, I try to find a quote from one of these sites and post it - just to allow the author and other posters to compare his view to that of proven racists and manipulators. If it does not apply then the poster can just ignore my presentation - I do to some replies to my posts. But if some of the ideas are similar then I hope the author takes the time to look into a mirror.

[Guest]

I believe that to defeat your enemy you must understand them. I am familiar with many white supremacy web pages. I have also studied Hitler. I had wondered how a whole country can be manipulated by a small group into committing and condoning genocide.

I see posts and views being shared here which try to rationalize exactly the same ideas under the cover of intellectual surmise and nationalism.

When I read that, I try to find a quote from one of these sites and post it - just to allow the author and other posters to compare his view to that of proven racists and manipulators. If it does not apply then the poster can just ignore my presentation - I do to some replies to my posts. But if some of the ideas are similar then I hope the author takes the time to look into a mirror.

Really? You see posts on here that compare to the propaganda the Nazis used to whip up a fervour that resulted in the Holocaust?

I must have missed them.

[dialamah]

Really? You see posts on here that compare to the propaganda the Nazis used to whip up a fervour that resulted in the Holocaust?

I must have missed them.

More likely, you didn't recognize them. When people think they're standing up and being patriotic, protecting themselves against people that are 'attacking their way of life', it's pretty easy to feel good about what you are doing ... even if it's removing freedoms ..

Just consider how things have gone in the last few weeks:

First, it's a couple of women who shouldn't be allowed to wear niqabs to say the citizenship oath ... that sounds right, we can get behind that .

Then, our "leader" says "And, by the way, we'll see about not letting them wear niqabs in government jobs ...." and "We'll set up a tipline so you good citizens can keep an eye on those nasty Muslim people ..."

From a single fifteen minute ceremony to restricting *certain* women from *certain* jobs, and targeting an entire group as 'suspect'. In two weeks. And people think this is great.

It's a step by step process, removing the rights of a particular group. It all feels right, step by step - we're protecting women, we're protecting little girls, we're protecting our culture, our land, from being taken over by those people who mean us harm. Insidious, invisible -- till one day you look back, and you realize you've interred an entire group of your fellow citizens because of their race, or built a bunch of ovens to take care of them.

And it all starts with that very first little, patriotic step that felt so good.

[Guest]

More likely, you didn't recognize them. When people think they're standing up and being patriotic, protecting themselves against people that are 'attacking their way of life', it's pretty easy to feel good about what you are doing ... even if it's removing freedoms ..

Just consider how things have gone in the last few weeks:

First, it's a couple of women who shouldn't be allowed to wear niqabs to say the citizenship oath ... that sounds right, we can get behind that .

Then, our "leader" says "And, by the way, we'll see about not letting them wear niqabs in government jobs ...." and "We'll set up a tipline so you good citizens can keep an eye on those nasty Muslim people ..."

From a single fifteen minute ceremony to restricting *certain* women from *certain* jobs, and targeting an entire group as 'suspect'. In two weeks. And people think this is great.

It's a step by step process, removing the rights of a particular group. It all feels right, step by step - we're protecting women, we're protecting little girls, we're protecting our culture, our land, from being taken over by those people who mean us harm. Insidious, invisible -- till one day you look back, and you realize you've interred an entire group of your fellow citizens because of their race, or built a bunch of ovens to take care of them.

And it all starts with that very first little, patriotic step that felt so good.

Yeah, I don't see ovens at all. I just don't. If people want to report other people for criminal activity that's up to them, even if the criminal activity isn't a crime in some places. As long as it is here, that's fine with me.

If you don't, that's fine with me too. You have no responsibility to report anything you don't want to.

But honestly, I think the economy won't allow us to commandeer rail cars just to ship Muslims to concentration camps. Maybe if it slows down a little.

[The_Squid]

I believe that to defeat your enemy you must understand them. I am familiar with many white supremacy web pages. I have also studied Hitler. I had wondered how a whole country can be manipulated by a small group into committing and condoning genocide.

I see posts and views being shared here which try to rationalize exactly the same ideas under the cover of intellectual surmise and nationalism.

When I read that, I try to find a quote from one of these sites and post it - just to allow the author and other posters to compare his view to that of proven racists and manipulators. If it does not apply then the poster can just ignore my presentation - I do to some replies to my posts. But if some of the ideas are similar then I hope the author takes the time to look into a mirror.

I'm happy that you learned to use the quote feature finally, but the Hitler references... what is up with all the crazy nazi/Hitler references? It's the worst form of hyperbole.

[cybercoma]

Huffpost has a timely blog on this topic.

And that post is what I mean about people being completely ignorant.

1) Identification: The woman in the lawsuit agreed to being identified in private and was. Those arguing for identification mustn't even realize this.

2) Follow our laws: There was no law banning the niqab. In fact, the law said explicitly that people swearing the oath must be given "the greatest freedom of expression" when it comes to their religion. The ban was a policy document passed down from the Minister. Laws in this country must be passed by parliament, the senate, and given royal assent. That law allows the niqab.

This is what I meant earlier when I said people who are vocally opposed and super opinionated about this issue are completely ignorant. They know absolutely nothing about the details of the case. All that information is out there and easy to find if they cared about the details. But they don't. It's just an outlet for bigotry and intolerance.

[ToadBrother]

This is what I meant earlier when I said people who are vocally opposed and super opinionated about this issue are completely ignorant. They know absolutely nothing about the details of the case. All that information is out there and easy to find if they cared about the details. But they don't. It's just an outlet for bigotry and intolerance.

The people who are hyper-opposed to this case spell Muslim "N-I-Q-A-B". There may be another contingent, of which Argus is a member, who are still hoping this wedge issue will give the Tories an edge. I'm not sure which group I dislike more at this point.

[Argus]

There has never been a message that I have posted here that I would be ashamed to attach my real name to.

Then let's have your real name. Are you ashamed?