Quebec's Bill 62

[Goddess]

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

And banning headscarves achieves this ?

Yeah.  You love having the government tell you how to live.  Me, not so much.  Saying that some Muslims are forced do wear head scarves isn't a reasonable rationale for the government saying no one can wear them IMO.

I think it's not headscarves - it's the full face burkas and niqabs that present the issues.

[Michael Hardner]

Just now, Goddess said:

I think it's not headscarves - it's the full face burkas and niqabs that present the issues.

Ok, right.  I sometimes forget the difference there, sorry.

[drummindiver]

3 hours ago, dialamah said:

 

What don't you understand about the oppression of dictating what women can wear, whether you are her husband or her government.

Government is saying something totally different.

If you think this equates to the same thing you are wrong.

[drummindiver]

48 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Ok, right.  I sometimes forget the difference there, sorry.

I know you're being facetious but there clearly is a difference.

[Michael Hardner]

5 minutes ago, drummindiver said:

I know you're being facetious but there clearly is a difference.

The idea of someone admitting they're wrong is alien to you, but that is exactly what I did just there.  Now the argument can proceed based on improved clarity.

[drummindiver]

Just now, Michael Hardner said:

The idea of someone admitting they're wrong is alien to you, but that is exactly what I did just there.  Now the argument can proceed based on improved clarity.

There you go with that snotty superior tone you use on many here.

If I misconstrued, sorry.

[Michael Hardner]

1 minute ago, drummindiver said:

There you go with that snotty superior tone you use on many here.

I'm sorry but the evidence is there in interpreting an apology (which comes naturally when two individuals discuss facts, and make errors) as a snide comment.

 

1 minute ago, drummindiver said:

If I misconstrued, sorry.

Your interpretation, and of course it just happened again.  I'm not above having a sharp tone in this discussion so there's no need to apologize for misconstruing that.  I will be honest in my responses, and will correct myself on the facts.

[OftenWrong]

1 hour ago, Goddess said:

Well, really the concern here is that husbands/fathers ARE using force, the women - too cowed to report it.  And when they do, mostly nothing is done because no one wants to challenge the  religious freedom aspect.  This is why this law will be useless unless we are fully prepared to prosecute families who hold their women captive.

France has issued many fines, and one report says some women are getting fined multiple times.  I'm okay with this - if a family/husband wants to force women into burkas, then the consequence is you keep paying the fines.

I like that method because it is not highly punitive, in that they have to pay a fine but also sends a message to discourage its use (Burka). What we finally want is for people to willingly give up those aspects of their culture which we in Canada consider to be misogyny. Not by force, though there needs to be at least some "teeth" so they get it. 

[eyeball]

21 hours ago, capricorn said:

Why dance around the issue. I support this legislation if only that it affords some measure of security, and feeling of security, for transit customers and transit workers, and employees working in provincial government offices offering government services. What is the downside of having persons show their face for a short period of time, as they are the ones to benefit from whatever they expect from the public employee. Don't get me wrong, I advocate this should apply to anyone hiding their face be it a burqa or a ski mask.

What about the feeling of security that people get from wearing surgical masks in public?  Do you think your feeling of insecurity trumps theirs and that they should be forced to remove it to make you feel better?

$10 says the SCC round files this law in about two shakes of a dogs leg.   

Edited October 19, 2017 by eyeball

[eyeball]

19 hours ago, PIK said:

There is no need to hide your face in this country.

What about protecting yourself from pollution or the germs you might catch from other people?

[Goddess]

6 minutes ago, eyeball said:

What about protecting yourself from pollution or the germs you might catch from other people?

I've seen more people in burkas than people walking around with surgical masks (except in China).  I'm assuming such ones wouldn't have an issue with taking them off momentarily for security and ID purposes, unlike burka wearers who refuse for religious reasons.

Some outpatients are required to wear a mask in public for medical reasons (which is different than religious reasons), so I'm also going to assume that any law would include some common sense.

I  think it would be difficult to hide a machete or home made bomb or a gun under a surgical mask......would be the reason common sense would prevail in your hypothesis.

[Goddess]

34 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

 What we finally want is for people to willingly give up those aspects of their culture which we in Canada consider to be misogyny. Not by force, though there needs to be at least some "teeth" so they get it. 

I would only add that it's not considered misogyny - it IS misogyny.  And if we have to legislate it away, then so be it.

[PIK]

16 hours ago, dialamah said:

I agree.  The government dictating what a handful of women may not wear is oppressive to those women.

So you want your women covered up, and totally obedient? We should have a poll on this.

[PIK]

21 minutes ago, eyeball said:

What about protecting yourself from pollution or the germs you might catch from other people?

Now you are getting desperate. If a health reason warrants it, sure. Buit being covered in black during a very hot day, is unhealthy.

Edited October 19, 2017 by PIK

[PIK]

20 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Would Israel be so stupid as to pass a law outlawing Arab clothing to foster social cohesion ?

 

Are we Israel?

[Goddess]

4 minutes ago, PIK said:

So you want your women covered up, and totally obedient? We should have a poll on this.

I believe she has said she doesn't agree with burkas, but I think she is more comfortable with women being dictated to by their religion than being dictated to by the government.

[Michael Hardner]

31 minutes ago, eyeball said:

What about the feeling of security that people get from wearing surgical masks in public? 

Yes I saw one of these on the subway just Monday.  

You are free to pursue your happiness, unless it impacts my happiness, or... unless you are not white and I don't want you to do it, apparently.

[Goddess]

41 minutes ago, eyeball said:

What about the feeling of security that people get from wearing surgical masks in public?

Hmmmm.....I'm thinking there is probably less people who wear a surgical mask in public as a security blanket, than women in burkas.

[eyeball]

22 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Some outpatients are required to wear a mask in public for medical reasons (which is different than religious reasons), so I'm also going to assume that any law would include some common sense.

I'm certainly not going to assume common sense will prevail, especially given that it's ordinary people, librarians and such that will be enforcing it.  As was pointed a face covering could include sunglasses.  You can definitely count on someone somewhere overstepping their authority and causing the lawsuit that will trigger the law's demise.  There is just no way on Earth this law will stand the test of the SCC. 

[eyeball]

28 minutes ago, PIK said:

Now you are getting desperate. If a health reason warrants it, sure. Buit being covered in black during a very hot day, is unhealthy.

What's desperate and unhealthy is pretending that Islamophobia can cover its racism from head to toe in a shroud of concern and then pass a law that panders to it.  The courts will see right through it too.

[Goddess]

8 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I'm certainly not going to assume common sense will prevail, especially given that it's ordinary people, librarians and such that will be enforcing it. 

I have more faith in their common sense than in the common sense of any religious fundie.

 

Quote

There is just no way on Earth this law will stand the test of the SCC. 

That could very well be.

[eyeball]

Just now, Goddess said:

I have more faith in their common sense than in the common sense of any religious fundie.

I have more faith that some moron will point out someone they don't like to a librarian and demand they do something about them.  We are after all up to our necks in a complaint-based society where the expectation that the authorities do something is very strong.

Quote

That could very well be.

There's absolutely no doubt about it.  Politicians who passed this crap know full well it will not stand a constitutional test and the only reason they did anyway is to appease a racist base of support that should be ignored.

[Michael Hardner]

4 minutes ago, eyeball said:

There's absolutely no doubt about it.  Politicians who passed this crap know full well it will not stand a constitutional test and the only reason they did anyway is to appease a racist base of support that should be ignored.

Can't they use 'notwithstanding' for this ?  I asked a bunch of lawyers on another online group and they shrugged !

[eyeball]

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

Can't they use 'notwithstanding' for this ?  I asked a bunch of lawyers on another online group and they shrugged !

Sure lets splash more gasoline around.

You know me, the more political chaos the sooner the whole contraption collapses under the growing weight of its own nonsense.

[Michael Hardner]

12 minutes ago, eyeball said:

You know me, the more political chaos the sooner the whole contraption collapses under the growing weight of its own nonsense.

They did it before and I doubt anybody in English Canada remembers.  The lawyers that I asked were younger, and they seem to not have heard of 'notwithstanding'.  I should probably add this: !