Quebec's Bill 62

[Goddess]

This law may be regressive and exclusionary but burkas and niqabs are regressive and exclusionary....

**shrug**

[Moonlight Graham]

I don't really think this Bill is about secularism, it's about culture & Quebec politicians trying to set cultural boundaries on what is and isn't acceptable in society.

Burqas and Niqabs come from some of the most disgusting societies on earth (Saudi Arabia & Afghanistan) where sex segregation is the norm and women are controlled fiercely by men, & women can't do much without their male "guardians" permission.  I'm not sure the state should ban them here though, it's tough.  I find it pretty vile like most people that men can control their wives/daughters like this and there's not much we can do about it. 

[taxme]

8 hours ago, Goddess said:

http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/bill-62-would-mean-no-face-coverings-on-the-bus-minister-confirms/ar-AAtF1TF?li=AAggNb9

 

I'm not sure how I feel about this - on the one hand it irritates me that how women dress is a subject of legislation and I understand the religious freedom aspect of it and the issue of personal choice.

On the other hand, I also understand the communication, identification and security aspects involved.  A burka'ed woman in Alberta went into a Canadian Tire store with a huge knife to stab people and had to be restrained.  Fortunately no one got stabbed in that incident.

I dont' like the "separation" and "otherness" of the burka/niqab and how it makes the woman into a non-entity, barely human  or the denigration of women messages inherent in it.

I sometimes think if it's truly a "choice", then there should be no problem with not wearing it at inappropriate times, or when asked not to for security and ID purposes.  It's not like these women are left without a choice - They have options, they could switch to hijab if they feel it's necessary.

If it's not a choice and the woman is being held captive in her home because her family refuses to let her out without the burka, then I think we should be prepared to prosecute the families who do this.  We can't put forth this kind of legislation and not follow through on prosecuting, that would be unfair to the women.

And sometimes I think we have to regulate stupidity.  Like we did with seat belt laws.

What is needed to be done is to force these new immigrants into a classroom where they are told that this is how things are done in Canada. If you don't like it, then go back home. Women walking around covered up from head to toe is an insult to the Canadian culture and the way we do things here in Canada. They are now living in Canada, act like it. It is a security and safety thing. I do not understand as to why these immigrants immigrate to Canada and want to carry on like they were back home. Did they come to Canada to become Canadian or come to Canada and carry on as they did back home? I am offended by the burka. It is not Canadian. 

Good on Quebec. I know the rest of Canada and it's puppet on a string Anglo politically correct politicians would be to terrified to put a law like they want to do in Quebec. At least Quebec is not all that much in favor of appearing to be oh so politically correct. What Canada needs is more not less of political correctness. PC is killing our Canadian culture and values and our ways of doing things. 

It is stupid to allow anyone in this country to be able to walk around the streets in Canada and all covered up from head to toe anywhere in Canada. If we can force people to wear seat belts than we should be able to force new immigrants to dump their burkas. Start looking like a Canadian or leave Canada. Canada does not need to see people walking around all covered up. Works for me. 

[Goddess]

1 hour ago, Moonlight Graham said:

 

Burqas and Niqabs come from some of the most disgusting societies on earth (Saudi Arabia & Afghanistan) where sex segregation is the norm and women are controlled fiercely by men, & women can't do much without their male "guardians" permission.  I'm not sure the state should ban them here though, it's tough.  I find it pretty vile like most people that men can control their wives/daughters like this and there's not much we can do about it. 

If ordinary citizens were to lobby the government to make this kind of oppression against women legal, people here would be totally against it. But because it's done in the name of a religion, we are required to "accomodate" it and argue in favor of it.

[taxme]

1 hour ago, Moonlight Graham said:

I don't really think this Bill is about secularism, it's about culture & Quebec politicians trying to set cultural boundaries on what is and isn't acceptable in society.

Burqas and Niqabs come from some of the most disgusting societies on earth (Saudi Arabia & Afghanistan) where sex segregation is the norm and women are controlled fiercely by men, & women can't do much without their male "guardians" permission.  I'm not sure the state should ban them here though, it's tough.  I find it pretty vile like most people that men can control their wives/daughters like this and there's not much we can do about it. 

We can do something about it? Just say no to them, and tell them that we will not accept such nonsense as women walking around our streets all covered up from head to toe. Stop acting like a bunch of wimps and become politically incorrect for a change.

All women should find this offensive, and they should all speak out on it rather than keep quiet about it. Where are all the feminist groups that had no problem going after men but yet are terribly silent on what is being done to women in Canada by their boss muslim husbands? How are these women ever going to become a part of Canada and become Canadian if they are locked up all the time, and cannot get out there and meet and socialize with other Canadian women? These women would also be in big time trouble with their boss husbands if they were seen daring to talk to another man. They could get beaten for it.

It's time for some tough talk from some of our so-called political leaders in this country for a change. What is wrong with those wimps? 

[taxme]

3 hours ago, Rue said:

Interesting how "liberal" Canadians deal with an issue Israel has had to deal with for at least 68 years if not longer before it came about.

I lost track how many arm chair liberals in Canada have accused Israelis of being racist over security issues just like this one.

What Israel does is physically body check anyone suspicious getting on and off a bus. Its life. It means if you are an Orthodox Jew, Muslim whatever, you will get physically searched.

In countries where terrorism is a moment by moment reality, security trumps such issues as your right to cover your face or carry a bag in public without it being searched all the time.

Now in Canada we may one day get to that point. However I would say right now, as we speak I think the issue in Quebec about head coverings is not about security but a feeling by Quebecois that their culture is endangered by visible religious symbols.

Technically a beard is a face covering. Should we order those shaved too? 

This is an issue that aint going away in Quebec. Les Quebecois, predominantly the French Quebecers calling themselves Purelaines or old stock, i.e., white French speaking Quebecers, as well to be fair as certain English Quebecers don't like the face coverings and are using the law to express their belief.

Its not an easily resolved issue. Its going to get worse before it gets better.

 

It's funny how the Anglophone media does not call this an act of racism? We should all know by now that if some Anglophone premier of any Anglo province did the same thing the chit would hit the fan, and the racist word would be thrown at that premier. Why is that?  

[dialamah]

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

"an act to foster adherence to state religious neutrality"

So we'll soon see laws banning turbans and yarmulkes, right?  Not to mention those oitfits worn by Mennonites and Nuns.  What about Buddhists monks in their robes - should not that be outlawed in public in the interests of secularism?

[taxme]

3 hours ago, PIK said:

There is no need to hide your face in this country . And it is only a thing that keeps the women under the mans foot. To see someone totally covered in black on a very hot day, tells me they have to wear it or just have been so brainwashed that they don't know any better and I don't know how anyone can even think of saying it is OK. 

Yet, there are some here who see no problem with the oppression against these muslim women going on here in Canada. These muslim women need to be taken away from their homes for some Canadian indoctrination as to how things will be done in Canada. And if your muslim husband tries to force you not to go or beats you up for trying then he should be reported to the police for possible charges being laid against that husband. I am certainly not allowed to beat my wife up if she does not listen to me so why should some muslim husband be allowed to get away with it right here in Canada? These muslims immigrating to Canada need a lot of classroom indoctrination to let them know as to where we stand. It's tough love time, baby. Works for me. 

[dialamah]

16 minutes ago, Goddess said:

If ordinary citizens were to lobby the government to make this kind of oppression against women legal, people here would be totally against it. But because it's done in the name of a religion, we are required to "accomodate" it and argue in favor of it.

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

[Michael Hardner]

54 minutes ago, Goddess said:

But because it's done in the name of a religion, we are required to "accomodate" it and argue in favor of it.

Very easy fix.  Constitutional amendment.  Are you up for it?

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

I don't really think this Bill is about secularism, it's about culture & Quebec politicians trying to set cultural boundaries on what is and isn't acceptable in society.

Well, that's how it's being framed so...

 

2 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Burqas and Niqabs come from some of the most disgusting societies on earth (Saudi Arabia & Afghanistan) where sex segregation is the norm and women are controlled fiercely by men, & women can't do much without their male "guardians" permission.  I'm not sure the state should ban them here though, it's tough.  I find it pretty vile like most people that men can control their wives/daughters like this and there's not much we can do about it. 

It's a popular, but constitutionally illegal idea.  

[Moonlight Graham]

1 hour ago, taxme said:

We can do something about it? Just say no to them, and tell them that we will not accept such nonsense as women walking around our streets all covered up from head to toe. Stop acting like a bunch of wimps and become politically incorrect for a change.

You can ban these kinds of veils but you can't stop the men from still controlling women in other aspects of their lives, we have no idea what's going on in their home nor does the state have much power to stop much it if it's happening privately.  We can plainly see a veil but we can't see most other things, most of us don't even understand Arab so the men could verbally abuse women in front of us and we wouldn't know, and can do whatever they want inside the home.

[Moonlight Graham]

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

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

Is fathers and husbands dictating what a handful of women may not wear oppressive to those women?  I'm not arguing for a ban, but the good majority of women who wear these types of veils don't have a choice to wear it or not.  This is the problem.

The niqab is bad but not horrid like the burqa.  The Burqa is a complete covering of the entirety of the woman from head to toe.  In Afghanistan women were forced to wear it.

[Moonlight Graham]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

It's a popular, but constitutionally illegal idea.  

Not when you have a "reasonable limits" clause.

Also, we aren't required to accommodate  every single religious belief depending on what it is.  I can't sacrifice babies to God.

Edited October 19, 2017 by Moonlight Graham

[dialamah]

57 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Is fathers and husbands dictating what a handful of women may not wear oppressive to those women? 

Yes, it is.  That doesn't give us the right to oppress women in the opposite way.

57 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

but the good majority of women who wear these types of veils don't have a choice to wear it or not.

Yes, and now those women in Quebec have even less choice, two oppressors instead of one.  Good thing there are so few of them, or they might be able to complain enough to be heard.

57 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

The niqab is bad but not horrid like the burqa.  The Burqa is a complete covering of the entirety of the woman from head to toe. 

I agree, these are ugly outfits.  I've seen maybe a half dozen in Surrey in the past couple of years, and really dislike them.  

57 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

In Afghanistan women were forced to wear it.

Yes, oppressive regimes love to tell women what they can and cannot wear, where they can go and what they can do.  

 

Edited October 19, 2017 by dialamah

[dialamah]

59 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Not when you have a "reasonable limits" clause.

Also, we aren't required to accommodate  every single religious belief depending on what it is.  I can't sacrifice babies to God.

Remind me how wearing a burka is like sacrificing babies, again?

[Michael Hardner]

8 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Not when you have a "reasonable limits" clause.

If the bill is meant as a government attempt to homogenize culture and create 'religious neutrality' then it's hard to see how any part of it could be sold as a reasonable limit.  They're expressly trying to eradicate or neutralize religion not accommodate it.  But, you have a good point in that 'reasonable' will be interpreted by a judge, assuming they don't use notwithstanding.

 

8 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Also, we aren't required to accommodate  every single religious belief depending on what it is.  I can't sacrifice babies to God.

Sure but what kind of argument is that?  We're talking about riding the bus with a religious head garment.  I hear that they actually wanted to ban turbans as well.

[Michael Hardner]

And let's put all of this in context.  This is the same government that has tried, and succeeded in ways, to effectively ban English.  It's offensive to me, as a liberal AND a conservative.  

I understand people's problems with multiculturalism, really I do.  I don't agree with them but I understand it.  It's spending tax dollars to spread a message of social cohesion that many take as artificial.  Ok.   But this law is anti-Western in nature: preventing people from following their religious freedom, forcing them to not be different.  The Saudis would like this.

[drummindiver]

12 hours ago, dialamah said:

So we'll soon see laws banning turbans and yarmulkes, right?  Not to mention those oitfits worn by Mennonites and Nuns.  What about Buddhists monks in their robes - should not that be outlawed in public in the interests of secularism?

What don't you understand about the repression of women these articles signify?

Does a yarmulke repress a Jewish man?

Clearly not.

[dialamah]

6 minutes ago, drummindiver said:

What don't you understand about the repression of women these articles signify?

It"s the Quebec gov who says this law is to support secularism and has nothing to do with oppressed Muslim women.

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

[Goddess]

2 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.

I hear you on this.  I'm just not sure which I find more offensive - husbands/the religion telling their wives they can't leave the house without a burka or governments saying they can't leave the house with one.

If I had to choose based on motives though, I'd go with the government. Especially becaue the government is only banning them in public places.

 

Edited October 19, 2017 by Goddess

[Goddess]

2 hours ago, dialamah said:

It"s the Quebec gov who says this law is to support secularism and has nothing to do with oppressed Muslim women.

Would you be more receptive to such a law if the government outright said "This laws is to fight oppression against women by Muslim men and mosques?"

I agree the number of women this would affect would be small.  Maybe a percentage of those would gain strength from such a law to go against their family/religion by reporting them.  And maybe another percentage of families would think twice about forcing their women into burkas if it were prosecutable.

Mostly just thinking out loud here.....

[Michael Hardner]

4 minutes ago, Goddess said:

 I'm just not sure which I find more offensive - husbands/the religion telling their wives they can't leave the house without a burka or governments saying they can't leave the house with one. 

The government can legally use force on you.  Your husband can't.  

[Goddess]

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

The government can legally use force on you.  Your husband can't.  

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.

[Michael Hardner]

7 minutes ago, Goddess said:

This is why this law will be useless unless we are fully prepared to prosecute families who hold their women captive.

And banning headscarves achieves this ?

7 minutes ago, Goddess said:

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.

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.