Jump to content

Quebec's Bill 62


Goddess

Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

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.

I just don't understand as to why our stunned politicians seem to feel that flooding Canada with dozens of different languages, cultures, religions, traditions is suppose to be great for Canada or host Canadians? And the more of them the less chance of them ever wanting to assimilate. There are huge Asian and East Indian communities in BC and they can pretty much carry on without having to assimilate.

This whole multicultural bull chit is just that bull chit. It does not unite, but divides the races and religions. The program and agenda of Multiculturalism needs to be abolished if we are to keep Canada as it once was 50 years ago. A great WASP nation. 

I can remember in school in my younger days where there was maybe one or two non-white kids in my class. They learned to assimilate because they had to or have no friends. Now I see gangs of school kids and teenagers in groups with their own Asian or East Indian kind not concerned about assimilating because they don't have to now. They can now stick with their own kind. Thus we are seeing non-white racial groups being formed all over Canada sans white people.  There really is something wrong with this picture. Yes/no?  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Goddess said:

unlike burka wearers who refuse for religious reasons.

Cite, please.  My understanding is that they do remove their face covering when required for passport, licences, airport security.  The accommodation is that they are able to do so in private in front of women.

1 hour ago, Goddess said:

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.

It would be equally as difficult to hide a bomb, machete or gun under a face veil.  Perhaps you meant the burqa, with which I would agree that you could hide a lot of things. 

But if hiding lethal items in one's clothing is a concern, then baggy jeans, full skirts, hoodies and trench coats should also be banned, not to mention large bags.  Perhaps only skin tight clothing, no pockets or bags larger than a few inches will have to be legislated in the name of security.

Unless one is presupposing that women in burkas are more of a threat than men in baggy jeans and hoodies.   

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

Where I live, I see surgical masks weekly but haven't seen a niqab or burka in months.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours 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. 

Agree that the persuasion away from this type of clothing is a good idea, although I do not believe that "legislation" is the right method because it will really only work for women who's families do not require them to be covered outside the home. 

But I could be wrong.  Perhaps these kinds of laws will work better than I think in terms of freeing oppressed women, but if not, its only a very few women who will be forced to languish out of sight of the rest of us. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, PIK said:

So you want your women covered up, and totally obedient? 

They aren't "my women".  And no, I do not want them to be forced to cover up and be totally obedient.  I also do not want to further oppress these women via my government.   I do not believe it will do any good telling a woman that may be in an abusive relationship that she cannot wear a face-veil in public, while her abuser(s) tell her she can't be in public without a face-veil.  To me, it makes as much sense as making it illegal for women to be in public with bruises.  

Edited by dialamah
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Cite, please.  My understanding is that they do remove their face covering when required for passport, licences, airport security.  The accommodation is that they are able to do so in private in front of women.

I meant the ones who refuse -  do so for religious reasons.

I guess I'm getting tired of accomodating bizarre and unhealthy religious beliefs, while they refuse to accomodate common sense ones.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

...It would be equally as difficult to hide a bomb, machete or gun under a face veil.  Perhaps you meant the burqa, with which I would agree that you could hide a lot of things. 

But if hiding lethal items in one's clothing is a concern, then baggy jeans, full skirts, hoodies and trench coats should also be banned, not to mention large bags.  Perhaps only skin tight clothing, no pockets or bags larger than a few inches will have to be legislated in the name of security.

Unless one is presupposing that women in burkas are more of a threat than men in baggy jeans and hoodies.   

 

 

 

  And, the law here is banning face-coverings not burka's. Once cans still wander around with the machete's and bombs and AK-47's under the burka. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, eyeball said:

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

It's possible. But given the popularity of it in Quebec, it will be another reason for Quebecers to want to leave the Fed.
I'll wager our limp dicked leadership will be afraid of this and back of. 

Trudeau- 
'Not up to the federal government' to challenge Quebec's religious neutrality law: Trudeau

Interesting highlights-
"It's not up to the federal government to challenge this, but we will certainly be looking at how this will unfold with full respect for the National Assembly," Trudeau said in French.

The Liberals, who hold a majority in Quebec's National Assembly, voted in favour of the bill, while all the other parties voted against. The two main opposition parties, the Parti Québécois and Coalition Avenir Québec, have argued the legislation doesn't go far enough, while civil rights advocates and Muslim groups argue it discriminates against religious minorities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, dialamah said:

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.

Not without their husband's permission.  A husband who the women were most often forced by her parents to marry & bear children.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Goddess said:

I meant the ones who refuse -  do so for religious reasons.

I do not remember any news stories about a woman refusing to remove her face-veil to allow for security screening.  Do you have a cite?

I guess I'm getting tired of accomodating bizarre and unhealthy religious beliefs

You personally have had to accommodate bizarre and unhealthy religious beliefs?    Or are you referring to yourself as.part of the collective of Canadians?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Not without their husband's permission.  A husband who the women were most often forced by her parents to marry & bear children.

Yes indeed and now conveniently a law banning face veils in public will make those.women even more invisible and powerless.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

 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.

That's what I'm thinking.  But how do you prevent women from being forced to wear them?

The issue here though is public services.  A reasonable accommodation would be removing the niqab/burka in front of a woman only (whenever possible) so that you could be identified when seeking services.  Currently you need to have the face visible to get a healthcard or passport photo if i'm not mistaken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Yes indeed and now conveniently a law banning face veils in public will make those.women even more invisible and powerless.  

What puzzles me is that a lot of the arguments I read here assume that these women in Canada are being forced to wear these garments by their spouses. The fact is that the majority of these women choose to wear them of their own free will. The only thing this bill does is prevent women from riding the bus. But thank goodness. They could be carrying a butter knife. 

Edited by WestCoastRunner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

But how do you prevent women from being forced to wear them?

How many people here have said that Islam needs to reform itself as Christianity did?  Well, this would be the starting point.  If it's forced by government, it won't happen.  People will resist.  Imagine if government told you how to dress.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Currently you need to have the face visible to get a healthcard or passport photo if i'm not mistaken.

Ok, but that's not what has been attached to this.  I'm hearing 'riding on the bus' requires no face coverings, and I'm hearing this is about the (selective) secularization of the populace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

How many people here have said that Islam needs to reform itself as Christianity did?  Well, this would be the starting point.  If it's forced by government, it won't happen.  People will resist.  Imagine if government told you how to dress.

They do.  I can't walk around in crotchless pants with my ding-dong hanging out.

I'm not saying ban these items for wear.  I'm saying ban the act of people forcing women to wear certain things.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

They do.  I can't walk around in crotchless pants with my ding-dong hanging out.

Ok, but you know what I mean.  They can't tell women to wear tops but they can tell them to not cover their faces while *riding* the bus mind you.

Quote

I'm not saying ban these items for wear.  I'm saying ban the act of people forcing women to wear certain things.

Theoretically, I'm for it but I don't know that this isn't covered under current laws re:threats, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, WestCoastRunner said:

What puzzles me is that a lot of the arguments I read here assume that these women in Canada are being forced to wear these garments by their spouses. The fact is that the majority of these women choose to wear them of their own free will. The only thing this bill does is prevent women from riding the bus. But thank goodness. They could be carrying a butter knife. 

I don't think they should ban them either, because, in the end, freedom of choice matters and you can't tell people why they should make those choices.  I don't think anyone but the women know why they are wearing them, and if coercion is an issue, what they say is irrelevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, bcsapper said:

I don't think they should ban them either, because, in the end, freedom of choice matters and you can't tell people why they should make those choices.  I don't think anyone but the women know why they are wearing them, and if coercion is an issue, what they say is irrelevant.

There was a woman on CBC today, possibly a Muslim women, who spoke against wearing the Niqab (face covering).  She claimed it is not part of Islam but comes from a small sect of Islam called Wahhabi, who originate from Saudi Arabia.  According to Wikipedia this is a fundamentalist,  strict interpretation of Islam.  The guest on CBC said she thought they wear it as a statement for political Islam.

Reading on the internet sites on Wahhabism, most Muslims do not support that branch of Islam.  It appears only a very small percentage are of that persuasion.  The woman said it is not in the Quran and she doesn't believe it is a religious thing.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, dialamah said:

@blackbird.  Does that matter, really?   Does knowing that Christmas isn't found in the Bible, or that early Christians didn't celebrate it make it any less a religious matter for those Christians that celebrate it today? 

It's the human investment in symbols that does matter here.  Symbols themselves aren't important but they represent important things.  Remembrance Day, Gord Downie, The Queen, The American Flag, The National Anthem transcend what they actually are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, dialamah said:

@blackbird.  Does that matter, really?   Does knowing that Christmas isn't found in the Bible, or that early Christians didn't celebrate it make it any less a religious matter for those Christians that celebrate it today? 

 

 I just think in a free society, everyone should be able to see everyone else.  But I think the chances of this Quebec law being struck down in courts, including Supreme Court are very strong.  I am almost certain the law will be struck down.

There might also be legitimate concerns about security.  The face covering is a practice of Wahhabi Muslim women.  Wahhabism is a particularly fundamentalist form of Islam.  It was the sect that the 9-11 hijackers belonged to.  It is the sect in Saudi Arabia where they enforced their Islamic laws by beheading people or cutting off limbs in the square.   Women take a much lower place in society than men.

Quote   With the help of funding from Saudi petroleum exports[23] (and other factors[24]), the movement underwent "explosive growth" beginning in the 1970s and now has worldwide influence.[3] The US State Department has estimated that over the past four decades the capital Riyadh has invested more than $10bn (£6bn) into charitable foundations in an attempt to replace mainstream Sunni Islam with the harsher, intolerant Wahhabism.[25]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabism

Edited by blackbird
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.

Guest
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.

×
×
  • Create New...