Racist POS Just Deserts

[dialamah]

6 minutes ago, Argus said:

And yet, a lot of those calling for the ban are Muslim. And a lot of those who find the garment a disgusting symbol of male oppression and female subjugation are liberal and feminist. 

Yup.  That is true.

6 minutes ago, Argus said:

If it's 'woke' to support the wearing of a shroud which shuts a woman off from the world and all human contact in order to prevent males from being incited to lust by her appearance then no rational being would want to be 'woke'.

I don't like those things either, but as I have said ... I do not believe there is enough proof of "forced" wearing  to justify a law against them.  

[dialamah]

3 minutes ago, Argus said:

There is no religious requirement for adults to wear them either.

I am also aware of that, as are at least some of the women who choose to wear them.   There is no religious requirement for many things people do in the name of religion, but that rarely seems to stop them so ultimately its a pointless argument.  

5 minutes ago, Argus said:

I think all religious garments are stupid, but the more uncomfortable, repressive and obvious it is the worse I like it.

Oddly, women actually seem to want the choice to wear something you don't like.  They don't seem to agree that its uncomfortable or oppressive.

Zeena is 17. She lives in a bustling Islamic community on the outskirts of Leeds. She is ambitious, driven and adamant that within ten years, she’ll be a surgeon for the NHS.

She is also the first woman in her family to wear the niqab. “Yes, it represents something I believe in – but it isn’t the only thing I believe in,” she told me.

-----------

When my daughter was five, she asked me, ‘Mummy, why don’t other ladies cover their faces?’

I remember it well, as it was the first time she had questioned anything to do with the way I dressed. I told her that the way ladies dress is the least important part of what makes them human.

She’s a teenager now and annoying as ever – but wise beyond her years! She has chosen not to wear the burqa.

---------

I wear it [the burqa] in public, but I can’t even begin to describe the feelings and emotions I felt with every step down that street.

It made me feel so empowered as a woman knowing I get to choose what is seen of me. I’d like to wear it more often.

---------

I can easily acknowledge that not all women wear the burka out of choice, or that the choice isn't at least partly influenced by the wider society, whether its peer pressure or opposition to anti-Muslim sentiment expressed in Western nations.  Still don't see a justification for the government to pass laws dictating what women wear.

[DogOnPorch]

37 minutes ago, Argus said:

There is no religious requirement for adults to wear them either.

No, I'm not. I think all religious garments are stupid, but the more uncomfortable, repressive and obvious it is the worse I like it.

 

16 minutes ago, dialamah said:

I am also aware of that, as are at least some of the women who choose to wear them.   There is no religious requirement for many things people do in the name of religion, but that rarely seems to stop them so ultimately its a pointless argument.  

 

This is why it is handy to have someone around who has actually read the Quran...

Quran 33 59 explains to the Believer...

O Prophet, tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to bring down over themselves [part] of their outer garments. That is more suitable that they will be known and not be abused. And ever is Allah Forgiving and Merciful.

https://quran.com/33/59

That's where it comes from. Are you going to disobey your Prophet, dialamah?

Edited August 14, 2018 by DogOnPorch

[DogOnPorch]

...and in case you didn't catch it...or willfully didn't read that particular verse from the Quran and put your fingers in your ears and went "La La La La" it says:

That is more suitable that they will be known and not be abused.

It is so Believing women are not targets of Muslim Men...and abused. 

It is perfectly okay to abuse Infidel women.

[dialamah]

39 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

This is why it is handy to have someone around who has actually read the Quran...

Here is someone who has read the Quran, and unlike you, understands it and can put the verse you have quoted into historical and modern context.   

 

 

[DogOnPorch]

Just now, dialamah said:

Here is someone who has read the Quran, and unlike you, understands it and can put the verse you have quoted into historical and modern context.   

 

As with science, The Quran is not open to expert opinion. It says exactly what it says as the immutable word of Allah. 

I'll trust Allah over your biased video.

 

[dialamah]

19 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

As with science, The Quran is not open to expert opinion. It says exactly what it says as the immutable word of Allah. 

I'll trust Allah over your biased video.

 

I didn't think you'd watch it.  Anyone who did would be happy to use it to support a ban on burqas/niqabs.  Nonetheless, it puts your simple-minded parrotting of extreme rhetoric in context and makes a much better criticism of modern Islam than you could ever hope to do.

Edited August 14, 2018 by dialamah

[DogOnPorch]

5 minutes ago, dialamah said:

I didn't think you'd watch it.  Anyone who did would be happy to use it to support a ban on burqas/niqabs.  Nonetheless, it puts your simple-minded parrotting of extreme rhetoric in context and makes a much better criticism of modern Islam than you could ever hope to do.

 

My source is the Quran.

[turningrite]

4 hours ago, dialamah said:

To assert that a law banning face veils is (or would be) based on caring about female equality and not merely government pandering to bigots is so "unwoke" as to make rational beings cringe.

That's beyond being judgmental on your part and discredits your entire argument.

[dialamah]

39 minutes ago, turningrite said:

That's beyond being judgmental on your part and discredits your entire argument.

Really?  So your statement below, implying my opinion is deluded and  irrational because it happens to be different than yours is ok, but returning the slur isn't?   Go figure!

"I guess we're all free to delude ourselves but to assert face covering as amounting to progressive accommodation is so 'unwoke' as to make rational beings cringe."

Edited August 14, 2018 by dialamah

[Argus]

5 hours ago, dialamah said:

I  don't like those things either, but as I have said ... I do not believe there is enough proof of "forced" wearing  to justify a law against them.  

We ban multiple marriages. Even a woman WANTS to be the second or third wife of a man she can't legally do so. The state decides that this sort of thing is simply not good for society, much less for women. The state also won't take the word of women in domestic abuse cases when she says nothing happened or recants after blaming her husband. The state has decided that these women cannot be trusted due to the possibility of coercion from their husbands and boyfriends. If the state were to ban the wearing of burkas the precedent is there.

[Argus]

4 hours ago, dialamah said:

Oddly, women actually seem to want the choice to wear something you don't like. 

And abused women want the choice to drop charges and go back to living with the guy who beat the crap out of them. Are you okay with the crown agreeing? Are you okay with an eighteen year old girl wanting to marry a forty seven year old man to be his third wife?

 

Edited August 14, 2018 by Argus

[dialamah]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

We ban multiple marriages. Even a woman WANTS to be the second or third wife of a man she can't legally do so. The state decides that this sort of thing is simply not good for society, much less for women. The state also won't take the word of women in domestic abuse cases when she says nothing happened or recants after blaming her husband. The state has decided that these women cannot be trusted due to the possibility of coercion from their husbands and boyfriends. If the state were to ban the wearing of burkas the precedent is there.

True.  And if the State decides to ban burkas and niqabs, then they will.  I still don't have to think its justified.  Unjust laws are passed a lot; in Canada they are often followed by apologies decades later.

[dialamah]

2 hours ago, Argus said:

And abused women want the choice to drop charges and go back to living with the guy who beat the crap out of them. Are you okay with the crown agreeing?

1.  In Canada, it is not the victim who decides if or what charges are laid. 

2.  Physical or sexual assault is not equivalent to a face covering.

3.  People who assault others should be charged, even if its just tugging off their yarmulke or hijab.

2 hours ago, Argus said:

Are you okay with an eighteen year old girl wanting to marry a forty seven year old man to be his third wife?

 I am not against legal plural marriages as long as it is a choice made by adult participants.  In Canada, plural marriage is illegal.  I don't see any reason why it should be illegal, probably because I do know several polyamourus couples.

I think an 18-year-old marrying a 47-year-old is yucky, whether its his first and only wife, or wife number 3.  But if the law considers her an adult and that is her choice, then my discomfort with it is not justification for removing her choice to marry who she wants to.  

Do you think the government should be in the business of reducing individual freedoms?  Dictating to adults what they can or cannot wear in public, who they can and cannot marry?

 

 

Edited August 15, 2018 by dialamah

[Guest]

10 hours ago, dialamah said:

Religious belief.  

People in most Muslim majority countries do not like face coverings, and many also think women should be able to choose what they wear, suggesting that social pressure to wear face coverings is considerably less than Westerners assume.  The hijab is the preferred "look".   

From a Canadian survey.

The women interviewed were generally young and the vast majority had chosen to wear the niqab on their own, often despite the protests of family.

So when does religious belief become coercion against one's will?  I used the example of a youngster marrying an elder, probably much against her will, but willingly (Sounds like a contradiction, but I don't know how better to put it) because she believes her God wants her to do it, or, more likely, the elder told her her God wanted her to do it and she has been conditioned to believe him.  You think it arrogant of me to believe she doesn't actually want to spend the rest of his life with him.  Fair enough.  That said, if she says she does, I'm not going to advocate stopping her.

It's the same with burkas.

[dialamah]

2 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

So when does religious belief become coercion against one's will?  I used the example of a youngster marrying an elder, probably much against her will, but willingly (Sounds like a contradiction, but I don't know how better to put it) because she believes her God wants her to do it, or, more likely, the elder told her her God wanted her to do it and she has been conditioned to believe him.  You think it arrogant of me to believe she doesn't actually want to spend the rest of his life with him.  Fair enough.  That said, if she says she does, I'm not going to advocate stopping her.

It's the same with burkas.

I understand what you mean.  Many people are religious and religion influences what they think and how they behave.  But that doesn't mean one can simply assume that a disliked decision made by a religious person was coerced.  

[Argus]

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

True.  And if the State decides to ban burkas and niqabs, then they will.  I still don't have to think its justified.  Unjust laws are passed a lot; in Canada they are often followed by apologies decades later.

I am undecided, but I think the state ought to be discouraging the adoption of exterior religious garments as statements of separateness. That's particularly so when the garment has such an enormous impact on someone's life that, as I said, they'll never feel the sun on their skin or the wind in their face. I recall reading a female columnist who wore one for a day and she said it was like being in a prison all alone, a really, really hot one. No one even looked at her, even when she was buying stuff, because nobody wanted to look at a pair of eyes peering out at them through a slit. Anyone who voluntarily wears it has to have psychological issues.

[Guest]

35 minutes ago, dialamah said:

I understand what you mean.  Many people are religious and religion influences what they think and how they behave.  But that doesn't mean one can simply assume that a disliked decision made by a religious person was coerced.  

An assumption doesn't require proof.  I think it's difficult to make an assumption about an individual, but it gets easier as the group grows larger.  I do assume that most burka wearers on the planet would rather not, and they are afraid to not.  I really don't think I'm wrong about that.  But, as you say, it's only an assumption.

[turningrite]

21 hours ago, dialamah said:

Really?  So your statement below, implying my opinion is deluded and  irrational because it happens to be different than yours is ok, but returning the slur isn't?   Go figure!

"I guess we're all free to delude ourselves but to assert face covering as amounting to progressive accommodation is so 'unwoke' as to make rational beings cringe."

No, I dismissed your argument because it concluded with a gratuitously anti-intellectual assumption, thus failing the test of objectivity: i.e. "To assert that a law banning face veils is (or would be) based on caring about female equality and not merely government pandering to bigots is so "unwoke" as to make rational beings cringe" In other words, you dismiss the views of those who don't agree with you based on a preconceived moral construct (i.e. bigotry) rather than on rational discourse and/or evidence and to boot you throw in a personal attack against the commentator to whom you are responding. I made no slur whatsoever against you or your post(s) in the sentence you quote. I simply elaborated on a point you previously raised. You can't set up an argument, attack other commentators for responding to it and then go on to blithely describe their views as amounting to slurs. Based on my assessment of your argument in this string, you don't apparently understand rules of civil debate, unless of course your actual objective was to be seen as clever, which in my opinion you didn't achieve. My advice to you is to avoid the temptation to engage in gratuitously sarcastic 'ad hominem' attacks. 

Edited August 15, 2018 by turningrite

[Michael Hardner]

19 hours ago, Argus said:

1. There never was much in the way of religious dress to make fun of here in years past.

2.  But it's been done in the UK before, where politicians are considerably more free to speak their minds.

3.  Oh of course they have. But the mockery has been directed at Christians.

1.  Jews and Catholics have religious garb that comes to mind, so I don't know what you mean.

2.  Cite ?

3.  Can you give an example of a politician MOCKING Christians without rebuke ?  I think that's a strange idea - why would they do that ?

[turningrite]

On 8/15/2018 at 7:55 AM, Michael Hardner said:

1.  Jews and Catholics have religious garb that comes to mind, so I don't know what you mean.

2.  Cite ?

3.  Can you give an example of a politician MOCKING Christians without rebuke ?  I think that's a strange idea - why would they do that ?

I think you're overstating the connection between the Western aversion to fundamentalist Muslim female dress and assumed bigotry. Many Canadians, including a lot of progressives and moderates, are uncomfortable with such clothing, although most have been intimidated into saying little or nothing about it. There was a good column touching on the topic by Heather Mallick in yesterday's Toronto Star. She, of immigrant and mixed racial heritage, says that as a feminist she too dislikes Muslim face coverings. In the Western context, they convey meaning and intent beyond simple religious affiliation and/or devotion. She notes that she rather agrees with Boris Johnson's recent critique that "it's ridiculous that people should choose to go around looking like letter boxes" and she points to a cultural/psychological explanation for the Western aversion to face coverings, referencing the view of historian Tom Holland who holds that in some aspects these garments raise the specter of the Grim Reaper. In other words, the visceral aversion may be grounded more in a fear of death (necrophobia) rather than Islamophobia. Given our diversity obsession, we often forget that Western cultural perceptions are often subliminally grounded in historical realities, including the Great Plague and the Black Death. We, too, have distinct historical and cultural influences that impact us in ways we often don't realize and are unable to intellectualize. So when your stomach knots when you see a woman approaching you covered head-to-toe in black with only her eyes otherwise visible you should take comfort in the reality that you're probably not a bigot at all.

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/star-columnists/2018/08/14/the-missing-ingredient-in-political-life-charm.html

Edited August 16, 2018 by turningrite

[taxme]

On 8/14/2018 at 10:47 AM, DogOnPorch said:

 

As with science, The Quran is not open to expert opinion. It says exactly what it says as the immutable word of Allah. 

I'll trust Allah over your biased video.

 

How I long for the good old days when we did not have to discuss topics like this. But now thanks to multiculturalism and diversity and massive third world immigration we now have to waste our time talking about Muslim terrorists in Canada and women wearing Halloween black costumes. When Canada was a mainly majority white British/European country everybody pretty much got along. All came here and blended in. Now all we are getting for our tax dollars these days is having too many discussions like this. If the gawd dam politicians minded their own bloody business Canadians would not be forking out and seeing hundreds of millions of their tax dollars being wasted on the programs and agendas of multiculturalism and diversity. 

Maxine Bernier is right? Trudeau and his merry band of liberal multicultural diversity misfits are going to destroy this once great nation and some here feel well that is alright. 

[turningrite]

6 hours ago, taxme said:

When Canada was a mainly majority white British/European country everybody pretty much got along. All came here and blended in.

I'm not convinced this is entirely correct. As new groups entered the country, most faced some degree of animosity, at least at first. The Irish were mistreated when they arrived, the Italians were mistreated, the Ukrainians were mistreated, etc. But eventually these groups adapted and moved into the mainstream. Governments did not intervene to force acceptance. There was minimal social support and immigrants pretty much had to make it on their own or move on, as many in fact did, mainly to the United States. Religion was an issue as well. My father used to recall growing up Catholic in small town Ontario in the Orange Order's heyday, where Catholics and Protestants largely worked, shopped and socialized separately. WWII, he used to say, was the unifying event, after which religious animosity and separation evaporated. The point is that everybody got along once ethnic and religious chauvinism (i.e. tribalism) dissipated and most people, at least in English-speaking Canada, simply began defining themselves as Canadian. I think the lesson here is that ethnic and tribal division is counterproductive and in the Canadian context is regressive. Why we are now encouraging and to some extent celebrating the emergence of a government-promoted form of tribal multiculturalism remains a mystery to me. I suspect Bernier is correct where he believes the new form of identity-based tribalism is being promoted and exploited for political purposes.

[taxme]

18 hours ago, turningrite said:

I'm not convinced this is entirely correct. As new groups entered the country, most faced some degree of animosity, at least at first. The Irish were mistreated when they arrived, the Italians were mistreated, the Ukrainians were mistreated, etc. But eventually these groups adapted and moved into the mainstream. Governments did not intervene to force acceptance. There was minimal social support and immigrants pretty much had to make it on their own or move on, as many in fact did, mainly to the United States. Religion was an issue as well. My father used to recall growing up Catholic in small town Ontario in the Orange Order's heyday, where Catholics and Protestants largely worked, shopped and socialized separately. WWII, he used to say, was the unifying event, after which religious animosity and separation evaporated. The point is that everybody got along once ethnic and religious chauvinism (i.e. tribalism) dissipated and most people, at least in English-speaking Canada, simply began defining themselves as Canadian. I think the lesson here is that ethnic and tribal division is counterproductive and in the Canadian context is regressive. Why we are now encouraging and to some extent celebrating the emergence of a government-promoted form of tribal multiculturalism remains a mystery to me. I suspect Bernier is correct where he believes the new form of identity-based tribalism is being promoted and exploited for political purposes.

There has to be some kind of an agenda going on in this country as to why multiculturalism and diversity are being pushed as much as it is in Canada today. There is no good reason as to why the white people of Canada are asking for themselves to be replaced by the many dozens of other races of people out there that are immigrating to Canada in massive numbers.

Why would white people want to commit racial suicide or genocide? White people from other countries do have a tough time of it trying to immigrate to Canada. Our Irish friends found this out. This must be so because approx. only 15% of white people are coming to Canada and the other 85% are all coming from the third world. I see today a painting of Canada with no white people's faces in it.

And for Berniers belief he no doubt will be excommunicated from the conservative party. So much for freedom of speech in that party. Scheer is no conservative but appears to be more like and act like a liberal. And If Bernier goes than I go. There is not much point in voting for any political party at all in Canada anymore because all of them think and act the same politically correct way. It's all about the rest of the world and Canada be dammed. The Nationalist Party is the only party that I can see right now that is willing to take on multiculturalism. That appears to be the only party that I will be voting for in the next election if they can get on the ballot in time by then.

[turningrite]

4 hours ago, taxme said:

And for Berniers belief he no doubt will be excommunicated from the conservative party. So much for freedom of speech in that party. Scheer is no conservative but appears to be more like and act like a liberal. And If Bernier goes than I go. There is not much point in voting for any political party at all in Canada anymore because all of them think and act the same politically correct way. It's all about the rest of the world and Canada be dammed. The Nationalist Party is the only party that I can see right now that is willing to take on multiculturalism. That appears to be the only party that I will be voting for in the next election if they can get on the ballot in time by then.

I suspect Scheer won't turf Bernier from caucus because it's likely Bernier's views are widely supported in the party. So far, Scheer is trying to sit on the fence, which is probably a bad strategy for him and his party. If the 2016 CBC Angus-Reid poll that indicated widespread discontent with open-ended multiculturalism still hold, as I suspect they do, the CPC would probably see an uptick in the polls were it to embrace Bernier's critique. It sure didn't hurt Doug Ford when he made his "take care of our own" remark during the recent provincial election. He was loudly and predictably criticized by the hectoring progressive class for the comment but if anything it may have bolstered his support. Scheer is probably terrified to move away from the consensus position promoted by the mainstream party cabal in Ottawa. But he shoudn't be. He'll never win over the kind of ideologically rigid progressive voters he's afraid of alienating in any case.