Asylum System "not sustainable" - Immigration Minister

[Goddess]

10 minutes ago, turningrite said:

And what any of this has to do with keeping Islamic extremism out of Canada is unfathomable to me, particularly given that extremist acts tend to be perpetrated by radicalized males.

Any reputable Islamic scholar will confirm that these garments are not a requirement of Islam.

So who requires them?

It is the ideology of Islamic extremists.  It is the extremists that believe women should not be allowed out of the house without being completely shrouded and in total submission. 

It's a frightening ideology from a woman's perspective. I'm not really sure that men understand fully what it means to be a woman and see these hideous blobs that this ideology reduces women to.  As Dia has pointed out, women's rights in Western society are a fairly recent thing.  I for one, would not like to see our society go backwards just to make those who still cling to these barbaric beliefs feel more comfortable with having them.

[Zeitgeist]

3 hours ago, Goddess said:

Any reputable Islamic scholar will confirm that these garments are not a requirement of Islam.

So who requires them?

It is the ideology of Islamic extremists.  It is the extremists that believe women should not be allowed out of the house without being completely shrouded and in total submission. 

It's a frightening ideology from a woman's perspective. I'm not really sure that men understand fully what it means to be a woman and see these hideous blobs that this ideology reduces women to.  As Dia has pointed out, women's rights in Western society are a fairly recent thing.  I for one, would not like to see our society go backwards just to make those who still cling to these barbaric beliefs feel more comfortable with having them.

I basically agree with you, but the problem is that there are too many counterexamples of women who claim to embrace these practices by free choice.  It's almost become a unifying symbol of resistance for some sects, which makes me think that the best way to dispel them is simply to ignore them and move on.  If there are women who actively choose to wear black sack cloth head to toe with slits for their eyes in the searing heat, that's their problem.  As their children and children's children become more integrated in the wider society, these practices will disappear because any moderate person who has been somewhat socialized in a progressive culture sees them as ridiculous, which they are.

[dialamah]

12 hours ago, Goddess said:

Well, there you go.  The "stated goal" of a niqab ban is not to help women escape oppressive relationships.  The goal is to keep Islamic extremism OUT of Canada.

Well, as an explanation, that at least makes a lot more sense than "ban the niqab, save the women".   

Quote

 

If some women are helped by the ban, that is a bonus.

If it doesn't help other women, perhaps the problem is not with us, perhaps the problem is that they are Islamic extremists.

 

What exactly do you mean by extremists in this context?  I'm thinking violent extremism, but maybe I'm wrong about that.

[dialamah]

8 hours ago, turningrite said:

In my view, the pro-niqab folks simply can't provide a consistent rational justification to sustain their perspective.

I wouldn't call myself "pro-niqab", more like "pro-freedom".  When someone says to me that we should ban someone's religious symbol, I don't think that fits into Canadian culture of "freedom of thought/worship".  However, @Goddess has provided the clue that I was lacking:  they aren't concerned about the woman, or about freedom of thought/worship, only seeing the niqab as a symbol of extremism.  And that is the issue.

Quote

When you critique one aspect of their position, such as the supposed sanctity of "freedom of choice", they shift over to the rationale that it's dangerous for these women to refuse to wear the niqab or burqa. The notion that these women participate in such practices by "choice" is antithetical to the argument that they're definitionally oppressed and are therefore vulnerable.

From my perspective the conversation has gone like this:

Anti-Niqab: Ban the Niqab!  It's oppressive and women are forced to wear it, and that's not a Canadian value!

Pro-freedom:  "What about the women who aren't forced to wear it?  Shouldn't they have the choice?

Anti-Niqab:  No, because the women who are forced to wear it matter more!  If the niqab is banned, they'll be able to stop wearing it!

Pro-freedom:  How will that work, if they are forced to wear it by religion/family, and forced to not wear it by secular law?

Anti-Niqab:   It will prove that we won't accept the oppression of women!

And so the argument has gone on and on.  (But finally, @Goddess has explained it's not the niqab or the women at all, it's the extremism it represents so it doesn't matter if she chooses to wear it or not.)

So, it's not that the 'Pro-Freedom" rationale keeps changing at all, it's that there are really two groups of women: those who *choose* to wear it, and those who do not.   

Quote

And what any of this has to do with keeping Islamic extremism out of Canada is unfathomable to me, particularly given that extremist acts tend to be perpetrated by radicalized males.

There is that.

Edited September 22, 2018 by dialamah

[turningrite]

6 minutes ago, dialamah said:

I wouldn't call myself "pro-niqab", more like "pro-freedom".  When someone says to me that we should ban someone's religious symbol, I don't think that fits into Canadian culture of "freedom of thought/worship".  However, @Goddess has provided the clue that I was lacking:  they aren't concerned about the woman, or about freedom of thought/worship, only seeing the niqab as a symbol of extremism.  And that is the issue.

From my perspective the conversation has gone like this:

Anti-Niqab: Ban the Niqab!  It's oppressive and women are forced to wear it, and that's not a Canadian value!

Pro-freedom:  "What about the women who aren't forced to wear it?  Shouldn't they have the choice?

Anti-Niqab:  No, because the women who are forced to wear it matter more!  If the niqab is banned, they'll be able to stop wearing it!

Pro-freedom:  How will that work, if they are forced to wear it by religion/family, and forced to not wear it by secular law?

Anti-Niqab:   It will prove that we won't accept the oppression of women!

And so the argument has gone on and on.  (But finally, @Goddess has explained it's not the niqab or the women at all, it's the extremism it represents so it doesn't matter if she chooses to wear it or not.)

 

I think you either completely misunderstand my point or, alternatively, you're trying to misrepresent it. My point is that there are two general lines of argument favoring the niqab and burka and these two are logically opposed. One argument is based on so-called religious freedom and the other is based on the notion of fear and oppression whereby women have no choice but to wear these garments. So, which is it?

[dialamah]

7 hours ago, Goddess said:

IAs Dia has pointed out, women's rights in Western society are a fairly recent thing.  I for one, would not like to see our society go backwards just to make those who still cling to these barbaric beliefs feel more comfortable with having them.

The thing is, we've managed to move past our own "barbaric" culture, dragging fundamental Christians kicking and screaming along with us, even when Christians comprised well over half of our population.  I fail to see how 3.2% of Muslims are going to be able to 'drag us backwards", especially given that the 'extreme' ones are a small percentage of that 3.2%.  Unless perhaps they join forces with the fundamental Christians, Jews and White Nationalists, who all have a similar ideology when it comes to women.  That might give them a resounding 5%.  

I know there's some kind of notion out there that Muslims, when they get to some tiny percentage of the population (10%?) they take over.  In my opinion, its a little far-fetched to imagine that 10% of any group could simply take over the rest of the group.    

 

[dialamah]

13 minutes ago, turningrite said:

I think you either completely misunderstand my point or, alternatively, you're trying to misrepresent it. My point is that there are two general lines of argument favoring the niqab and burka and these two are logically opposed. One argument is based on so-called religious freedom and the other is based on the notion of fear and oppression whereby women have no choice but to wear these garments. So, which is it?

The two arguments are not mutually exclusive.

There are two groups of women who wear the Niqab.

One group *chooses* to wear the Niqab.

One group wears the Niqab due to family/religious pressure.

Thus, there are two arguments to oppose banning the niqab.

1.  It removes the right of women who "choose".

2. It does nothing to help the women who are forced.

 

[turningrite]

16 minutes ago, dialamah said:

The two arguments are not mutually exclusive.

There are two groups of women who wear the Niqab.

One group *chooses* to wear the Niqab.

One group wears the Niqab due to family/religious pressure.

Thus, there are two arguments to oppose banning the niqab.

1.  It removes the right of women who "choose".

2. It does nothing to help the women who are forced.

 

I don't buy your tautology, which seems intended to in a manipulative fashion counter secular rationalism. If something that's objectionable to many must be allowed because to do otherwise both removes choice and at the same time only theoretically fails to resolve repression, the moral as well as rational choice is to operate on the basis of causing the least harm. Reduction of harm in this context entails banning a practice that's both a representation and consequence of repression. After all, is affirming one person's supposed "freedom" sufficient to justify the simultaneous possibly of repression of another? Personally, as long as a single person might be saved from harm, I think not.

Edited September 22, 2018 by turningrite

[dialamah]

1 minute ago, turningrite said:

I don't buy your tautology, which seems intended to in a manipulative fashion counter secular rationalism. If something that's objectionable to many must be allowed because to do otherwise both removes choice and at the same time only theoretically fails to resolve repression, whether or not it is disallowed implies to me that the rational choice is to operate on the basis or causing the least harm. Reduction of harm entails banning a practice that's both a representation and consequence of repression. After all, is affirming one person's supposed "freedom" sufficient to justify the simultaneous possibly of repression of another? Personally, as long as a single person might be saved from harm, I think not.

Are you saying that a niqab ban would help women who are being oppressed and abused in their home?

[Guest]

52 minutes ago, turningrite said:

I don't buy your tautology, which seems intended to in a manipulative fashion counter secular rationalism. If something that's objectionable to many must be allowed because to do otherwise both removes choice and at the same time only theoretically fails to resolve repression, the moral as well as rational choice is to operate on the basis of causing the least harm. Reduction of harm in this context entails banning a practice that's both a representation and consequence of repression. After all, is affirming one person's supposed "freedom" sufficient to justify the simultaneous possibly of repression of another? Personally, as long as a single person might be saved from harm, I think not.

I don't think you can restrict personal choice based on the the possibility that a single person might be saved from harm.

A lot of people use that excuse to restrict freedom of expression, abortion, assisted suicide, drug use, etc.

If you can show coercion, then the authorities can get involved.

[turningrite]

10 hours ago, bcsapper said:

I don't think you can restrict personal choice based on the the possibility that a single person might be saved from harm.

A lot of people use that excuse to restrict freedom of expression, abortion, assisted suicide, drug use, etc.

If you can show coercion, then the authorities can get involved.

We restrict personal freedoms in many ways in our society on the premise of preventing potential or theoretical harm. To simply cherry pick issues that you appear to believe sustain your position doesn't adequately respond to the broader issue. In comparison to an issue like abortion, a restriction or prohibition on facial coverings would be so minor in comparison to the potential benefits, such as promoting gender equality, female dignity and integration, as well as preventing potential coercion, that imposing a secular regime in this regard seems eminently sensible. The European Court of Human Rights has reached this conclusion in upholding secular laws in countries under the court's jurisdiction. Those who come here who believe their personal religious freedoms and choices are absolutely necessary to their own personal concept of dignity have a much broader form of freedom available to them to sustain their beliefs - the freedom to leave. Personally, I believe secularism is the key to harmony and inclusion in a diverse society.

Edited September 22, 2018 by turningrite

[turningrite]

11 hours ago, dialamah said:

Are you saying that a niqab ban would help women who are being oppressed and abused in their home?

It would send a message that outside the home no woman could be compelled to participate in such a practice.

[Guest]

59 minutes ago, turningrite said:

We restrict personal freedoms in many ways in our society on the premise of preventing potential or theoretical harm. To simply cherry pick issues that you appear to believe sustain your position doesn't adequately respond to the broader issue. In comparison to an issue like abortion, a restriction or prohibition on facial coverings would be so minor in comparison to the potential benefits, such as promoting gender equality, female dignity and integration, as well as preventing potential coercion, that imposing a secular regime in this regard seems eminently sensible. The European Court of Human Rights has reached this conclusion in upholding secular laws in countries under the court's jurisdiction. Those who come here who believe their personal religious freedoms and choices are absolutely necessary to their own personal concept of dignity have a much broader form of freedom available to them to sustain their beliefs - the freedom to leave. Personally, I believe secularism is the key to harmony and inclusion in a diverse society.

Me too, but if someone wants to wear something I don't like, I'm not going to advocate forcing them not to.  I think a ban in this specific case is counter productive in that it would not help those forced to wear it, as they would simply be forced to stay indoors instead. But that's not really why I'm against it.  I'm just pro-choice.

I don't believe in much in the way of religious accommodation generally.  For instance, I don't care if a Mountie wears a turban, but I wouldn't allow a motorcyclist to wear one.  In the same vein,  I would not allow any face covering where ID is required.  In other words, I wouldn't make accommodation for them.

 

[dialamah]

3 hours ago, turningrite said:

It would send a message that outside the home no woman could be compelled to participate in such a practice.

Yes it would.  At the same time it would send a message that we will compel women to stay home rather than accept their choice of what to wear.  

Edited September 22, 2018 by dialamah

[taxme]

On 9/21/2018 at 12:04 PM, turningrite said:

In my view, the pro-niqab folks simply can't provide a consistent rational justification to sustain their perspective. When you critique one aspect of their position, such as the supposed sanctity of "freedom of choice", they shift over to the rationale that it's dangerous for these women to refuse to wear the niqab or burqa. The notion that these women participate in such practices by "choice" is antithetical to the argument that they're definitionally oppressed and are therefore vulnerable. And what any of this has to do with keeping Islamic extremism out of Canada is unfathomable to me, particularly given that extremist acts tend to be perpetrated by radicalized males.

Our politically correct puppet on a string politicians just love their multiculturalism and diversity and one day it will not only bite them on the ass but host Canadians also. Why would a country like Canada want to import so many different religions, traditions, cultures and languages is beyond me. We can see today that there are plenty of problems already involving other races and cultures in Canada, which our leftist liberal Canadian media refuse to report on, that we never had to concern ourselves with several decades ago.

We even allow some religions to be able to bypass some of our laws that host Canadians are forced too and have to abide by. Sikhs for instance do not have to wear motorcycle helmets in BC when riding a motorcycle but the rest of the motorcyclists in BC have too. It's all just an excuse for Sikhs to be able to avoid the law and not have to wear a motorcycle helmet. If one as to wear a helmet than all should have to wear a helmet. No exceptions.        This is racism as far as I am concerned and our BC politicians are supporting this racism and from what I have heard Sikhs in Ontario may be exempt from having to wear a motorcycle helmet.

Maybe some of our motorcyclists in BC should become a Sikh in name only so as to avoid having to wear a motorcycle helmet. Hey, if someone can be a man today and a woman tomorrow than why can't anyone who is a non-Sikh say that today I want to be a Sikh. Who is to stop them? Hey, you never know, it should work. Maybe someone will try it sometime. 

[Argus]

On 9/21/2018 at 3:04 PM, turningrite said:

 And what any of this has to do with keeping Islamic extremism out of Canada is unfathomable to me, particularly given that extremist acts tend to be perpetrated by radicalized males.

You mean like Omar Khadr? Who was raised by women in niqabs?

You can't keep people from self-radicalizing from within Canada. That's true. On the other hand, if Canada makes itself unwelcoming to religious fanatics that might well change the narrative in many of these mosques to make self-radicalization less likely. If some guy wants to immigrate here and bring his black sack cloth wearing wife with him he could be told that's not welcome in Canada and his wife won't be able to wear it in public. Then he'd perhaps decide to go elsewhere.

 

Edited September 22, 2018 by Argus

[Argus]

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

Yes it would.  At the same time it would send a message that we will compel women to stay home rather than accept their choice of what to wear.  

That is a risk most are willing to take to discourage the use of this garment and discourage Muslim extremism in Canada.

And extremism comes in many varieties. In my view anyone devoted enough to wear this thing is an extremist, as are any males who tell her she ought to.

[Argus]

15 hours ago, bcsapper said:

I don't think you can restrict personal choice based on the the possibility that a single person might be saved from harm.

How about saving society from harm?

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Argus said:

How about saving society from harm?

If your personal choice is to harm society then I think you should be stopped.  If it's just something that others are afraid might, then no.  I wouldn't stop white supremacists or Islamists marching  peacefully, and a lot of people think that's going to harm society.  I wouldn't stop a draw Muhammad competition, and a lot of people might think that's going to do some harm.  I don't care if you get a doctor to assist your suicide, even if it's just because you have a hangnail.  I support the choice of a woman to have an abortion, even if it's just because the kid is going to be female.  Or male. I support your right to put whatever you want into your body, for whatever reason.  Some people think that's going to harm society.

I think if someone is worried something is going to harm society they should go to the authorities and make them aware of it.  If they decide to put a stop to it, so be it.  I don't have to agree with it.  It's like M103.  Some people did that because they thought freedom of speech was going to harm society.  I don't agree with that.  They still did it.  I'll agree even less if they make it binding. But that probably won't stop them.

[Centerpiece]

22 hours ago, dialamah said:

From my perspective the conversation has gone like this:

Anti-Niqab: Ban the Niqab!  It's oppressive and women are forced to wear it, and that's not a Canadian value!

Pro-freedom:  "What about the women who aren't forced to wear it?  Shouldn't they have the choice?

Anti-Niqab:  No, because the women who are forced to wear it matter more!  If the niqab is banned, they'll be able to stop wearing it!

Pro-freedom:  How will that work, if they are forced to wear it by religion/family, and forced to not wear it by secular law?

Anti-Niqab:   It will prove that we won't accept the oppression of women!

And so the argument has gone on and on.  (But finally, @Goddess has explained it's not the niqab or the women at all, it's the extremism it represents so it doesn't matter if she chooses to wear it or not.)

So, it's not that the 'Pro-Freedom" rationale keeps changing at all, it's that there are really two groups of women: those who *choose* to wear it, and those who do not.   

There is that.

Is that the way the conversation went in the growing list of countries that have already banned the Niqab/Burkha - including France, Austria, Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Bulgaria? Several others have partial bans. What do you think their motivations were?

Edited September 23, 2018 by Centerpiece

[dialamah]

34 minutes ago, Centerpiece said:

Is that the way the conversation went in the growing list of countries that have already banned the Niqab/Burkha - including France, Austria, Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Bulgaria? Several others have partial bans.

Yes, I do think the conversation has gone very similarly there and here.  I think the anti-Muslim rhetoric started in Europe and crossed to North America through the alt-right.  I have read, and posted here, counter arguments from Europe, including indications that bans increase the wearing of niqabs/burkas and give extremists fodder for propaganda and radicalization.  When France implemented their ban, there was a spike in young men travelling to Syria and there was obvious use of the niqab bans in pushing the rhetoric that the West wants to destroy Islam.  ISIS was very happy about the bans, I guess, because it helped their cause.  Who ever rises behind ISIS will likely be equally pleased.

Quote

What do you think their motivations were?

I think the motivation among people is fear of extremism, fanned by right wing nationalists.  I think the motivation of politicians when they pass these bans is to offer a kind of sop to those fears, pull the teeth of right-wing parties and keep them out of power.  

[Centerpiece]

10 hours ago, dialamah said:

Yes, I do think the conversation has gone very similarly there and here.  I think the anti-Muslim rhetoric started in Europe and crossed to North America through the alt-right.  I have read, and posted here, counter arguments from Europe, including indications that bans increase the wearing of niqabs/burkas and give extremists fodder for propaganda and radicalization.  When France implemented their ban, there was a spike in young men travelling to Syria and there was obvious use of the niqab bans in pushing the rhetoric that the West wants to destroy Islam.  ISIS was very happy about the bans, I guess, because it helped their cause.  Who ever rises behind ISIS will likely be equally pleased.

I think the motivation among people is fear of extremism, fanned by right wing nationalists.  I think the motivation of politicians when they pass these bans is to offer a kind of sop to those fears, pull the teeth of right-wing parties and keep them out of power.  

You're making an argument that says the niqab/burka is related to extremism. I know you don't mean it that way and maybe you won't even see it - but your falling into the same trap as Neville Chamberlain - be nice to them, accommodate them and they'll leave us alone.

[Michael Hardner]

21 hours ago, turningrite said:

... a restriction or prohibition on facial coverings would be so minor in comparison to the potential benefits, such as promoting gender equality, female dignity and integration, as well as preventing potential coercion, that imposing a secular regime in this regard seems eminently sensible. T

This is an opinion only.  The question also begs as to why such garments are only being banned now that Muslims are visible in Canada.  Nuns had habits that hid their faces I remember.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

This is an opinion only.  The question also begs as to why such garments are only being banned now that Muslims are visible in Canada.  Nuns had habits that hid their faces I remember.

I don't remember that.  They probably should have had habits that hid their fists.

Edited September 23, 2018 by bcsapper

[Michael Hardner]

Just now, bcsapper said:

They probably should have had habits their fists.

I can only assume this is autocorrect acting up.