Asylum System "not sustainable" - Immigration Minister

[dialamah]

 

  It is a security issue.

"Security risk" means people fear that women with face veil are a threat.  

This is dislike:

 

"It's a societal view that is the antithesis of everything we stand for."

".... it's time for Muslim wants, desires and preferences to take the backseat to Western wants, desires and preferences and do some bending of its own instead of Westerners constantly having to bow and bend to what Muslims want."

Fear and dislike, supported by justifications that lack data to support them.  

Edited September 18, 2018 by dialamah

[turningrite]

 

"Security risk" means people fear that women with face veil are a threat.  

 

dialamah: Perhaps those who champion Muslim customs should try living in a Muslim theocracy for a few years. Maybe they'd return with a different view. Most Westerners likely find religious facial coverings off-putting. It's not about fear per se but rather about a custom many understandably consider to be alienating. I wonder if those who choose to don such attire understand the discomfort it engenders in Western societies? I suspect many do.

Edited September 18, 2018 by turningrite

[Goddess]

 

"Security risk" means people fear that women with face veil are a threat.  

This is dislike:

Wrong.  "Security risk" means anyone with their face covered in public.  You glossed over that point before - just like motorcycle helmets and balaclavas are not allowed in certain areas.  Security risk.  I think it's natural to fear security risks.

Yes.  We dislike niqabs.  They are the antithesis of everything we believe in.  Or do you not agree with that?  You are suggesting that we learn to love niqabs and think they're great and if we don't like them, then the problem is with US??  What is wrong with disliking niqabs?  

Tell us what you like about them, so we can all love them like you do.

But again, my point was there IS a security risk in niqabs (You insist there is NO security risk) and it is not just "fear of women in veils" as you suggest.  And it's more than dislike of them.  There is no demonstrable value to society in niqabs.  In fact, they are bad for society, as we can all see from 57 Muslim majority countries and their appalling record of women's rights.

[dialamah]

 

dialamah: Perhaps those who champion Muslim customs should try living in a Muslim theocracy for a few years. Maybe they'd return with a different view. Most Westerners likely find religious facial coverings off-putting. It's not about fear per se but rather about a custom many understandably consider to be alienating. I wonder if those who choose to don such attire understand the discomfort it engenders in Western societies? I suspect many do.

I find the Muslim face coverings off-putting.  I also find burkas extremely off-putting, I hated them from the first time I saw them in Egypt.  I don't like turbans particularly, or beards, especially the full beards sported by men from certain religions. 

But I fail to see how not liking these things means I should be allowed to tell these people they should not be allowed, especially given that I live in a country which purports to allow people to believe what they wish and wear what they wish, as long as those things don't break our laws.  Thus, people can believe polygamy is God's will, but they'll still have to face secular consequences if they have more than one wife.  Same with marrying young girls or killing gays.

Yes, many Westerners dislike niqabs, and some Westerners think they should be outlawed.  Maybe it will happen here too, in which case women who wear a fave veil will face secular consequences.  I don't think Westerners' discomfort with it is reason enough to create a law that specifically targets a woman's apparel.  Other people feel differently clearly.

[turningrite]

 

Yes, many Westerners dislike niqabs, and some Westerners think they should be outlawed.  Maybe it will happen here too, in which case women who wear a fave veil will face secular consequences.  I don't think Westerners' discomfort with it is reason enough to create a law that specifically targets a woman's apparel.  Other people feel differently clearly.

Well, if the goal of Canada's bizarrely large immigration program is integration, perhaps we'll have no choice but to assert an integrative imperative. I wonder how many of the women who wear the accoutrements of religious fundamentalism are gainfully employed? I believe that to encourage such self-othering behavior is to encourage ongoing social and economic division. Many will eventually say something to the effect that 'they can wear whatever nonsense they want but don't expect us to subsidize them'. We have to be sensible. As my mother, who was an immigrant, used to say about adapting to Canadian norms, including the ones she didn't like, "When in Rome...." 

[dialamah]

 

1.  "Security risk" means anyone with their face covered in public.  You glossed over that point before - just like motorcycle helmets and balaclavas are not allowed in certain areas.  Security risk.  I think it's natural to fear security risks.

2.  You are suggesting that we learn to love niqabs and think they're great and if we don't like them, then the problem is with US?? 

3.  What is wrong with disliking niqabs?  Tell us what you like about them, so we can all love them like you do.

4.  But again, my point was there IS a security risk in niqabs (You insist there is NO security risk) and it is not just "fear of women in veils" as you suggest.  And it's more than dislike of them.  There is no demonstrable value to society in niqabs.  In fact, they are bad for society, as we can all see from 57 Muslim majority countries and their appalling record of women's rights.

1.  Yes, banks and other places of businesses request that faces be shown.  Some places also ask that shirt/shoes be worn, or that backpacks be left at the door.  I don't object to those sorts of policies that are taken by businesses, including asking Muslim women to unveil. 

I would object to government legislating that people must always wear shirt/shoes while in public, must never carry a backpack on the street and must never wear a helmet unless they are on a motorcycle.  That is the basic difference you are missing.

2.  I am suggesting no such thing.  I am suggesting that limiting a woman's freedom to wear what she chooses because we happen to dislike an article of clothing is no less 'antitheses to everything we believe in' than is the Muslim notion that a woman must be entirely covered while in public.  

3.  Nothing is wrong with disliking them. In my opinion, its wrong to attempt to limit freedoms based on "not liking" an article of clothing.   I don't happen to love niqabs or burkas, but I do love that in Canada, we try to allow people to believe what they will or wear what they want, barring illegal acts and public nudity (most places).

4.  There is no demonstrable benefit to banning niqabs; if there was any proof it reduced female oppression in Western countries or provided more freedom for Muslim women, it would have been posted by now.

There is proof that banning the niqab in Western countries does no benefit - women are forced to stay home and some women who did not wear it choose to do so as a show of solidarity to other women.  There is even research demonstrating that terrorists use niqab-bans in Western countries as propaganda and recruitment tools.

So far, the facts on the ground support my stand and not yours.  The best argument you've ever made was that hair loss was an effect of wearing an hijab.  You provided actual data which persuaded me that at the very least, banning these religious garments for young girls was justifiable as a health issue. 

Perhaps if you (or anyone) provided some real proof that niqab banning, in France for example, resulted in a significant number of women stopped wearing it and were no longer oppressed, I would be able to support that argument.

 

[Army Guy]

There are no laws that state a Muslim women must show their faces to be provided a service, at any federal branch office, for instance getting a PAL or firearms certificate , a Muslim women can obtain one, without once showing her face or providing a photo without a face covering, same goers with purchasing a firearm, with a pal photo of a face covering, ya I had to goggle that shit as well ...........So if the federal office can not force a Muslim women to unmask, how far do you think a bank will get be refusing to service her....the security issue has been busted, same as the motorcycle helmet ruling in BC, Sikhs are no long required to wear a helmet , because of religious reasons...the safety reasons are now trumped by religion....

It is not about disliking an item of clothing....it is about what it represents, "oppression of women" in most 3 rd world countries, and countries where the Muslim faith is dominant , just like female gentile mutilation is against the law in Canada  regardless if it is tradition in other countries....or are we only allowed to have a limited number of things we think are oppressive in Canada. or am I being racist once again....

[dialamah]

 

It is not about disliking an item of clothing....it is about what it represents, "oppression of women" in most 3 rd world countries, and countries where the Muslim faith is dominant , just like female gentile mutilation is against the law in Canada  regardless if it is tradition in other countries....

Claiming that banning face coverings in Canada and other Western countries increases security in that country or saves women from oppression in third world countries, or even in Western countries, has not been proven - I haven't seen even anecdotal support for that theory.  

There are, however, indications through both studies and anecdotes that the banning of face coverings makes a country more likely to be a target of terror attack and that niqab use by women may even increase rather than decrease.  I invite you to find the data that even suggests banning the niqab helps women, or increases security in a country.  

I personally do not like the face veil.  I agree it springs from a culture that views women as chattels of men.   I agree that its sad that women wear it, whether they are forced or choose to do so.  I most strongly disagree that trying to force it away through bans will be effective.  People have to choose to leave their religious stuff behind, they cannot be forced.  

And keep in mind that it used to be only in countries known for oppression that governments felt justified in dictating what people, especially women, could or could not wear.  

[Argus]

 

Well, if the goal of Canada's bizarrely large immigration program is integration, perhaps we'll have no choice but to assert an integrative imperative.

Unlikely. You know, I'm sure lots of people from Europe had weird and silly customs when they came here, including strange styles of dress and hair and behaviour. What they discovered when they got here was that such things got sneered at and openly disapproved of and it was made abundantly clear that we don't do that here and it won't be accepted. And so, you know what happened? They changed.

Fast forward to today, where we're required to be deeply respectful of whatever stupid things and ideas and styles of clothing and behaviour people bring with them. And the result is, no surprise, people are assimilating more slowly. Second generations of Muslims born in Canada are wearing hijabs and burkas more and more because everyone has to tell them how much we respect their choices. Maybe if they got laughed at and mocked more that second generation would be dressing and acting like Canadians now.

 

[Argus]

 

4.  There is no demonstrable benefit to banning niqabs; if there was any proof it reduced female oppression in Western countries or provided more freedom for Muslim women, it would have been posted by now.

It was largely banned in Turkey until relatively recently. Perhaps it's no coincidence that womens lot in Turkey is infinitely more advanced, culturally speaking, than in any other Muslim nation.

[Army Guy]

 

Claiming that banning face coverings in Canada and other Western countries increases security in that country or saves women from oppression in third world countries, or even in Western countries, has not been proven - I haven't seen even anecdotal support for that theory.  

There are, however, indications through both studies and anecdotes that the banning of face coverings makes a country more likely to be a target of terror attack and that niqab use by women may even increase rather than decrease.  I invite you to find the data that even suggests banning the niqab helps women, or increases security in a country.  

I personally do not like the face veil.  I agree it springs from a culture that views women as chattels of men.   I agree that its sad that women wear it, whether they are forced or choose to do so.  I most strongly disagree that trying to force it away through bans will be effective.  People have to choose to leave their religious stuff behind, they cannot be forced.  

And keep in mind that it used to be only in countries known for oppression that governments felt justified in dictating what people, especially women, could or could not wear.  

That's horse shit, anyone that does security for a living will tell you to be able to see a face is a must...... to a) compare it to ID, or to read the face to see if it is nervous or the person is lying about something or small tell tale facial expressions  one need to see the entire face.....However todays leftists have made it so difficult to do this it is actually funny…. Much like getting a PAL or firearms certificate , all that a muslim women is required to do is show up with a face covering get a photo done and poof she can now purchase a fire arm, now how in the blazing blue balls is the guy behind the counter of any fire arm store able to tell that this one PAL is not being misused by another veiled women.....It scares me, anyone can do this....not just Muslim women but anyone....How secure is that.....

How many terrorist attacks in Quebec where they have been pushing this type of law for years...wait a minute one a white guy walks into a mosque and shoots Muslims….whoops...WTF but you just said it puts people at more risk....i'm confused …..as you said show me the evidence that states other wise that we are at more risk banning an item that stands for hatred, oppression of women, Why don't we ask immigrants right at the point of the interview....these are items that Canadians find offensive, would you consider not doing them....things like treating women as processions, making them wear a burka, or head scarf, gentile mutilation, arranged marriages, marriages to under aged children.....the list goes on....and when they reply with answers what would be wrong with "after careful consideration we have declined your request for the following reason, perhaps you would find another country a better fit....to Racist , did I cross some liberal line , was it insulting, what is wrong with it...The answer to the question is a choose, nobody is forcing them to immigrate here, that's a choice, it is also a choice we make to outline what is acceptable here and what is not....those that do not agree have made a choice not to conform or adapt 

Again it is not about wearing an item, it is what it stands for in this country.....it stands for oppression , it stands for minimizing basic human rights, it stands for hatred and a lot of other things...you say you for not forcing them to wear these things, and yet their very religion forces them, their very culture forces them, their men force them,  

[dialamah]

 

 

It was largely banned in Turkey until relatively recently. Perhaps it's no coincidence that womens lot in Turkey is infinitely more advanced, culturally speaking, than in any other Muslim nation.

I have serious doubts that has anything to do with the banning of face veils, and is more likely the secular history of Turkey.  Egypt also toys with the idea of banning the niqab from time to time, but even if they did, its unlikely that the situation for women will suddenly improve, if only because a minority of women currently wear the niqab and yet Egypt is still aming the worst offenders when it comes to women's rights and equality.  The issue of gender inequality goes a lot deeper than an item of clothing.

[turningrite]

 

Unlikely. You know, I'm sure lots of people from Europe had weird and silly customs when they came here, including strange styles of dress and hair and behaviour. What they discovered when they got here was that such things got sneered at and openly disapproved of and it was made abundantly clear that we don't do that here and it won't be accepted. And so, you know what happened? They changed.

Fast forward to today, where we're required to be deeply respectful of whatever stupid things and ideas and styles of clothing and behaviour people bring with them. And the result is, no surprise, people are assimilating more slowly. Second generations of Muslims born in Canada are wearing hijabs and burkas more and more because everyone has to tell them how much we respect their choices. Maybe if they got laughed at and mocked more that second generation would be dressing and acting like Canadians now.

 

Argus: The relevant issue in my view is that most of our European ancestors arrived here well before the development of the welfare state. Of course, as new groups arrived they faced discrimination but eventually integrated, often out of necessity. The latest wave of self-othering and officially sanctioned tribalism has significant implications for Canadian society that simply didn't apply to prior waves of immigration. As the British economist Sir Paul Collier has noted, one of the impacts of large-scale immigration for modern developed countries is a decline in social cohesion, thus leading to a decline in the the public's willingness to fund broadly based social programs. We have to acknowledge this to be the case and understand the consequences. For better or worse, Canadian society will likely change substantially over the next few decades. It will become more atomized and segregated and people will be required to be more self-reliant and much of this will be a consequence of supposedly well-meaning policies we're pursuing right now. I no longer believe in the validity of the redistributive state and I think many others will come to adopt this view once they realize that in substance it's mainly a scam.

Edited September 19, 2018 by turningrite

[dialamah]

 

1.  That's horse shit, anyone that does security for a living will tell you to be able to see a face is a must...... to a) compare it to ID, or to read the face to see if it is nervous or the person is lying about something or small tell tale facial expressions  one need to see the entire face.....

2.  However todays leftists have made it so difficult to do this it is actually funny….

3.  Much like getting a PAL or firearms certificate , all that a muslim women is required to do is show up with a face covering get a photo done and poof she can now purchase a fire arm, now how in the blazing blue balls is the guy behind the counter of any fire arm store able to tell that this one PAL is not being misused by another veiled women.....It scares me, anyone can do this....not just Muslim women but anyone....How secure is that.....

4.  How many terrorist attacks in Quebec where they have been pushing this type of law for years...wait a minute one a white guy walks into a mosque and shoots Muslims….whoops...

5.  WTF but you just said it puts people at more risk....i'm confused …..as you said show me the evidence that states other wise that we are at more risk banning an item that stands for hatred, oppression of women,

6.  Why don't we ask immigrants right at the point of the interview....these are items that Canadians find offensive, would you consider not doing them....things like treating women as processions, making them wear a burka, or head scarf, gentile mutilation, arranged marriages, marriages to under aged children.....the list goes on....and when they reply with answers what would be wrong with "after careful consideration we have declined your request for the following reason, perhaps you would find another country a better fit....to Racist , did I cross some liberal line , was it insulting, what is wrong with it...The answer to the question is a choose, nobody is forcing them to immigrate here, that's a choice, it is also a choice we make to outline what is acceptable here and what is not....those that do not agree have made a choice not to conform or adapt 

7.  Again it is not about wearing an item, it is what it stands for in this country.....it stands for oppression , it stands for minimizing basic human rights, it stands for hatred and a lot of other things...

8.  you say you for not forcing them to wear these things, and yet their very religion forces them, their very culture forces them, their men force them,  

1.  Muslim women who wear a niqab do show their faces for things like driver's licences, passports and citizenship documents.  They will also show their face in a bank if asked to.  What they do not do is show their faces in public.  

2.  Apparently wrong, as Muslim women do show their faces for identification purposes.  Just because you can't see their face doesn't mean police, or judges or government clerks do not.

3.  You are correct; there is a religious exemption for photos on gun licenses, due to the Hutterites, and Muslim women could use that exemption.  There are currently 1,182 gun licenses which do not have a photo and I'd lay money none of them are Muslim women.  Now, I personally agree a photo on a gun licence is a good idea given the increasing use of guns in crimes; that to me is a legitimate security concern that justifies limiting religious freedom.    

4.  Yes, a white guy shoots up a Mosque and kills six Muslims.  Do you know why?  Because of right-wing rhetoric such as spouted on here about Muslims, immigrants, niqabs, Islam.   He decided he wasn't going to accept Muslims in his country, that he had to 'do something'.  So he did. 

5.  Yes, I posted links yesterday about the research around how things like niqab bans in Western countries provide rich propaganda material to recruit terrorists, right here:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2018/04/18/quebec-city-mosque-shooter-scoured-twitter-for-trump-right-wing-figures-before-attack/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.b7e63d981c15

6.  Yes, nobody is forcing them to immigrate here.   I guess they must want to.  And, I bet they already know - before they come - that things are done differently here.   I understand it's hard for some people to understand that Muslims are human too, and even if most of them who come here live quiet, peaceful and lawful lives, some few of them will not.  Just like some few of us non-Muslim Canadians fail to live quiet, peaceful and lawful lives because, surprise, we're human.  Fortunately, we have laws and when someone fails to live a lawful life (Muslim or otherwise) we almost always find them and introduce them to our justice system.

7.  Westerners have considered the imposition of laws in other countries dictating what women may or may not wear in public as oppressive for quite a long time.  But suddenly, when we consider doing it we're on the side of angels.  Sorry, I'm not gonna drink the kool-aid. 

8.  Agreed, a lot of women are forced to wear them.  But  banning niqabs and burkas in Canada is not going to help the woman in Saudi Arabia, or even the women in Canada who wear it.  As a matter of fact, it may make their situation worse:

Only one woman in the sample (35 women) removed her full-face veil and said that she was socializing more often. Many others described constraints on their movement, complaining of depression, anxiety, and deterioration of their physical health as a result.

Maleiha Malik, a professor of law at King's College, London, says that “the law is a barrier to integration,” making it difficult for women to get jobs and meet people outside of their community.

You, Argus, Goddess, Turningrite et al. have all failed to provide one shred of evidence that banning of niqabs in Western countries provides any increased security for citizens, or that it helps Muslim women in Western countries escape or avoid oppression.  If there was any evidence supporting these claims, somebody would have found it by now.    

[dialamah]

 

Argus: The relevant issue in my view is that most of our European ancestors arrived here well before the development of the welfare state. Of course, as new groups arrived they faced discrimination but eventually integrated, often out of necessity. The latest wave of self-othering and officially sanctioned tribalism has significant implications for Canadian society that simply didn't apply to prior waves of immigration. As the British economist Sir Paul Collier has noted, one of the impacts of large-scale immigration for modern developed countries is a decline in social cohesion, thus leading to a decline in the the public's willingness to fund broadly based social programs. We have to acknowledge this to be the case and understand the consequences. For better or worse, Canadian society will likely change substantially over the next few decades. It will become more atomized and segregated and people will be required to be more self-reliant and much of this will be a consequence of supposedly well-meaning policies we're pursuing right now. I no longer believe in the validity of the redistributive state and I think many others will come to adopt this view once they realize that in substance it's mainly a scam.

Personally I think it's more likely that ultimately, in three or four or five generations we'll all be more uniformly colored in a slightly darker shade.  Sure, there may be a different economic system in play, who knows?  Maybe it'll be an improved system, maybe not.  It's a sure bet that even 50 years from now, Canada will be very different from today, regardless of immigration levels, Muslims or burka bans.

But I think before even that happens, we'll all have to band together to survive climate change.  I'm sad that I can't find it, but I watched a documentary a while ago investigating the demise of one early human race and the success of a different race.  This was way back when humans numbered in the thousands instead of the billions, around the time of an ice age.  Anyway,  the evidence suggested that the surviving race connected with other humans and rather than fighting for resources, they traded and joined forces and this was the key to their survival.  

 

[Goddess]

You, Argus, Goddess, Turningrite et al. have all failed to provide one shred of evidence that banning of niqabs in Western countries provides any increased security for citizens, or that it helps Muslim women in Western countries escape or avoid oppression.  If there was any evidence supporting these claims, somebody would have found it by now.

(Quote function not working for me this morning)

There are many more things to consider than security issues or helping Muslim women escape oppression.  Those are only 2 factors to consider.

Whether or not they "choose" to wear burkas is only the start of the inquiry.  For you, of course, that is the end of the discussion and anyone who thinks otherwise is an Islamophobe.

Any extreme form of conduct needs to be examined much more closely than you are willing to examine it.   If their choice is fully free AND informed, then yes, it would be wrong to ban the burka. The evidence, however, points to oppression as at least one factor that influences women to wear it.  It's a large factor, given that a 2003 French survey found that 77% of girls who wore hijabs did so under threat. It is very telling that 100% of the people who wear burkas and niqabs are women and that they all come from a culture that is extremely repressive to women.  There is no reason why we should have to allow the same outcome in Western nations.

People sometimes "choose" to sell themselves into slavery.  That doesn't mean that we, as a society, should tolerate the practice.  The West has every right to be uneasy about this garment, even if you feel it is only about racism and Islamophobia.

IMO, it's entirely APPROPRIATE that Western countries seriously discuss whether we want to tolerate these things.  We don't tolerate FGM, or Chinese foot binding or Muslim honour killings.  It seems obvious to me that burkas and niqabs deserve the same serious consideration.

The burka and niqab are NOT just a religious symbol.  It's a political symbol, as are many aspects of Islam.  Political symbols are the physical manifestation of political ideas and Islamists know this well.  Will the West push back against this like we did with Protestant, Catholic and Mormon beliefs (was there ever any real empirical evidence that women did not "choose" to be in polygamous marriages?)?

The freedoms and values that Canada has - equality, human rights, multiculturalism, democracy, freedom of expression - should not be abused by a twisted ideology.  It's not just simply freedom to wear whatever you like.  I feel bad for the moderate Muslims.  If the West will not stand up against Islamist ideas with practical efforts and not just words, then why should they sacrifice themselves?  (A moot argument for you, I'm aware, as you have repeatedly stated your view that moderate Muslims have no responsibility whatsoever to counter extremist Islamic views.)

Islam is ideologically confident, and when you’re battling a culture like ours that’s filled with guilt and recriminations about its past, and self-doubt about it’s present,  you actually end up looking fairly strong.

Look at Nada Farooq, a Canadian student. Several years ago she started an Internet forum for Muslim teenagers in her area. During her trial (she and sixteen others had plans to blow up the Toronto Stock Exchange, seize Parliament and even kidnap and decapitate the PM) material was obtained and there was one thread where a poster thought it would be fun to to discuss what made Canada unique. Nada dumped on that quick: Who cares? We hate Canada

You can’t blame her parents. Her dad was a pharmacist at a military base in Canada and said that he supports the Canadian forces in Afghanistan. After her terror cell was exposed, he told the media that his daughter’s views – hating Canada, in favour of shipping gays off to Saudi Arabia to be executed – were news to him. 

There’s a solid minority in that category throughout the West: “moderate Muslim” parents with kids raised in the West who become ferociously Islamist. Nada did not just give her natural Pakistani heritage and identity the boot, she rejected her thin, watery “multicultural”, apologetic-about-its-past Canadian identity too. She chose Islam, which transcends nationality, does not apologize for it’s past, and is confident about its future.

By contrast, a large chunk of the West celebrates a cringing, self-absorbed, weak-willed culture that insists that we’re the problem. 

Maybe we should let businesses choose for themselves whether they will allow burkas and niqabs in their stores and shops......I think that would eliminate some of the issues we see.

Edited September 19, 2018 by Goddess

[dialamah]

For you, of course, that is the end of the discussion and anyone who thinks otherwise is an Islamophobe.

I have tried hard in this discussion to avoid personalizing my comments.  I have not called anyone an Islamophobe in this discussion.  So, I am not reading beyond this falsehood from you.

 

 

[Goddess]

 

 

I have tried hard in this discussion to avoid personalizing my comments.  I have not called anyone an Islamophobe in this discussion.  So, I am not reading beyond this falsehood from you.

 

 

Excuse me, but you flat out stated that the only reason people would be against burkas is fear and dislike.  You have repeatedly (in the past) labeled anyone who disagrees with you a racist and Islamophobe.  If this has changed for you, then I apologize.  I'm going by your past comments.

[dialamah]

 

Excuse me, but you flat out stated that the only reason people would be against burkas is fear and dislike. 

"Islamophobia" is defined as an irrational fear and dislike of Islam or Muslims, yes? 

I have not called anyone irrational; I have attempted to present my views fairly and reasonably.

 "Security risk" is about fear.   I have noted in my response to Army Guy that I agree there is a security risk in religious exemption from photos on gun licences.  This is because I believe there is a legitimate reason to fear the wrong person getting a gun, and photos may help mitigate that risk.

I have also said I, along with other posters,  dislike burkas and niqabs. 

Having expressed my own "fear" and "dislike" related to face coverings in this discussion, do you think I am calling myself an Islamophobe?  

 

You have repeatedly (in the past) labeled anyone who disagrees with you a racist and Islamophobe.  If this has changed for you, then I apologize.  I'm going by your past comments.

Yes, you are going by past comments, albeit mischaracterizing them.  And yes, sometimes people do think past behavior does not need to continue.

Edited September 19, 2018 by dialamah

[Goddess]

 

"Islamophobia" is defined as an irrational fear and dislike of Islam or Muslims, yes? 

I have not called anyone irrational; I have attempted to present my views fairly and reasonably.

And I have pointed out (although you refuse to read it) that the burka/niqab/hijab discussion should involve much more than just "fear and dislike" of them.  That is a simplification with an insinuation of Islamophobia thrown in, designed to shut down the discussion.

I have also tried to present my views fairly and reasonably.  It's just frustrating when the discussion gets shut down with name-calling and and the whole thing is dismissed with "You're all a bunch of Islamophobes, that's the only reason you dislike burkas." or "We have to allow this as Canadians because one of our values is tolerance."  or "They choose to wear it.  End of story." We have other values which need to be respected by immigrants, as well.

[turningrite]

 

"Islamophobia" is defined as an irrational fear and dislike of Islam or Muslims, yes? 

 

dialamah: A lot of people raise entirely rational criticisms about various aspects of Islam, as we're quite free to do where other religions are concerned. And yet where it comes to Islam such criticism is habitually characterized as "Islamophobic" rather than accepted as fair comment. I was raised a Catholic and yet see much wrong with that religion just as I do with many aspects of religion in general. Why does Islam warrant special treatment? A significant aspect of our Western heritage, going back to the Reformation and, more recently, the Enlightenment, is the freedom to criticize religious doctrine, practice, superstition and hierarchy. Many historians believe it is this freedom to challenge all forms of institutional authority and hierarchy in the era following the Reformation and particularly following the Enlightenment that helped to propel the West's progress and prosperity in comparison to other cultures and societies. As Westerners, if we actually want to sustain our long-held values, I believe we must defend this right. There can be no exceptions. 

Edited September 19, 2018 by turningrite

[dialamah]

@Goddess Is it any less dismissive to tell me I am unpatriotic, hate Canada, and can't wait till Canada is a third world country, that I support misogyny?  Things are said sometimes in the heat of a discussion, I get that, but at some point people should realize the slings and arrows don't travel in just one direction.

[dialamah]

 

dialamah:

1.  A lot of people raise entirely rational criticisms about various aspects of Islam, as we're quite free to do where other religions are concerned.

2.  And yet where it comes to Islam such criticism is habitually characterized as "Islamophobic" rather than accepted as fair comment. I was raised a Catholic and yet see much wrong with that religion just as I do with many aspects of religion in general.

3.  Why does Islam warrant special treatment?

4. A significant aspect of our Western heritage, going back to the Reformation and, more recently, the Enlightenment, is the freedom to criticize religious doctrine, practice, superstition and hierarchy.

5.  Many historians believe it is this freedom to challenge all forms of institutional authority and hierarchy in the era following the Reformation and particularly following the Enlightenment that helped to propel the West's progress and prosperity in comparison to other cultures and societies.

6. As Westerners, if we actually want to sustain our long-held values, I believe we must defend this right. There can be no exceptions. 

1.  Yes, they do.  There are some excellent criticisms to be made about Islam.  I've posted my own criticisms, and also posted the criticisms of others.   Islam can be criticized for its unequal treatment of women, for promoting or condoning practices that are harmful to women, for the contradiction in the claim that the "Koran is the perfect word of God", while also adhering to hadiths and fatwas that may or may not be consistent with what is written in the Koran.  Terrorists can be (and are) criticized for using certain and out-of-context scripture to support their terror activities.  There is plenty to criticize.  Many Muslims criticize these things; many ex-Muslims criticize them, many Westerners criticize them.  And, especially in Western countries, Muslims are criticizing the outdated tenets of Islam, and are creating progressive communities that support gender equality, accept gay people and non-believers, condemn extremism of all kinds.   

2. What they do not do, in their criticisms, is use words that describe Muslims as a monolithic subhuman group, unable and unwilling to change.  They do not say things like:  "their backward, brutal, violently intolerant and barbaric culture"; "Muslims not only cling to antiquated, barbaric social values but they demand everyone else around them adopt those same values."  Claiming that Muslims are pedophiles because "Mohammed married a 9-year-old" and ignoring mores of the time, as well as denying the conflicting evidence as to Aisha's age, is not criticism of Islam.  Criticism of Islam does not involve denying any 'progressive' tendencies as un-Islamic, and proclaiming that only terrorists/misogynists have the correct interpretation of Islam.  it's not a legitimate criticism to deny any progressive sentiment by Muslims as "a lie" because "taqqiya".  There is a lot of things that are claimed to be 'legitimate criticism' which is simply bashing Muslims.  

3.  Islam isn't special; what is special is the lack of ability of so many people to recognize the difference between simply spewing insults and legitimate criticism.  What is special is that any time a Muslim person engages in a violent act or hateful speech, all eyes turn to every single Muslim in sight to accuse and to demand an apology and explanation.   And regardless of Muslim leaders on the news condemning these acts, or Muslims raising money for victims, or groups of Muslims standing outside a courthouse to condemn the Muslim murderer within, or even the vast majority of Muslims who never run afoul of the law, it's never enough for certain people:  the cry is always "why don't they condemn such things if they really don't agree with them?"    In the meantime, non-Muslims can go on any kind of rampage at all, and nobody expects any kind of mass condemnation to 'prove' we non-Muslims condemn those acts.   

4.  Yes, please criticize away!  Point out that FGM is an unnecessary and dangerous practice that is not supported by the Koran and is a barbaric practices dating from well before Christ; it has nothing to do with Islamic teaching.  Also, it's illegal almost everywhere and Mohammed specifically instructed his followers to follow the law of the land.  Criticize the scriptures that specifically disallow women an equal share of inheritance on the assumption that male relatives will take care of her; that's not the modern world at all.   Criticize governments and clerics who use religion to impose inhumane and oppressive policies or to lead their followers into violence.   If people take the time to look, they can find and repeat plenty of legitimate criticisms, phrased in a way that doesn't accuse and condemn virtually every Muslim in the world.

5.  Yes, and that process took something like 500 years, did it not?  Our society has  made more progress in terms of human rights and gender equality in the last 100 years than they did in the previous 400.    My mother told me that when I was a baby, she had to get her husband's permission to get birth control.  If her husband slapped her around, or beat her silly, well - it was her bed, she should lie on it because the cops weren't going to do much.  It was legal to rape your wife in Canada until the 1980s.    Yet, some people expect Islam to achieve that level of secularism in what - 50 years? - and when it doesn't happen that fast, well - they'll never change, those misogynistic barbaric bastards!  How soon we forget, eh?   Of course, pointing out that we haven't left those days all that far behind is very much resented by those who prefer to insult and call it "legitimate criticism".

6.  Of course.  And if we want our secular values of human rights, equality and tolerance to spread around the world, we should model them.   Telling women, whether they choose to cover their face or are required to by their family, that we will not tolerate them on our streets is not a very good model of either tolerance or belief in gender equality, in my opinion.   If a woman decides she *wants* to wear a niqab and we, in our Western progressiveness, inform her that it's a symbol of female oppression and we won't allow it, we are no different than a man (husband or cleric) who tells a woman that the veil is a symbol of her purity and devoutness, and so her face must be hidden from the public.   Just as the man has appointed himself as the parent of the woman, the one who knows best, who has the right and the responsibility to direct her behavior, so have we relegated women to a child-like state, in which we know what is best for her and will impose that on her, regardless of her preferences or situation. 

Edited September 20, 2018 by dialamah

[Goddess]

Telling women, whether they choose to cover their face or are required to by their family, that we will not tolerate them on our streets is not a very good model of either tolerance or belief in gender equality, in my opinion.

 

(Quotes not working for me again.  Hmmmm....)

Perhaps that is the problem - you think we would be telling these women that THEY are "not welcome" on our streets.  And that is false.  They are VERY welcome on our streets.  Come have a cup of coffee with us!  Come bring your kid to playschool and visit the other moms!  Come say hello to us in the grocery store!  What is not welcome is the promotion of extreme and harmful political and religious beliefs that openly thumb their nose at our values.

Again, I'm not FOR banning the burka, per se, but I am saying that it's the Islamist beliefs and conduct and the promotion of these that are not welcome, not they themselves.

I disagree with you that we have to tolerate intolerance.  And I disagree with you on another point - anyone who deliberately puts an actual  physical curtain between themselves and society, does not get to whine about feeling "not welcome" in a society where such a thing is offensive to the majority.

[Goddess]

Just as the man has appointed himself as the parent of the woman, the one who knows best, who has the right and the responsibility to direct her behavior, so have we relegated women to a child-like state, in which we know what is best for her and will impose that on her, regardless of her preferences or situation. 

We've banned polygamous marriage, regardless of women's personal preferences or situations, or even if they say they "chose" it.