Asylum System "not sustainable" - Immigration Minister

[DogOnPorch]

1 hour ago, Goddess said:

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.

 

Some posters SAY they are against things when in fact, by their very contention, they are supporting it.

Edited September 20, 2018 by DogOnPorch

[dialamah]

 

1 hour ago, Goddess said:

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

True, and I personally find that an uneccesary law.  In my opinion, *adults* should be able to choose the kind of relationship they want.  Perhaps I feel this way because of women I know who choose poly relationships, either multiple females to one male or multiple males to one female.  (Although more usually its men and women each with multiple partners).

Canada may well ban face veils too; I still wouldn't agree its a necessary or good law, at least not without some actual evidence that it made Canada safer and that it actually helped women in Canada escape oppressive family situations.

[Goddess]

7 minutes ago, dialamah said:

 

True, and I personally find that an uneccesary law.  In my opinion, *adults* should be able to choose the kind of relationship they want.  Perhaps I feel this way because of women I know who choose poly relationships, either multiple females to one male or multiple males to one female.  (Although more usually its men and women each with multiple partners).

Canada may well ban face veils too; I still wouldn't agree its a necessary or good law, at least not without some actual evidence that it made Canada safer and that it actually helped women in Canada escape oppressive family situations.

I don't find it to be an unnecessary law, because of the great potential for abuse.  There is substantial evidence that polygamous marriages and burkas/niqabs have great potential for abuse and have been used extensively to abuse women.

Maybe a law that restricts burka/niqab and hijab to a certain age group would be a compromise......when I see little girls - children - all shrouded up, unable to play with their peers.....it's abuse, IMO.

Edited September 20, 2018 by Goddess

[dialamah]

14 minutes ago, Goddess said:

don't find it to be an unnecessary law, because of the great potential for abuse.  There is substantial evidence that polygamous marriages and burkas/niqabs have great potential for abuse and have been used extensively to abuse women.

I am sorry, but the wearing of a niqab does not cause abuse, and removing it will not prevent abuse.  Polygamous marriages also do not cause abuse and having them outlawed does not prevent it.

A woman wearing a niqab *may* indicate that she is in an abusive relationship, or it may not.  If she is in an abusive relationship, removing the niqab makes her invisible, either because she is now confined to her home or because she looks just like the other abused women who do not wear a niqab.   

And if an unmarried woman converts to Islam and, against the wishes of her family and society at large, dons a niqab, who shall be abusing her?  You can say "its the religion, she's brainwashed" and I might agree with that - but that still wouldn't give either of us the right to tell her we know what's best for her, and that she cannot be allowed to make her own choice about what to believe or how to express her belief - however much we might disaprove.

I will grant you that abuses abound in religious communities which practice plural marriage, but its not "because" of plural marriage, that is merely a symptom of a deeper issue.   And please note that despite polygamy being illegal it is still practiced - but hidden.  The illegality of plural marriage makes it harder to reach and help those woman who are "married" by God.  I see no benefit to following the same path with more women, as a way of "helping" them.

[Goddess]

5 minutes ago, dialamah said:

I am sorry, but the wearing of a niqab does not cause abuse, and removing it will not prevent abuse.  Polygamous marriages also do not cause abuse and having them outlawed does not prevent it.

A woman wearing a niqab *may* indicate that she is in an abusive relationship, or it may not.  If she is in an abusive relationship, removing the niqab makes her invisible, either because she is now confined to her home or because she looks just like the other abused women who do not wear a niqab.   

And if an unmarried woman converts to Islam and, against the wishes of her family and society at large, dons a niqab, who shall be abusing her?  You can say "its the religion, she's brainwashed" and I might agree with that - but that still wouldn't give either of us the right to tell her we know what's best for her, and that she cannot be allowed to make her own choice about what to believe or how to express her belief - however much we might disaprove.

I will grant you that abuses abound in religious communities which practice plural marriage, but its not "because" of plural marriage, that is merely a symptom of a deeper issue.   And please note that despite polygamy being illegal it is still practiced - but hidden.  The illegality of plural marriage makes it harder to reach and help those woman who are "married" by God.  I see no benefit to following the same path with more women, as a way of "helping" them.

 I did not say polygamous marriages and burkas/niqabs were the CAUSE of abuse.  I said there is greater potential for abuse of women when these things are tolerated.  As evidenced by your statement:

Quote

I will grant you that abuses abound in religious communities which practice plural marriage

And you cannot deny that requiring women to be shrouded or else unable to go outside the home, also puts them at greater risk of being abused.  That is very obvious from the countries that do it.

The only thing confining women to their homes is their own complicity in their abuse.

[dialamah]

13 minutes ago, Goddess said:

And you cannot deny that requiring women to be shrouded or else unable to go outside the home, 

Well, I would rather have them shrouded and able to leave the house, than have a secular law that forbids them to leave the house while shrouded, while their religious "law" forbids them to leave the house unshrouded.

also puts them at greater risk of being abused.  That is very obvious from the countries that do it.

Shrouding is not required in Egypt; it is frowned on socially and forbidden in some places.  Nonetheless, many women report being victims of domestic abuse: last report I saw was in the neighborhood of 65%.

The issue of domestic abuse goes a lot deeper than whether or not a woman wears a niqab.

 

 

[dialamah]

36 minutes ago, Goddess said:

The only thing confining women to their homes is their own complicity in their abuse.

Oops, almost missed this.  I suppose then that a woman who wears revealing clothing is complicit in her own rape?  Or a non-shrouded woman, Muslim or not, beaten or killed by her intimate partner, is complicit in her own beating/death since she "chose" to be or stay in a relationship with him? 

[Goddess]

10 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Well, I would rather have them shrouded and able to leave the house, than have a secular law that forbids them to leave the house while shrouded, while their religious "law" forbids them to leave the house unshrouded.

I would rather take away a "club" that is commonly used to keep women into submission.  There are other things, legally, they can do about being forcibly confined to their homes.

Quote

Shrouding is not required in Egypt; it is frowned on socially and forbidden in some places.  Nonetheless, many women report being victims of domestic abuse: last report I saw was in the neighborhood of 65%.

Many?  Sounds like the majority.  Good thing for the men in Egypt that women are required to cover their bruises.  Either way, it proves my point. Burkas/niqabs have great potential for abuse and have no place in Western society.

Hmmmm.....apparently Egypt has the same concerns about burkas/niqabs as we do here......

Quote

In a predominantly Muslim society, as many as 90% of women in Egypt have adopted a form of veiling. A majority of Egyptian women cover at least their hair with the hijab. A hijab refers to a head covering that is worn by Muslim women. Although the phenomenon of wearing the niqāb, a veil which covers the face is not as common, the niqab in Egypt has become more prevalent. While a few women in Egypt wear a black niqab along with a billowing black abaya as seen in countries such as Saudi Arabia, many choose to wear different colors of the niqab or manipulate the hijab to cover their face. Regardless, the growing trend of munaqqabat, or women who wear the niqab, has alarmed the authorities. They have begun to see this dress as a security threat, because it hides the face, and because it is perceived as a political statement, a rejection of the state in favor of a strict Islamic system.

Quote

The issue of domestic abuse goes a lot deeper than whether or not a woman wears a niqab.

Of course it does.  That's what I've been saying all along.

[Goddess]

5 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Oops, almost missed this.  I suppose then that a woman who wears revealing clothing is complicit in her own rape?  Or a non-shrouded woman, Muslim or not, beaten or killed by her intimate partner, is complicit in her own beating/death since she "chose" to be or stay in a relationship with him? 

Reeeeealllllly stretching there.

[dialamah]

1 minute ago, Goddess said:

Reeeeealllllly stretching there.

Don't think so.  Seems to me you are the one that suggested a woman was complicit in her own abuse.  

[Goddess]

1 minute ago, dialamah said:

Don't think so.  Seems to me you are the one that suggested a woman was complicit in her own abuse.  

You compared it to being raped. There's not a lot a woman can do to avoid being raped.  There is a lot of things she can do to avoid being confined to her home because of burkas.

You have said that we should not be concerned about the number of women in burkas/niqabs because there are so few of them.  But on the other hand, you believe that the small number of women who actually "choose" to wear these garments should be given top priority and their right to wear the political symbol of Islamic extremism should come before all other women's rights.  Doesn't seem to me that you have much concern for the vastly larger number of women who are forced into it and would like a way out.

[Goddess]

We will have to agree to disagree.  I don't think the "rights" of a few religious extremists should outweigh the rights of general society.

[dialamah]

45 minutes ago, Goddess said:

There's not a lot a woman can do to avoid being raped.  There is a lot of things she can do to avoid being confined to her home because of burkas.

Such as?  Because I have asked before how a woman, confined by her abuser to her house *unless she is veiled* is helped by a law that criminalize her if she leaves the house veiled.  What are such a woman's options?

1.  Defy her abuser and leave the house uncovered?  How likely is that?  Would she be safe at home?

2.  Defy the law (likely at her abuser's insistence) and leave the house covered, which means she is now a criminal - not her abuser, but her.  Not to mention facing abuse from Canadians who dislike seeing a woman veiled and will be extra incensed at seeing a woman in (perceived) defiance of both Canadian culture and the law.

3.  Obey the law and stay home, out of sight and out of mind and certainly out of the reach of women and services who might be able to help her escape her abuse.

4.  Leave her abuser, and possibly children, or siblings or parents.  How likely is that?  If the secular law and the religious decree has prevented her from making contacts outside her home to find support, how would she be able to do that, do you suppose?  Even women who are not criminalized for walking outside their home dressed incorrectly find leaving an abusive relationship exceedingly difficult.  

Is there an option for her here that I have missed?

I have no doubt that veiled women can and do leave abusive relationships.  I just don't see any point in making it harder for her by enacting a law that makes her a criminal for something her abuser forces her to do.  Do you?

Quote

 You compared it to being raped.

Rape is abuse, and plenty of people do believe that a woman is complicit in her own rape if she dresses a certain way or if she drinks too much, or goes to the wrong places.

I notice you skipped right over non-veiled women who get beaten/killed: are they not complicit in their own abuse in some way?  If they are not, then why is a veiled woman complicit?

Edited September 20, 2018 by dialamah

[dialamah]

33 minutes ago, Goddess said:

We will have to agree to disagree.  I don't think the "rights" of a few religious extremists should outweigh the rights of general society.

Other than being offended, how are the rights of general society reduced by women in face coverings?  Is there a right to not be offended that I was unaware of?

[Goddess]

57 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Other than being offended, how are the rights of general society reduced by women in face coverings?  Is there a right to not be offended that I was unaware of?

How are the rights of general society benefited by women in facecoverings? 

If it's such a great thing for a society, why is it only in Muslim majority countries, where women have little rights?  Why do you think the rest of the world aren't jumping on board the "facecoverings for all women outside the home" bandwagon being shoved down the throat of every democratic society?  There must be a reason.

I've explained many times why I believe Islamic extremism should be curtailed and how it is a detriment to society.  You have yet to explain how burkas and niqabs benefit society, other than "It's their right to be extreme and offensive." and "We have to tolerate it, because we have to prove we are a tolerant society."  In other words, "Fuck everyone else, Muslim wants and preferences come first."  Why is their culture more important than our's?

Until you can explain that to me, I will stand by my view that burkas and niqabs have no place in Western society.  Since you believe they should  have a special place in Western society, we will have to agree to disagree.  I see no benefit to allowing Islamic extremism a foothold of any kind in Canada.

Edited September 20, 2018 by Goddess

[turningrite]

55 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Other than being offended, how are the rights of general society reduced by women in face coverings?  Is there a right to not be offended that I was unaware of?

You seem to be obsessed by this issue. I don't care if they wear buckets over their heads as long as they're paying their own way. My main concern about self-othering cultural practices is that I wonder how many of these people are also self-excluding from the normal economy and thereby living on public subsidies? If they're self-sufficient, they can do whatever they wish provided they follow necessary rules, like showing their faces when everybody else is required to do so. But if some of these women are working, where are they doing this? Where I live it's commonplace to see Muslim women wearing facial coverings but I've never come across one serving in any role that entails interaction with the public.

Edited September 20, 2018 by turningrite

[Goddess]

 

 

9 minutes ago, turningrite said:

Where I live it's commonplace to see Muslim women wearing facial coverings but I've never come across one serving in any role that entails interaction with the public.

Because the whole point of the coverings is to isolate them from general society.  To make them into non-persons, so they are not seen or heard from.

It's baffling to me that any Western woman would defend such a thing. 

[Goddess]

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

Such as?  Because I have asked before how a woman, confined by her abuser to her house *unless she is veiled* is helped by a law that criminalize her if she leaves the house veiled.  What are such a woman's options?

Oh, come on.  I can't tell if you're really asking this question or being deliberately obtuse.

There are plenty of things she can do in a Western society.  Yes, it is difficult to break free from abusive situations, it is for all women in abusive relationships.  It sucks, I agree.

Why don't you explain how allowing men the means to do this to women helps women?

Take away the man's "club" that he uses to abuse and subjugate and provide her the legal "clubs" to fight her own abuse - the law is on her side, there are many resources she can turn to, she only has to reach out for them.  

[DogOnPorch]

The Quran is VERY clear as to the status of women under Islam.

Women = Property

Like a camel...or a horse.

Also the Quran says good Muslim women STAY HOME unless given permission to leave.

https://quran.com/33/30-40

[dialamah]

1 hour ago, Goddess said:

Take away the man's "club" that he uses to abuse and subjugate and provide her the legal "clubs" to fight her own abuse - the law is on her side, there are many resources she can turn to, she only has to reach out for them.  

She only has to reach out for them?  How does she do that, again, if a law is enacted that punishes her for leaving the house wearing a fave veil?  She cannot leave the house without her veil because there is a man there with a "club" to make sure she is wearing it.  There is another "club" outside her door ensuring her face is uncovered if she should step outside.  

Where are the consequences for the man, the abuser, the one who in the scenario holds the "club"?  

You say there are many resources for her, which I agree with, more or less.  You then gloss over the difficulties women have to access those resources at the best of time, without the added barrier of not being permitted to leave the house without their face covered, or leaving the house and being targetted by authorities and angry Canadians because their face is covered.

I know that it can be done, of course. But I do not understand why putting an additional barrier to accessing resources to escape an abusive relationship seems like a good idea to anyone.

Vague "there are resources" is not an answer to my question.  

 

[dialamah]

2 hours ago, turningrite said:

You seem to be obsessed by this issue. I don't care if they wear buckets over their heads as long as they're paying their own way. My main concern about self-othering cultural practices is that I wonder how many of these people are also self-excluding from the normal economy and thereby living on public subsidies? If they're self-sufficient, they can do whatever they wish provided they follow necessary rules, like showing their faces when everybody else is required to do so. But if some of these women are working, where are they doing this? Where I live it's commonplace to see Muslim women wearing facial coverings but I've never come across one serving in any role that entails interaction with the public.

Ok.  Sorry I misunderstood your "othering" references.

Have a nice day. 

[Goddess]

3 minutes ago, dialamah said:

How does she do that, again, if a law is enacted that punishes her for leaving the house wearing a fave veil? 

You answered your own question.

 

4 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Vague "there are resources" is not an answer to my question. 

Your question is not asked in sincerity.  Your question is asked to supposedly show how stupid we all are for not wanting to tolerate Islamic extremism in our society

[dialamah]

21 minutes ago, Goddess said:

You answered your own question.

Your question is not asked in sincerity.  Your question is asked to supposedly show how stupid we all are for not wanting to tolerate Islamic extremism in our society

My question is, always has been essentially: how does erecting an additional barrier to access resources help women escape abusive relationships?  

I am not trying to make "you all look stupid", I am trying to demonstrate why I think a niqab ban is ineffective in the stated goal of helping women escape oppressive relationships.

Keeping extremism to a minimum is a laudable goal.  Punishing women for wearing a niqab, their choice or not, isn't the way to do it, in my opinion.

[Goddess]

15 hours ago, dialamah said:

My question is, always has been essentially: how does erecting an additional barrier to access resources help women escape abusive relationships?  

I am not trying to make "you all look stupid", I am trying to demonstrate why I think a niqab ban is ineffective in the stated goal of helping women escape oppressive relationships.

Keeping extremism to a minimum is a laudable goal.  Punishing women for wearing a niqab, their choice or not, isn't the way to do it, in my opinion.

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.

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.

[turningrite]

4 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.

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

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.