Accommodement raisonnable

[Figleaf]

Tolerance cannot tolerate intolerance. This how the Hérouxville resolution could be summed up. But it seems that goes against the grain of some anglo-canadians.

Really?

Some of the people in Whoville want to forbid islamic women from covering their face. Does that sound tolerant to you???

I believe their rule included everyone, not just Muslim women. Long before Islam started becoming an issue in the west, some places have had laws against wearing disguises or face coverings. Italy, for example, brought in such a rule during the time of the Red Brigades. If the law applies universally, and its infringement of individual liberty can be justified on reasonable grounds, I see no problem.

[Figleaf]

I think that's the status quo.

Ya, but I wonder what would happen if a couple of the quys and I tried to walk down main street on a hot summer day with our shirts off? How equal would I be then?

Adelle

FYI, in Ontario, the courts have already ruled female toplessness to be a-ok.

[geoffrey]

Wonder what the response would be if men were told they couldn't go topless, something they have been able to do since the '30's, so that women couldn't go topless.

Justifying one restriction by expanding the restriction is questionable at best, I agree.

Good point on the sun thing, though.

Topfreedom, a silly cause really IMO (I'm really not a fan of protestors for the sake of protesting), is a major public health concern for Canada.

As for the "some people shouldn't have their tops off" I assume it is because they are unfit or otherwise unattractive and has nothing to do with equality or legality. Some people shouldn't wear Speedo's either (ok, most people) but it is a matter of personal opinion, not arrest.

Everything is essientially a matter of personal opinion. I can imagine for some folks, on other sides of the gender line, that their right to walk around half naked is far lesser than the general public's right to be not disgusted on a regular basis.

I think a half-naked society would be quite disgusting, considering I'm sure that more than half the people could be considered non-attractive. I, and the other thousands in society that regularly keep their clothes on, would be harmed by seeing the typical NFL belly-painted fan or an unslightly woman on a regular basis.

It's really the same reason that public sex is illegal. There isn't really any convincing moral argument against it, no one is really being harmed in the act. But the slight disgust of the thousands that have to see it outweighs whatever happiness is gained by those involved. So it's the public interest to ban it. Just as I suggest that it's in the public's interest to ban shirtless men or women, unless you could create an unarbitrary system of deciding whether someone would impose harm upon others by being topless.

The important thing is that women, like men, are free to make the choice of themselves, not have the choice forced upon them.

Perhaps, but there are public interest issues. If I wore a face-mask and an all black outfit into a bank, I'd certainly cause quite a commotion and I'd likely get myself arrested. So really, if we're dealing with equality, when an Islamic woman does so, she should face the same scrutiny that I do.

Religion is a weak instrument to hide behind when we are dealing with issues of public safety.

[August1991]

If you can read French, you should read the following:

De toute évidence, la notion juridique d'accommodement raisonnable est de moins en moins opérante. Elle fut conçue pour gérer un petit nombre de cas exceptionnels. Or, ceux-ci semblent vouloir se multiplier. D'autre part, elle suppose que les deux parties soient disposées à être raisonnables. Mais pour un fondamentaliste religieux, chaque nouveau gain met la table pour la revendication suivante. Le compromis n'est pour lui qu'une étape tactique. Ce ne sera jamais assez jusqu'à l'obtention de la liberté absolue de pratiquer sa foi sans aucune entrave, jusqu'à ce qu'il retrouve intégralement les conditions de pratique religieuse qui prévalaient dans son pays d'origine.

C'est à Pierre Trudeau que nous devons cette tyrannie des droits individuels et des tribunaux, et cette idéologie du multiculturalisme à la canadienne qui est d'autant plus pernicieuse qu'elle se drape dans des sentiments qui se veulent généreux et culpabilise ceux qui la critiquent. Les intégristes l'ont d'ailleurs parfaitement compris et l'exploitent à fond. Vous essaierez de prendre l'avion avec un poignard aux États-Unis ou de vous promener en jupe courte à Téhéran en invoquant votre liberté individuelle.

Il doit y avoir un contrat social équitable entre l'immigrant et ceux qui l'accueillent.

Joseph Facal

The text is old (May 2006) but it shows that this debate is far from over.

[Charles Anthony]

Why is this a Quebec-only issue?

[Adelle]

Why is this a Quebec-only issue?

Your right, it isn't only a Quebec issue. It just happened there. I suppose you could argue that it had to, as Quebec has a more distinct, French/European, culture than the rest of Canada. If it had been Alberta, the press would have been full of stories about those intolerant, racist, neo-nazi rednecks. Shame we have all the oil. (sarcasm warning). As a national issue, this is a direct threat to official 'multi-culturalism'. Like official 'bi-lingualism' this is enforced and artificial (you can speak 14 languages but you aren't bi-lingual unless you speak french and english). So how much should we bend to accommodate the culture and morality (cultural morality?) of other people. Whether they were born here, chose to come here or escaped here is not the issue. Most new canadians, and some home grown types, think that women must always be modest, always properly clothed, and not lewd. So no bikinies and mini-skirts, no bending over to work out and, for sure, no "Girls Gone Wild" antics. Canadian Law says we can do anything a man can do. So if men dress in jeans, t-shirt and leather, then why would women have to wear a burka or dress like the just left the 1950's. (Note: I like some of the '50's styles, very elegant.) By that same law, women don't get to hide their faces any more than a man could, personal choice not withstanding. (Oh, no, the not-withstanding clause!)

[Charles Anthony]

I can not say for sure but I believe it IS a Quebec-only issue. I wonder if Quebeckers receive immigrants differently from the rest-of-Canadians.

So how much should we bend to accommodate the culture and morality (cultural morality?) of other people.

How are Quebeckers bending?

[Remiel]

One more thing to say on the sub-topic here... There can never be real equality when it comes to nudity. Women have two sexualized areas, but their organs are essentially hidden. Men have extremely visible external organs. Only complete nudity can render a nearly equal result, but even then, not quite.

[guyser]

... There can never be real equality when it comes to nudity. Women have two sexualized areas, but their organs are essentially hidden.

Breasts are not sexual areas, we men just like to think that way. Each species only has one....well human s at least.