Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Recommended Posts

The government has already allowed the Turban in the RCMP, I believe , so how can they stop the Niqab?

Turban doesn't cover the face, and the niqab is not a religious article. I have to take my glasses and/or hat off in a wide variety of circumstances, people should have to take off their masks in such situations too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those countries are not exactly bastions of freedom, so why would we follow their example in anything? Dictating dress, whether it's banning the niqab or enforcing it's use are the same thing. They only look different if you close your eyes and plug your ears.

lol...these are muslim countries....they do not support wearing these non religious garments in certain places.

These are the very ppl who wear the niqab, so clearly you want to follow their example in that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol...these are muslim countries....they do not support wearing these non religious garments in certain places.

These are the very ppl who wear the niqab, so clearly you want to follow their example in that.

You are mistaken. If I'm going to copy what another country does, I want it to be countries who support CHOICE. I do not want to follow the example of countries who legislate what their citizens can wear, whether its disallowing a particular item of clothing, or requiring it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are mistaken. If I'm going to copy what another country does, I want it to be countries who support CHOICE. I do not want to follow the example of countries who legislate what their citizens can wear, whether its disallowing a particular item of clothing, or requiring it.

Look, there is an appropriate time. Getting your citizenship is not the right time. I have the right to wear a speedo to such an occassion, but I'm not an ungratefull person and wouldn't want to disprespect the country taking me in and saving me from the shithole I've escaped from. Which is exactly what this lady is imo. She also advocates gender segregation, so I can't wait for the left to start defending her right for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter which other country does it, its still an infringement on personal rights. And, even if the goal were to help these women avoid/escape subjugation, it wouldn't work.

How do you know it wouldn't work?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes well stated comments. No democratic government has the right to decide for adult women what is good for them. No mistake, I am very much against niqab but we live in a democracy and that is what separates us from other countries where citizens are risking their lives to achieve what we have and the conservative party of Canada wishes to destroy it.

I'm getting weary of these inane and ludicrous complaints that the conservatives want to 'destroy democracy'. They seem to arise from the same shallow and shrill paranoia as the old 'hidden agenda' fears, and have even less fact behind them.

Let's look at the opening sentence. No democratic government has the right to decide for adult women what is good for them.

And yet every democratic country decides for all adults what is good for them on scores and scores of issues. Democracies decide what you can watch on TV, what you can eat and drink, what drugs you can take and why you can take them, what you can wear, to the extent you can't walk around naked, who you can have sex with (not your brother or sister), how you have to treat your dog or child, and what you can put on your lawn.

Democracies make decisions on what is good for you every single day. So the opening sentence is preposterous.

Let's look more specifically at something progressives have long decided is good for adult women. If they are in a violent relationship, democracies have decided that regardless of what she says or wants the spouse will be charged if the police have any evidence of violence. Why? Because the state knows what's good for her, and is overruling her judgement. Do the progressives believe this should be changed? Nope.

In fact, in a number of places in the US - probably Canada but no cases come to mind - battered wives have been thrown in jail for refusing to testify against their husbands. The state, you see, knows what's good for her.

Edited by Argus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Turban doesn't cover the face, and the niqab is not a religious article.

The argument that the Niqab is not a religious article of clothing and thus is not protected by the Charter fails. Women wear it as a symbol of their faith. That it's not specifically required in the Koran is irrelevant. If a group of citizens got together to request a ban of Christmas because it made them uncomfortable, and wasn't a religious symbol because it wasn't specifically required by the bible, they'd be laughed out of court. If it ever got that far.

I have to take my glasses and/or hat off in a wide variety of circumstances, people should have to take off their masks in such situations too.

If you were bent on doing something in which you would prefer you not be recognized, I bet you'd just ignore the requirement that you remove your hat/glasses. And while many people claim they *must* remove certain items that cover their face, I bet they are responding to a business policy and NOT a law.

Women who wear niqabs take them off when required to legally do so in order to validate identity; accommodation that they do so in private is the usual method of dealing with those situations. It may be that places like banks have a valid reason to want to see someone's face; I suspect that Muslim women would again be willing to do so - provided accommodation be made for doing so in private and in front of another woman. If she is unwilling to do so, then most likely another family member would take care of banking issues.

There are ways of accommodating the rights of these women that does not impact security. Requiring the removal of the niqab in public does not make us any safer. It does make many people more comfortable. It does oppress a tiny group of women.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hundreds of Canadian university professors are condemning the campaign strategy of Stephen Harper's Conservative Party, which they allege has turned, in the last weeks of the election, to mongering fear and hate in order to win votes.

In an open letter, signed by over 600 academics from a wide array of disciplines and published this morning in the Ottawa Citizen, the scholars state that the Conservative campaign has "flagrantly crossed the line" with its messaging about "barbaric cultural practices" — a term the letter claims is specifically tailored to play on bigotry without sounding bigoted.

http://induecourse.ca/open-letter-regarding-conservative-party-campaign-tactics/

I refuse t respond to the idiotic post by a committed conservative supporter up there whose values reflect those of the heartless cold blooded conservative party based on undemocratic and divide and conquer principles.

Edited by CITIZEN_2015

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The argument that the Niqab is not a religious article of clothing and thus is not protected by the Charter fails. Women wear it as a symbol of their faith. That it's not specifically required in the Koran is irrelevant.

So if I want to wear a colander on my head as a sign of my faith will that be protected by the constitution too? Because I have a high degree of confidence I won't be able to get a passport or drivers licence photo of that approved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you know it wouldn't work?

Good morning Argus. Did you sleep well?

If there were a ban on the niqab in public places, the women who wear them (by choice or not) would just stay home. If they had to go out, they may choose to risk arrest (or assault) rather than betray their faith.

Have you heard of the Jehovah's Witnesses? The bible forbids the ingestion of blood, presumably through the mouth given when this directive was given. JWs take it to include blood transfusions as well. So, they'll die - or let their children die - rather than accept a blood transfusion. For the children, the law can insist on a blood transfusion; an adult cannot be forced.

Devout people will put their faith above secular law regardless of how ridiculous it looks to others; did you miss Kim Davis going to jail for refusing to issue marriage licenses for gay people? That is the reason a niqab ban will not work. You may hide these women, but you won't eliminate them.

Edited by dialamah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm having troubles with this issue mostly because I don't really follow it, however am I correct in saying there are three positions on this?

1. Those who say women can wear this at all times.

2. Those who say they can wear it most times but just not during certain occasions such as government events such as citizenship or licenses.

3. Those who say it should be completely banned.

Is this correct? if so then I think #2 is the most correct. I don't care if they wear it during their daily activities but it shouldn't be worn during legal or governmental situations that require a positive ID

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The argument that the Niqab is not a religious article of clothing and thus is not protected by the Charter fails. Women wear it as a symbol of their faith.

No they don't.

Muslim group calls for burka ban

The Muslim Canadian Congress said the garments, which cover the face, have no basis in Islam.

The group's spokesperson, Farzana Hassan, said the practice of wearing the burka and niqab is more rooted in Middle Eastern culture than in religious teachings. She added that there is nothing in the Qur'an that stipulates women must cover their faces.

She said the issue is one of public safety.

"To cover your face is to conceal your identity," she said.

"If a government claims to uphold equality between men and women, there is no reason for them to support a practice that marginalizes women."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's look more specifically at something progressives have long decided is good for adult women. If they are in a violent relationship, democracies have decided that regardless of what she says or wants the spouse will be charged if the police have any evidence of violence. Why? Because the state knows what's good for her, and is overruling her judgement. Do the progressives believe this should be changed? Nope.

Because assault is ILLEGAL. The spouses are charged because what they've done is illegal and would be illegal no matter who the victim ws. It's completely irrelevant what the victim wants.

In fact, in a number of places in the US - probably Canada but no cases come to mind - battered wives have been thrown in jail for refusing to testify against their husbands. The state, you see, knows what's good for her.

Sources, please, or I'll assume this came from your azz. I've never heard of anyone being thrown in jail for refusing to testify against their assaulter, here or in the States. In Surrey, the gangs are busily shooting each other and the police are frustrated because the survivors aren't saying who has done it - these "victims" aren't going to jail. I suggested to my partner that maybe they should be locked up and he said "That would be illegal, because they haven't done anything wrong". He's got some experience in this area, so I'm thinking he's got the right of it. Perhaps you can prove him wrong, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good morning Argus. Did you sleep well?

If there were a ban on the niqab in public places, the women who wear them (by choice or not) would just stay home.

You don't think that would tend to put their husbands off somewhat? I mean, they'd have to do all the shopping themselves, take the kids everywhere themselves. I think that would prove to be a pita and the hubby would soon start telling his wife to maybe take off the stupid niqab. That's for those married. For the unmarried, well, what are they going to do, live in a basement? Never work? Never go out even to a library? Have their food delivered, while hiding behind the door?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The women wearing it believe it's a part of their faith. Doesn't really matter what you, I or the Canadian Muslim Congress says. Jehovah's Witnesses have said for years that Christmas has no biblical base, but try to explain that to any Christian and see how far it gets you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because assault is ILLEGAL. The spouses are charged because what they've done is illegal and would be illegal no matter who the victim ws. It's completely irrelevant what the victim wants.

Simply untrue. Police are required to arrest/remove the spouse at the slightest sign of any kind of violence, no matter what the wife says. That is not the case in any other sort of assault, where the victim's testimony is required for any hope of successful prosecution.

Sources, please, or I'll assume this came from your azz. I've never heard of anyone being thrown in jail for refusing to testify against their assaulter, here or in the States.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/10/09/judge-berates-domestic-violence-victim-and-then-sends-her-to-jail.html

http://www.pressherald.com/2014/06/03/maine-domestic-violence-victim-jailed-after-refusing-to-testify/

http://tdn.com/news/local/family-jailed-for-refusing-to-testify-against-dad/article_6a0ccd50-323b-11e3-add6-0019bb2963f4.html

Edited by Argus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The women wearing it believe it's a part of their faith. Doesn't really matter what you, I or the Canadian Muslim Congress says.

What if it's part of my faith to walk around naked? What's wrong with that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't think that would tend to put their husbands off somewhat? I mean, they'd have to do all the shopping themselves, take the kids everywhere themselves. I think that would prove to be a pita and the hubby would soon start telling his wife to maybe take off the stupid niqab. That's for those married. For the unmarried, well, what are they going to do, live in a basement? Never work? Never go out even to a library? Have their food delivered, while hiding behind the door?

Yes, that all seems ridiculous to me too. But if people are willing to die for their religious beliefs, then yes - I think there would be women who would simply never leave their home even without the influence of a family or husband.

I had a friend who was born to "old stock Canadians", in Canada, and raised according to conventional Canadian standards. She converted to Islam, met and married a Saudi Arabian, moved to Saudi with him. She was ok wearing the burka, and all that wifely obedience he required which included staying home unless he was available to escort her out. She eventually left for reasons not related to the limits put on her by her faith and her husband, but for several months after she got back to Canada, she wore her niqab; I think it took her a year to re-acclimatize to 'freedom' and feel comfortable removing her niqab, her head scarf, etc.

Its just not as simple as "make them remove the niqab".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if it's part of my faith to walk around naked? What's wrong with that?

Try it, see what happens. You may be accorded the right to walk around naked. You'd probably have to be arrested and convicted, then challenge that conviction on charter grounds (I think that's how it works) - but if you are determined enough, you may win the right for you and everyone who shares your faith to walk around naked. Personally, I do not have a problem with that - at least, in the summer. I might like the freedom to walk around naked too. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Try it, see what happens. You may be accorded the right to walk around naked. You'd probably have to be arrested and convicted, then challenge that conviction on charter grounds (I think that's how it works) - but if you are determined enough, you may win the right for you and everyone who shares your faith to walk around naked. Personally, I do not have a problem with that - at least, in the summer. I might like the freedom to walk around naked too. :)

And yet we are not permitted to do so, because it would cause offense to others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Turban doesn't cover the face, and the niqab is not a religious article. I have to take my glasses and/or hat off in a wide variety of circumstances, people should have to take off their masks in such situations too.

List these circumstances?

I wear a hat and glasses all the time and about the only thing I can come up with that would make force me to take them off is if I'm donning safety equipment...which covers my head and face ironically enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

List these circumstances?

I wear a hat and glasses all the time and about the only thing I can come up with that would make force me to take them off is if I'm donning safety equipment...which covers my head and face ironically enough.

Did you take them when you got your drivers license?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×