Very well written article to make people feel better about being racist. Ignores the fact that this law is there to target one specific subset of a specific religion. They can use all the circular reasoning about how justified you are for doing so but if you are ignoring the blatant fact that you are targeting one class of people is bull.
Also love the mention that the current law is garbage because it was not written in language that will prevent said group from challenging it.
I think it presents an non-racist, explicitly inclusionary argument for us to pay closer attention to the implications of our actions on minority groups through how we address issues like this. A second generation immigrant myself (with my very large, very middle-eastern family here with me), it's not difficult to find truth in the points that minority communities are especially vulnerable to marginalisation even from within those very communities. I don't think I agree when you say it ignores the fact that this law targets one specific subset of a specific religion: it's pretty explicit on that point, and identifying what that subset represents to the superset to which it belongs. Challenging us to render explicit what we do and do not accept as religious expression as it directly pertains to the treatment of women within our (as in Canada) laws is something that I don't think can be ignored. The argument that this practise, derided from within these very same communities as attempted erasure of women, should come under greater scrutiny does make sense to me. It's already reflected in how we (Canada) treat other, more established fundamentalist/orthodox groups.
Compte tenu des enjeux globaux des droits de la personne et de la liberté de conscience, gravement menacés par l’idéologie qui sous-tend le niqab et la burka, il est clair que le supposé « droit » de porter le voile intégral ne fait pas le poids.
Because Islam is bad we have no obligation to let brown people wear veils... But writ fancy so people feel better about being racists.
This is exactly the conflation that is addressed right at the start of the article, with
[...] la gauche se trompe au sujet de l’islam et la droite se trompe au sujet des musulmans. Cette remarque [...] renvoie au fait qu’une certaine gauche confond l’islam en tant que croyances religieuses et l’intégrisme qui manipule la religion à des fins politiques, tandis que la droite ne fait pas la distinction entre les musulmans et les intégristes, ce qui l’amène à rejeter les premiers par peur des seconds.
Taking issue with the niquab and burka is not interchangeable with taking issue with Islam.
Jaunty on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
edited November 2017
How can it possibly be nonexclusionary if it supports an exclusionary law?
Very well written article to make people feel better about being racist. Ignores the fact that this law is there to target one specific subset of a specific religion. They can use all the circular reasoning about how justified you are for doing so but if you are ignoring the blatant fact that you are targeting one class of people is bull.
Also love the mention that the current law is garbage because it was not written in language that will prevent said group from challenging it.
I think it presents an non-racist, explicitly inclusionary argument for us to pay closer attention to the implications of our actions on minority groups through how we address issues like this. A second generation immigrant myself (with my very large, very middle-eastern family here with me), it's not difficult to find truth in the points that minority communities are especially vulnerable to marginalisation even from within those very communities. I don't think I agree when you say it ignores the fact that this law targets one specific subset of a specific religion: it's pretty explicit on that point, and identifying what that subset represents to the superset to which it belongs. Challenging us to render explicit what we do and do not accept as religious expression as it directly pertains to the treatment of women within our (as in Canada) laws is something that I don't think can be ignored. The argument that this practise, derided from within these very same communities as attempted erasure of women, should come under greater scrutiny does make sense to me. It's already reflected in how we (Canada) treat other, more established fundamentalist/orthodox groups.
Compte tenu des enjeux globaux des droits de la personne et de la liberté de conscience, gravement menacés par l’idéologie qui sous-tend le niqab et la burka, il est clair que le supposé « droit » de porter le voile intégral ne fait pas le poids.
Because Islam is bad we have no obligation to let brown people wear veils... But writ fancy so people feel better about being racists.
This is exactly the conflation that is addressed right at the start of the article, with
[...] la gauche se trompe au sujet de l’islam et la droite se trompe au sujet des musulmans. Cette remarque [...] renvoie au fait qu’une certaine gauche confond l’islam en tant que croyances religieuses et l’intégrisme qui manipule la religion à des fins politiques, tandis que la droite ne fait pas la distinction entre les musulmans et les intégristes, ce qui l’amène à rejeter les premiers par peur des seconds.
Taking issue with the niquab and burka is not interchangeable with taking issue with Islam: it's an easy mistake to make from the outside looking in, but contention over the niquab and the burka is an internal, Muslim issue and does not exist uniquely as a question posed to Canada.
If only followers of Islam wear burqua's then your argument falls apart and is just fluff to make people feel better about their hate....
It's like banning wearing a cross and saying your not against christian. ... While ignoring the fact you are only targeting Christians.
If only followers of Islam wear burqua's then your argument falls apart and is just fluff to make people feel better about their hate....
It's like banning wearing a cross and saying your not against christian. ... While ignoring the fact you are only targeting Christians.
Actually this point is one I completely agree with (excluding the "argument falls apart and is just fluff for hatemongers" bit), but reading this ended up getting me to attempt to more rigorously define the points at which I believe defence of equality and defence of religious freedom conflict. The contention over the issue from within that very community, both over the explicitly anti-woman nature of the practise and over its validity as a religious symbol at all, is enough to lend credence to an argument against its defence that is not about hate.
Female genital mutilation is rightly rejected here. Any recent attempt to connect it to religion has been rightly called into question, and then it, too, rejected. No defence is possible for it, nor should any be. The path to take on that issue is unambiguous and easily accepted: the practise represents bodily harm inflicted on women. The argument that the niquab and burqa represent a different threat to the equality of women, and that threat is acknowledged on every level extending to groups and scholars within the very communities that opposition to the bill claims to be acting in defence of. That much can't be ignored, and the question of which rights and protections should win out in the case of conflict between the two has seemingly already been settled. If it's simply a matter of the Muslim community sufficiently calling in to question their status as religious symbols, that's a whole other thing—but where that question has been raised for other issues pertaining to what is and is not defensible as a religious symbol, we have so far tended to lean towards the defence of the rights and well-being of the individual over the rights of a religion.
Jaunty on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Girls do not choose to be mutilated. Women can and do choose to wear the niqab and veil and so on. You are basically telling women how they are allowed to express themselves, and then cloaking it in "freedom of expression"
+6
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
Except women choose to wear head scarves and veils all the time. I don't know of any case where a woman chose to have her clitoris removed.
These two examples are not in any way analogous. Banning face coverings and then hiding behind a veneer of equality is saying, "Women shouldn't be allowed make this choice. It's for their own good." It's incredibly patronizing.
There is a small Catholic diocese here in Yellowknife. I'll sometimes see nuns going into and out of it while wearing full habits. I have never once, never once heard anyone talking about making them take the head coverings off, for any reason.
That view holds a lot more sway for me, even though I think the distinction between "head covering" and "face covering" is not insignificant or comparable: there's a reason the conversation doesn't extend to the hijab.
Jaunty on
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
And yet, it's still religiously imposed clothing that is unique to that faith and is, ostensibly, about modesty. As long as we, as a society, are doing what we can to make sure that women are being given the choice, we shouldn't then take that choice away in the other direction because we believe we know best.
Yeah, the fact that this is unambiguously a choice is something that I had been persuaded to overlook and that's a really significant point. Despite the fact that I don't believe it comes from a "we know best" place so much as a "we as a nation have distinct behaviours and norms that we've established in order to defend our ideals" place, there is no question that freedom of choice is extremely high among those ideals so continuing to ignore that would be disingenuous of me.
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
Yeah, the fact that this is unambiguously a choice is something that I had been persuaded to overlook and that's a really significant point. Despite the fact that I don't believe it comes from a "we know best" place so much as a "we as a nation have distinct behaviours and norms that we've established in order to defend our ideals" place, there is no question that freedom of choice is extremely high among those ideals so continuing to ignore that would be disingenuous of me.
That's indistinguishable from "we know best", though, when it comes down to it.
Our behaviors and norms have oppressed and nearly eliminated entire peoples who were here before white Europeans colonized North America. We're changing things, and hopefully moving forward to a more inclusive, enlightened future, but dogmatic adherence to tradition for its own sake is not a virtue. If a new cultural practice is introduced where it is unfamiliar, harm by it's existence must be absolutely proven before it is right to restrict that practice.
I don't think it is indistinguishable from "we know best." Equating any form of homogenised culture with "we know best" seems reductionist, and to me that seems to be what that view is in danger of doing.
Also I still find that we are immensely more comfortable/better equipped to confront symbols of far-right extremism or fundamentalism as they manifest themselves in majority communities than we are at doing the same thing as they present themselves within minority communities.
Yeah, the fact that this is unambiguously a choice is something that I had been persuaded to overlook and that's a really significant point. Despite the fact that I don't believe it comes from a "we know best" place so much as a "we as a nation have distinct behaviours and norms that we've established in order to defend our ideals" place, there is no question that freedom of choice is extremely high among those ideals so continuing to ignore that would be disingenuous of me.
Our behavioral norms don't mean jack. 20 years ago it was not a cultural norm to have a wedding ceremony for two men. Now it is.
Preventing people from doing things in their personal lives that don't affect anyone else is straight up fascist.
Nova_C hit pretty much all the points I wanted to bring up but I would just add that making it about face covering pretty specifically targets people with specific Muslim beliefs / practices.
If it's extended to head coverings as well then what the fuck are you going to tell thousands of Sikhs?
I think people should be able to wear anything they want as long as security or agents of the government can verify their identity when necessary .
There's no harm being perpetrated by people wearing shit over their faces. No one's dying because of it. It's fear and racism and has no basis being a law in Canada.
Our behavioral norms don't mean jack. 20 years ago it was not a cultural norm to have a wedding ceremony for two men. Now it is.
Preventing people from doing things in their personal lives that don't affect anyone else is straight up fascist.
I can accept that, but that doesn't sound like it would just go one way: behavioural norms aren't any less transient for anyone else or any other group of people.
Also the main point of contention was that it does affect others, and how we address it does affect others.
@Aridhol yeah, Nova's position has pretty much gotten me to re-evaluate my own. What I found compelling in the article wasn't the question of identitiy verification or anything similar but what it represented with regards to issues of erasure and my discomfort with the idea of an already maligned minority group being put at risk of being maligned by a subgroup within them, but through this I think what's become more clear to me is that even were that the case it's an issue that the government has no role in addressing, and should be left to the communities themselves.
Our behavioral norms don't mean jack. 20 years ago it was not a cultural norm to have a wedding ceremony for two men. Now it is.
Preventing people from doing things in their personal lives that don't affect anyone else is straight up fascist.
I can accept that, but that doesn't sound like it would just go one way: behavioural norms aren't any less transient for anyone else or any other group of people.
Also the main point of contention was that it does affect others, and how we address it does affect others.
Our behavioral norms don't mean jack. 20 years ago it was not a cultural norm to have a wedding ceremony for two men. Now it is.
Preventing people from doing things in their personal lives that don't affect anyone else is straight up fascist.
I can accept that, but that doesn't sound like it would just go one way: behavioural norms aren't any less transient for anyone else or any other group of people.
Also the main point of contention was that it does affect others, and how we address it does affect others.
How does a woman on a bus affect me?
Really curious about your thought's.
By being smelly. Talking loudly on phone. Having their music blasting through earphones or not wearing earphones at all. Talking loudly with another passenger. Putting their belongings on a seat. Being wider than a single seat. Standing in the middle of the aisle. Blocking the aisle with a backpack, stroller, etc. Eating food....
Our behavioral norms don't mean jack. 20 years ago it was not a cultural norm to have a wedding ceremony for two men. Now it is.
Preventing people from doing things in their personal lives that don't affect anyone else is straight up fascist.
I can accept that, but that doesn't sound like it would just go one way: behavioural norms aren't any less transient for anyone else or any other group of people.
Also the main point of contention was that it does affect others, and how we address it does affect others.
How does a woman on a bus affect me?
Really curious about your thought's.
It doesn't affect you, when I say "affects others" I don't mean you if you are a non-muslim, non-immigrant. There exist others within that very community who are affected by how these issues are addressed, which was what the article was about in the first place. The article is written by an immigrant, and is entirely about addressing who the burqa is for, the issues it presents within the community, and continuously failing to at least come at this from that direction is frustratingly self-centred in a weirdly insulting way
Meanwhile, winter is upon us and one of my favourite pieces of clothing is a near full face covering, that when rolled up looks like a nice black toque.
Sorry, but that "law" is just straight up bullshit. Did it once get tossed in the covered face of anyone this Halloween, eh? Or anyone wearing a big scarf?
Our behavioral norms don't mean jack. 20 years ago it was not a cultural norm to have a wedding ceremony for two men. Now it is.
Preventing people from doing things in their personal lives that don't affect anyone else is straight up fascist.
I can accept that, but that doesn't sound like it would just go one way: behavioural norms aren't any less transient for anyone else or any other group of people.
Also the main point of contention was that it does affect others, and how we address it does affect others.
@Aridhol yeah, Nova's position has pretty much gotten me to re-evaluate my own. What I found compelling in the article wasn't the question of identitiy verification or anything similar but what it represented with regards to issues of erasure and my discomfort with the idea of an already maligned minority group being put at risk of being maligned by a subgroup within them, but through this I think what's become more clear to me is that even were that the case it's an issue that the government has no role in addressing, and should be left to the communities themselves.
I think there is probably some truth in the idea that some cultures may "encourage" behaviour or dress that an individual is not 100% comfortable with but they do it so as to not be ostracized or attacked by their own peers. If you stretch credulity far enough you can think that the government forcing everyone to be "culturally neutral" in dress would free that person because "hey, just obeying the law".
I just vehemently object to that being the governments job. I don't want everyone to look and behave the same.
If people feel trapped or under pressure to act or dress in a certain way because of their peers or culture I think the best we can do is offer hands and ears if they need support to break away and free themselves.
This applies to the woman in a Habit and a woman in a niqab.
So I apologize if I am misreading your position but I can sympathize with the idea of freeing people from what some might see as oppression but we can't know if that's the case. Most of these folks say it's a comfort or makes them feel observant of religious practices or they just like the outward demonstration of their "community". It's not up to us to force change and it sure as shit isn't up to the government.
What about cosplay?
Sounds like a bylaw officer needs to hang out at some conventions and arrest all those potential terrorists and criminals.
Or as someone else said, what about if I'm cold?
Its a cultural attack under the guise of "security" just like all such attacks.
I may think the culture is not good but that's just, like my opinion, man. I don't want laws for everything I don't like
Edit: except talking and using your phone during a movie. Fuck you, go to jail.
What about cosplay?
Sounds like a bylaw officer needs to hang out at some conventions and arrest all those potential terrorists and criminals.
I seem to recall that actually happening in I think Switzerland when they rammed through an even more poorly-written version of this law. Fines and not arrests, mind, but...
It makes me grumpy because all I think is "what Fucking harm am I being saved from here?"
Harrassing Muslim women doesn't make me feel safer. It makes me feel like govt. And law enforcement is wasting time and money on Bullshit that just divides us and causes people to go to extremes and that's the whole reason there's terrorism in the first God damned place.
It makes me grumpy because all I think is "what Fucking harm am I being saved from here?"
Harrassing Muslim women doesn't make me feel safer. It makes me feel like govt. And law enforcement is wasting time and money on Bullshit that just divides us and causes people to go to extremes and that's the whole reason there's terrorism in the first God damned place.
Gah!
None.
It's racist's fucks's being racist under the guise of security. Hence why I get angry when a paper like Le Devoir writes an article in flowery prose telling people that since Islam can have a bad side its A-OK! to tell women to not wear a burqua and totally not racially motivated.
It makes me grumpy because all I think is "what Fucking harm am I being saved from here?"
Harrassing Muslim women doesn't make me feel safer. It makes me feel like govt. And law enforcement is wasting time and money on Bullshit that just divides us and causes people to go to extremes and that's the whole reason there's terrorism in the first God damned place.
Gah!
None.
It's racist's fucks's being racist under the guise of security. Hence why I get angry when a paper like Le Devoir writes an article in flowery prose telling people that since Islam can have a bad side its A-OK! to tell women to not wear a burqua and totally not racially motivated.
See: Donal Trump, Stephen Harper etc....
Yep.
I wasn't the primary target of C-24, even though I was definitely one of the people the government didn't mind it affecting. Despite not being directly in the crosshairs, its dumbass kneejerk xenophobic votegrubbing paranoia aimed at extremely hypothetical edge cases is why I spent three years explicitly legally codified as a second-class citizen with an abridged set of rights, despite being a citizen from birth. For Harper's last year or so in office, I wasn't a real citizen, and didn't become one again until this summer because it took that long to repair immigration law with the CPC fighting against that as hard as they could.
But who cares about that? Someone might insert-ridiculous-scenario-here, so we have to Do Something, right?
I don't see this as any different. It's still people jumping to authoritarian overreach that attacks a specific part of the population, not for anything they're doing, but for the fact that they exist, and that makes some people uncomfortable or angry, and it's popular to say We Oughta Do Something About Them.
People can jump through whatever rhetorical and philosophical hoops they want to try to justify it, or say it's not really about Those People, or why-don't-you-just-(thing that one can't just do), or blah blah blah, but when the cards are down it's really clear what the architects of those sorts of legislation really want.
Our behavioral norms don't mean jack. 20 years ago it was not a cultural norm to have a wedding ceremony for two men. Now it is.
Preventing people from doing things in their personal lives that don't affect anyone else is straight up fascist.
I can accept that, but that doesn't sound like it would just go one way: behavioural norms aren't any less transient for anyone else or any other group of people.
Also the main point of contention was that it does affect others, and how we address it does affect others.
@Aridhol yeah, Nova's position has pretty much gotten me to re-evaluate my own. What I found compelling in the article wasn't the question of identitiy verification or anything similar but what it represented with regards to issues of erasure and my discomfort with the idea of an already maligned minority group being put at risk of being maligned by a subgroup within them, but through this I think what's become more clear to me is that even were that the case it's an issue that the government has no role in addressing, and should be left to the communities themselves.
I think there is probably some truth in the idea that some cultures may "encourage" behaviour or dress that an individual is not 100% comfortable with but they do it so as to not be ostracized or attacked by their own peers. If you stretch credulity far enough you can think that the government forcing everyone to be "culturally neutral" in dress would free that person because "hey, just obeying the law".
I just vehemently object to that being the governments job. I don't want everyone to look and behave the same.
If people feel trapped or under pressure to act or dress in a certain way because of their peers or culture I think the best we can do is offer hands and ears if they need support to break away and free themselves.
This applies to the woman in a Habit and a woman in a niqab.
So I apologize if I am misreading your position but I can sympathize with the idea of freeing people from what some might see as oppression but we can't know if that's the case. Most of these folks say it's a comfort or makes them feel observant of religious practices or they just like the outward demonstration of their "community". It's not up to us to force change and it sure as shit isn't up to the government.
Yeah, I think in general we can say that something like the niqab or pick whatever other kind of covering to keep women in their place from all over the world you want is something you can not like while also thinking that doesn't mean the government should ban it.
Our behavioral norms don't mean jack. 20 years ago it was not a cultural norm to have a wedding ceremony for two men. Now it is.
Preventing people from doing things in their personal lives that don't affect anyone else is straight up fascist.
I can accept that, but that doesn't sound like it would just go one way: behavioural norms aren't any less transient for anyone else or any other group of people.
Also the main point of contention was that it does affect others, and how we address it does affect others.
@Aridhol yeah, Nova's position has pretty much gotten me to re-evaluate my own. What I found compelling in the article wasn't the question of identitiy verification or anything similar but what it represented with regards to issues of erasure and my discomfort with the idea of an already maligned minority group being put at risk of being maligned by a subgroup within them, but through this I think what's become more clear to me is that even were that the case it's an issue that the government has no role in addressing, and should be left to the communities themselves.
I think there is probably some truth in the idea that some cultures may "encourage" behaviour or dress that an individual is not 100% comfortable with but they do it so as to not be ostracized or attacked by their own peers. If you stretch credulity far enough you can think that the government forcing everyone to be "culturally neutral" in dress would free that person because "hey, just obeying the law".
I just vehemently object to that being the governments job. I don't want everyone to look and behave the same.
If people feel trapped or under pressure to act or dress in a certain way because of their peers or culture I think the best we can do is offer hands and ears if they need support to break away and free themselves.
This applies to the woman in a Habit and a woman in a niqab.
So I apologize if I am misreading your position but I can sympathize with the idea of freeing people from what some might see as oppression but we can't know if that's the case. Most of these folks say it's a comfort or makes them feel observant of religious practices or they just like the outward demonstration of their "community". It's not up to us to force change and it sure as shit isn't up to the government.
Yeah, I think in general we can say that something like the niqab or pick whatever other kind of covering to keep women in their place from all over the world you want is something you can not like while also thinking that doesn't mean the government should ban it.
Absolutely. My terrible opinions should not determine the fate of 35 million Canadians.
+3
Options
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
edited November 2017
This is kind of big news that I need to dig into more detail about: the TPP has reached agreement regarding 4 key core provisions among the 11 negotiating nations. Of particular note:
The 11 Trans-Pacific Partnership countries have reached an agreement on "core elements" of the trade pact, namely that all countries will adhere to strict labour and environment standards, a development Canada is championing as a major breakthrough after talks broke down earlier Friday.
A final agreement in principle is still in the works because the countries have not settled on all aspects of the deal.
The original TPP, which is currently under renegotiation after U.S. President Donald Trump pulled America out of the deal, included strong provisions that demanded all member countries eliminate child and forced labour, adopt and maintain laws and practices governing "acceptable conditions of work," and uphold the right to collective bargaining.
But some countries, including Malaysia and Vietnam, sought to opt out of such provisions during the talks, something Canada felt was untenable.
Those countries have now come back onside, International Trade Minister François-Philippe Champagne said, and have agreed to the terms of the original TPP.
"We got a better deal for Canada, we were also able to enhance the progressive elements — as the prime minister says you don't do trade in the 21st century like you did before," he said.
All countries have agreed now to implement regulations around minimum wages, hours of work and occupational safety and health, for example, something the original TPP called for.
Also:
The chapter relating to intellectual property has been "suspended," which means, in plain terms, that it will no longer be part of a renegotiated TPP, a victory for Canada as many companies — as well as Blackberry's former CEO, Jim Balsillie — were worried about those provisions. This chapter, which essentially applied U.S. patent laws to other member countries, was originally demanded by the former Obama administration.
In a statement sent to CBC News, Balsillie said Canada's success in getting other countries to drop IP considerations was a testament to the government's "shrewdness" and "sophistication" in these complicated negotiations.
"I am very pleased how Minister Champagne and Canada's negotiators are working to preserve policy flexibility for our country's future economic growth and how they continue to upgrade their knowledge of the 21st century economy where every business is a tech business," he said.
With the US out of the negotiations, it appears we were able to convince everyone remaining to drop the original US demand of exporting their IP policies to the rest of the trade pact members.
Oh and the TPP is being renamed to the CPTPP (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership).
The thing with stuff like Bill 62 when it comes to "protecting women" is that if that was really the goal, there would be more investment in services for helping women escape and recover from abusive relationships instead of policing their clothing choices
It's quite clear in that lens what the true purpose of the bill is
It's weird how furious some of the press and all of the right is over that delay of a couple of hours yesterday. Gotta stir oneself up over something, I suppose.
I do like that the US-demanded extraterritoriality has been cleaned out of the agreement, though, and it's interesting to start seeing social/environmental clauses start to show up in major regional trade deals.
In Montreal, thousands of protesters took to the streets today to denounce systemic hatred and racism, and promote inclusivity and tolerance. The event brought together about 160 diverse groups, including Montreal's Black Lives Matter division, a group of Muslims and Arabs who stand for secularism in Quebec, and several university student associations. These groups signed an online manifesto calling for a halt to the spread of xenophobia in Quebec. Many protesters held signs addressing Bill 62, Quebec's controversial legislation on religious neutrality. In a speech, event spokesperson Anas Bouslikhane spoke of the importance of nipping xenophobia in the bud. "If we stay silent and allow complacency to take the reins in Quebec, we will let the hate speech, the toxicity, take hold," said Bouslikhane.
Not even islam as a religion can agree on the niqab etc, so best of luck sorting it out over here. Hell, the head of the biggest school of islam in Egypt banned the damn things years ago saying they were a cultural throwback with no relation to islam itself..
I'd love to see someone force them to take down that cross in the national assembly tho if we're gonna rein in religion in what should be secular institutions. See how that one flies over there.
Caroline Ouellette and Julie Chu, the former captains of the Canadian and U.S. women's hockey teams, respectively, welcomed their first child on Nov. 5.
Posts
I think it presents an non-racist, explicitly inclusionary argument for us to pay closer attention to the implications of our actions on minority groups through how we address issues like this. A second generation immigrant myself (with my very large, very middle-eastern family here with me), it's not difficult to find truth in the points that minority communities are especially vulnerable to marginalisation even from within those very communities. I don't think I agree when you say it ignores the fact that this law targets one specific subset of a specific religion: it's pretty explicit on that point, and identifying what that subset represents to the superset to which it belongs. Challenging us to render explicit what we do and do not accept as religious expression as it directly pertains to the treatment of women within our (as in Canada) laws is something that I don't think can be ignored. The argument that this practise, derided from within these very same communities as attempted erasure of women, should come under greater scrutiny does make sense to me. It's already reflected in how we (Canada) treat other, more established fundamentalist/orthodox groups.
This is exactly the conflation that is addressed right at the start of the article, with
[...] la gauche se trompe au sujet de l’islam et la droite se trompe au sujet des musulmans. Cette remarque [...] renvoie au fait qu’une certaine gauche confond l’islam en tant que croyances religieuses et l’intégrisme qui manipule la religion à des fins politiques, tandis que la droite ne fait pas la distinction entre les musulmans et les intégristes, ce qui l’amène à rejeter les premiers par peur des seconds.
Taking issue with the niquab and burka is not interchangeable with taking issue with Islam.
If only followers of Islam wear burqua's then your argument falls apart and is just fluff to make people feel better about their hate....
It's like banning wearing a cross and saying your not against christian. ... While ignoring the fact you are only targeting Christians.
Actually this point is one I completely agree with (excluding the "argument falls apart and is just fluff for hatemongers" bit), but reading this ended up getting me to attempt to more rigorously define the points at which I believe defence of equality and defence of religious freedom conflict. The contention over the issue from within that very community, both over the explicitly anti-woman nature of the practise and over its validity as a religious symbol at all, is enough to lend credence to an argument against its defence that is not about hate.
Female genital mutilation is rightly rejected here. Any recent attempt to connect it to religion has been rightly called into question, and then it, too, rejected. No defence is possible for it, nor should any be. The path to take on that issue is unambiguous and easily accepted: the practise represents bodily harm inflicted on women. The argument that the niquab and burqa represent a different threat to the equality of women, and that threat is acknowledged on every level extending to groups and scholars within the very communities that opposition to the bill claims to be acting in defence of. That much can't be ignored, and the question of which rights and protections should win out in the case of conflict between the two has seemingly already been settled. If it's simply a matter of the Muslim community sufficiently calling in to question their status as religious symbols, that's a whole other thing—but where that question has been raised for other issues pertaining to what is and is not defensible as a religious symbol, we have so far tended to lean towards the defence of the rights and well-being of the individual over the rights of a religion.
These two examples are not in any way analogous. Banning face coverings and then hiding behind a veneer of equality is saying, "Women shouldn't be allowed make this choice. It's for their own good." It's incredibly patronizing.
There is a small Catholic diocese here in Yellowknife. I'll sometimes see nuns going into and out of it while wearing full habits. I have never once, never once heard anyone talking about making them take the head coverings off, for any reason.
That's indistinguishable from "we know best", though, when it comes down to it.
Our behaviors and norms have oppressed and nearly eliminated entire peoples who were here before white Europeans colonized North America. We're changing things, and hopefully moving forward to a more inclusive, enlightened future, but dogmatic adherence to tradition for its own sake is not a virtue. If a new cultural practice is introduced where it is unfamiliar, harm by it's existence must be absolutely proven before it is right to restrict that practice.
Also I still find that we are immensely more comfortable/better equipped to confront symbols of far-right extremism or fundamentalism as they manifest themselves in majority communities than we are at doing the same thing as they present themselves within minority communities.
Our behavioral norms don't mean jack. 20 years ago it was not a cultural norm to have a wedding ceremony for two men. Now it is.
Preventing people from doing things in their personal lives that don't affect anyone else is straight up fascist.
If it's extended to head coverings as well then what the fuck are you going to tell thousands of Sikhs?
I think people should be able to wear anything they want as long as security or agents of the government can verify their identity when necessary .
There's no harm being perpetrated by people wearing shit over their faces. No one's dying because of it. It's fear and racism and has no basis being a law in Canada.
Also the main point of contention was that it does affect others, and how we address it does affect others.
@Aridhol yeah, Nova's position has pretty much gotten me to re-evaluate my own. What I found compelling in the article wasn't the question of identitiy verification or anything similar but what it represented with regards to issues of erasure and my discomfort with the idea of an already maligned minority group being put at risk of being maligned by a subgroup within them, but through this I think what's become more clear to me is that even were that the case it's an issue that the government has no role in addressing, and should be left to the communities themselves.
How does a woman on a bus affect me?
Really curious about your thought's.
By being smelly. Talking loudly on phone. Having their music blasting through earphones or not wearing earphones at all. Talking loudly with another passenger. Putting their belongings on a seat. Being wider than a single seat. Standing in the middle of the aisle. Blocking the aisle with a backpack, stroller, etc. Eating food....
It doesn't affect you, when I say "affects others" I don't mean you if you are a non-muslim, non-immigrant. There exist others within that very community who are affected by how these issues are addressed, which was what the article was about in the first place. The article is written by an immigrant, and is entirely about addressing who the burqa is for, the issues it presents within the community, and continuously failing to at least come at this from that direction is frustratingly self-centred in a weirdly insulting way
Sorry, but that "law" is just straight up bullshit. Did it once get tossed in the covered face of anyone this Halloween, eh? Or anyone wearing a big scarf?
I think there is probably some truth in the idea that some cultures may "encourage" behaviour or dress that an individual is not 100% comfortable with but they do it so as to not be ostracized or attacked by their own peers. If you stretch credulity far enough you can think that the government forcing everyone to be "culturally neutral" in dress would free that person because "hey, just obeying the law".
I just vehemently object to that being the governments job. I don't want everyone to look and behave the same.
If people feel trapped or under pressure to act or dress in a certain way because of their peers or culture I think the best we can do is offer hands and ears if they need support to break away and free themselves.
This applies to the woman in a Habit and a woman in a niqab.
So I apologize if I am misreading your position but I can sympathize with the idea of freeing people from what some might see as oppression but we can't know if that's the case. Most of these folks say it's a comfort or makes them feel observant of religious practices or they just like the outward demonstration of their "community". It's not up to us to force change and it sure as shit isn't up to the government.
The law does have a clear exception for safety equipment.
(That said I am 100% against that law for a whole host of reasons.)
Sounds like a bylaw officer needs to hang out at some conventions and arrest all those potential terrorists and criminals.
Or as someone else said, what about if I'm cold?
Its a cultural attack under the guise of "security" just like all such attacks.
I may think the culture is not good but that's just, like my opinion, man. I don't want laws for everything I don't like
Edit: except talking and using your phone during a movie. Fuck you, go to jail.
I seem to recall that actually happening in I think Switzerland when they rammed through an even more poorly-written version of this law. Fines and not arrests, mind, but...
Harrassing Muslim women doesn't make me feel safer. It makes me feel like govt. And law enforcement is wasting time and money on Bullshit that just divides us and causes people to go to extremes and that's the whole reason there's terrorism in the first God damned place.
Gah!
None.
It's racist's fucks's being racist under the guise of security. Hence why I get angry when a paper like Le Devoir writes an article in flowery prose telling people that since Islam can have a bad side its A-OK! to tell women to not wear a burqua and totally not racially motivated.
See: Donal Trump, Stephen Harper etc....
What about Youppi? :P
The aging mascot for a team that moved 20 years ago?
Screw that orange mop /s
Yep.
I wasn't the primary target of C-24, even though I was definitely one of the people the government didn't mind it affecting. Despite not being directly in the crosshairs, its dumbass kneejerk xenophobic votegrubbing paranoia aimed at extremely hypothetical edge cases is why I spent three years explicitly legally codified as a second-class citizen with an abridged set of rights, despite being a citizen from birth. For Harper's last year or so in office, I wasn't a real citizen, and didn't become one again until this summer because it took that long to repair immigration law with the CPC fighting against that as hard as they could.
But who cares about that? Someone might insert-ridiculous-scenario-here, so we have to Do Something, right?
I don't see this as any different. It's still people jumping to authoritarian overreach that attacks a specific part of the population, not for anything they're doing, but for the fact that they exist, and that makes some people uncomfortable or angry, and it's popular to say We Oughta Do Something About Them.
People can jump through whatever rhetorical and philosophical hoops they want to try to justify it, or say it's not really about Those People, or why-don't-you-just-(thing that one can't just do), or blah blah blah, but when the cards are down it's really clear what the architects of those sorts of legislation really want.
Yeah, I think in general we can say that something like the niqab or pick whatever other kind of covering to keep women in their place from all over the world you want is something you can not like while also thinking that doesn't mean the government should ban it.
Absolutely. My terrible opinions should not determine the fate of 35 million Canadians.
Also:
With the US out of the negotiations, it appears we were able to convince everyone remaining to drop the original US demand of exporting their IP policies to the rest of the trade pact members.
Oh and the TPP is being renamed to the CPTPP (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership).
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
It's quite clear in that lens what the true purpose of the bill is
3DS Friend Code: 0216-0898-6512
Switch Friend Code: SW-7437-1538-7786
I do like that the US-demanded extraterritoriality has been cleaned out of the agreement, though, and it's interesting to start seeing social/environmental clauses start to show up in major regional trade deals.
good on JT for not staying silent.
I'd love to see someone force them to take down that cross in the national assembly tho if we're gonna rein in religion in what should be secular institutions. See how that one flies over there.
http://www.cbc.ca/sports/olympics/winter/hockey/former-canada-us-womens-hockey-captains-welcome-baby-1.4400077
But I'll be fucked if I support Canadian and American hockey mixing. I'm sorry, the line needs to be drawn somewhere and this is it.