I may be out of step here with the rest of the thread, but while I have absolutely no problems with hijabs (or chadors, or shayla, or al-amira for that matter), I do have a problem with niqabs. I think that it's serves to dehumanize women. I don't think it should be given a pass for cultural reasons; just because something has become part of a culture doesn't make it any less shitty. I don't know if banning it is the answer, and I recognize that the Quebec government are doing what they're doing because they're shitheads rather than because they actually care about women's rights.
Civics is not a consumer product that you can ignore because you don’t like the options presented.
But where religion is being used as a shield for shitty beliefs, I think that there's an argument for doing something. For example, Christians running conversion therapy - I'm perfectly happy to tell people to fuck off and that it's not permitted, even if and when people say that they want to go.
Civics is not a consumer product that you can ignore because you don’t like the options presented.
I wasn't happy when in the fancy fucking (imported) marble temple my Hindu mother had to worship separate from myself/my father and I'm similarly unhappy whenever religion/culture is used to shield otherwise right-wing beliefs. But we have a Charter for a reason.
I wasn't happy when in the fancy fucking (imported) marble temple my Hindu mother had to worship separate from myself/my father and I'm similarly unhappy whenever religion/culture is used to shield otherwise right-wing beliefs. But we have a Charter for a reason.
The Charter does not give one an absolute and unassailable right to their religious beliefs. In fact it does not give any absolute and unassailable rights. Article 1 of the Charter starts off by saying all our rights and freedoms are subject to "reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society". So the question becomes, is it reasonable and justified to restrict religious rights when they are used to promote and protect toxic values that are not compatible with the fair and equal society we are trying to build.
I wasn't happy when in the fancy fucking (imported) marble temple my Hindu mother had to worship separate from myself/my father and I'm similarly unhappy whenever religion/culture is used to shield otherwise right-wing beliefs. But we have a Charter for a reason.
The Charter does not give one an absolute and unassailable right to their religious beliefs. In fact it does not give any absolute and unassailable rights. Article 1 of the Charter starts off by saying all our rights and freedoms are subject to "reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society". So the question becomes, is it reasonable and justified to restrict religious rights when they are used to promote and protect toxic values that are not compatible with the fair and equal society we are trying to build.
I believe it is.
Would you say that the toxic value represented by veils &c is that women are being told what to wear, or something else?
Yeah, the face coverings and such as I understood it are all a cultural thing. Wedding rings predate christianity, I certainly don't ascribe any mysticism or superstitious nonsense to mine. It's a lot like christmas, maybe that was all about the baby jesus years ago, now it's just a nice holiday and you give some presents and there's a fat guy with a beard in red everywhere you go.
Best reference to the niqab and such not being an islam thing is their ban over in Egypt...at a Islamic school. "On 8 October 2009, Egypt's top Islamic school and the world's leading school of Sunni Islam, Al-Azhar, banned the wearing of the niqab in classrooms and dormitories of all its affiliate schools and educational institutes." Their big religious leader type came out swinging against them.
I wasn't happy when in the fancy fucking (imported) marble temple my Hindu mother had to worship separate from myself/my father and I'm similarly unhappy whenever religion/culture is used to shield otherwise right-wing beliefs. But we have a Charter for a reason.
The Charter does not give one an absolute and unassailable right to their religious beliefs. In fact it does not give any absolute and unassailable rights. Article 1 of the Charter starts off by saying all our rights and freedoms are subject to "reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society". So the question becomes, is it reasonable and justified to restrict religious rights when they are used to promote and protect toxic values that are not compatible with the fair and equal society we are trying to build.
I believe it is.
Would you say that the toxic value represented by veils &c is that women are being told what to wear, or something else?
I wasn't talking about veils specifically, or even about women rights in general. Any toxic belief - limiting women rights, gay rights, access to education and healthcare for children, and more - is a problem. Most religions have some form of them.
To answer your question now, my problem is not with being told what to wear. Frankly, I feel that's dodging the issue - we're all being told what to wear, all the time, by indecency laws, safety regulations, uniforms in some professions/schools, peer pressure, fashion trends, taboos and traditions, unwritten guidelines about what's "appropriate" in specific places and circumstances... Our freedom to wear whatever we want is very much less than we think. My problem is with any aspect of any religion (or law or culture) that sets women apart as lesser than men. A requirement to cover oneself, separate entrance, separate section in a house of worship, lower hierarchical roles in the organization, lesser weight in arbitration, lesser portion of inheritance, different classes in religious schooling, etc. etc., all fall in that category. That's the toxic value I have a problem with.
The veils and such always seem pretty suspect to me as they're just on women in the name of "modesty" while the ones that cover them entirely feel a whole lot like nullification.
The veils and such always seem pretty suspect to me as they're just on women in the name of "modesty" while the ones that cover them entirely feel a whole lot like nullification.
I do prefer Christianity in that respect. St Paul's requirement that women wear head covering in church is rooted in the Genesis story that angels saw uncovered women and fell in love with them, and begot half-human-half-angel superhuman children that God had to wipe out in the Flood.
I mean, if you're going to make up a theological reason for women to cover up, why stop at meek modesty when you can go all in with the insane world-destroying inhuman hybrid justification.
I wasn't happy when in the fancy fucking (imported) marble temple my Hindu mother had to worship separate from myself/my father and I'm similarly unhappy whenever religion/culture is used to shield otherwise right-wing beliefs. But we have a Charter for a reason.
The Charter does not give one an absolute and unassailable right to their religious beliefs. In fact it does not give any absolute and unassailable rights. Article 1 of the Charter starts off by saying all our rights and freedoms are subject to "reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society". So the question becomes, is it reasonable and justified to restrict religious rights when they are used to promote and protect toxic values that are not compatible with the fair and equal society we are trying to build.
I believe it is.
Great, yes, there is a section on reasonable limits. But I don't see how the law in question (Quebec one) passes either the pressing/substantial objective or minimal impairment components of the Oakes Test. Of course this is a question for the courts, but I think it's significant challenge to craft a law regarding this subject that wouldn't be struck down.
The veils and such always seem pretty suspect to me as they're just on women in the name of "modesty" while the ones that cover them entirely feel a whole lot like nullification.
Have you spoken to any women that wear a Niqab? Because that seems like a fairly important element in a discourse about what a woman can and cannot wear.
Of course then you need to wade into the debate around ethnocentrism, entrenched beliefs, etc etc. It's not a simple concept.
Yeah, my co-worker's family came over from Iran. She and another Persian co-worker were pretty happy with the ban. They're both pretty down on religion in general, having watched it ruin their previous country.
edit: they don't wear the headscarves unless they go back to visit family, they both view it as bullshit basic misogyny to keep women down.
The veils and such always seem pretty suspect to me as they're just on women in the name of "modesty" while the ones that cover them entirely feel a whole lot like nullification.
I do prefer Christianity in that respect. St Paul's requirement that women wear head covering in church is rooted in the Genesis story that angels saw uncovered women and fell in love with them, and begot half-human-half-angel superhuman children that God had to wipe out in the Flood.
I mean, if you're going to make up a theological reason for women to cover up, why stop at meek modesty when you can go all in with the insane world-destroying inhuman hybrid justification.
Last I checked Christianity was hella sexist.... Women can't be (catholic) priests, it's literally in the start of the book that women are subject to men and caused original sin.... We should just ban churches!
Your arbitrary line is silly @Richy . If the women themselves wanted to not have to wear it full power to them and we have a society that will support them.
Now you are going to have the same women that may just never go to a hospital again or be able to access legal aid... You realize that is a government service, yeah? So good job Quebec making their situation worse so a bunch of racists can pat themselves on the back about how "progressive" they are.
The law is 100% targeted towards "others" and that continues QC Xenophobia
The veils and such always seem pretty suspect to me as they're just on women in the name of "modesty" while the ones that cover them entirely feel a whole lot like nullification.
Generally, like the crusade against short skirts or whatever we've seen more recently here in the west, it's always about stopping men from being tempted. Women must cover themselves lest a man stray. Or, even worse, lest another man covet your property.
The veils and such always seem pretty suspect to me as they're just on women in the name of "modesty" while the ones that cover them entirely feel a whole lot like nullification.
I do prefer Christianity in that respect. St Paul's requirement that women wear head covering in church is rooted in the Genesis story that angels saw uncovered women and fell in love with them, and begot half-human-half-angel superhuman children that God had to wipe out in the Flood.
I mean, if you're going to make up a theological reason for women to cover up, why stop at meek modesty when you can go all in with the insane world-destroying inhuman hybrid justification.
Last I checked Christianity was hella sexist.... Women can't be (catholic) priests, it's literally in the start of the book that women are subject to men and caused original sin.... We should just ban churches!
Your arbitrary line is silly Richy . If the women themselves wanted to not have to wear it full power to them and we have a society that will support them.
Now you are going to have the same women that may just never go to a hospital again or be able to access legal aid... You realize that is a government service, yeah? So good job Quebec making their situation worse so a bunch of racists can pat themselves on the back about how "progressive" they are.
The law is 100% targeted towards "others" and that continues QC Xenophobia
You realize that post of mine you quoted was in jest, right? I am not actually in favour of sexism when it is justified by half-angel-superhuman-baby-phobia. I'm sorry, I didn't realize that was something I needed to explicitly explain around here.
I wasn't happy when in the fancy fucking (imported) marble temple my Hindu mother had to worship separate from myself/my father and I'm similarly unhappy whenever religion/culture is used to shield otherwise right-wing beliefs. But we have a Charter for a reason.
The Charter does not give one an absolute and unassailable right to their religious beliefs. In fact it does not give any absolute and unassailable rights. Article 1 of the Charter starts off by saying all our rights and freedoms are subject to "reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society". So the question becomes, is it reasonable and justified to restrict religious rights when they are used to promote and protect toxic values that are not compatible with the fair and equal society we are trying to build.
The veils and such always seem pretty suspect to me as they're just on women in the name of "modesty" while the ones that cover them entirely feel a whole lot like nullification.
I do prefer Christianity in that respect. St Paul's requirement that women wear head covering in church is rooted in the Genesis story that angels saw uncovered women and fell in love with them, and begot half-human-half-angel superhuman children that God had to wipe out in the Flood.
I mean, if you're going to make up a theological reason for women to cover up, why stop at meek modesty when you can go all in with the insane world-destroying inhuman hybrid justification.
Last I checked Christianity was hella sexist.... Women can't be (catholic) priests, it's literally in the start of the book that women are subject to men and caused original sin.... We should just ban churches!
Your arbitrary line is silly Richy . If the women themselves wanted to not have to wear it full power to them and we have a society that will support them.
Now you are going to have the same women that may just never go to a hospital again or be able to access legal aid... You realize that is a government service, yeah? So good job Quebec making their situation worse so a bunch of racists can pat themselves on the back about how "progressive" they are.
The law is 100% targeted towards "others" and that continues QC Xenophobia
You realize that post of mine you quoted was in jest, right? I am not actually in favour of sexism when it is justified by half-angel-superhuman-baby-phobia. I'm sorry, I didn't realize that was something I needed to explicitly explain around here.
Sorry should have quoted the right post.
PSN: Canadian_llama
0
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
Yeah, my co-worker's family came over from Iran. She and another Persian co-worker were pretty happy with the ban. They're both pretty down on religion in general, having watched it ruin their previous country.
edit: they don't wear the headscarves unless they go back to visit family, they both view it as bullshit basic misogyny to keep women down.
So they're OK with a law that prevents them from wearing something they don’t want to wear and unhappy when dealing either a law that forces them to wear that same thing. Nice.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
I wasn't happy when in the fancy fucking (imported) marble temple my Hindu mother had to worship separate from myself/my father and I'm similarly unhappy whenever religion/culture is used to shield otherwise right-wing beliefs. But we have a Charter for a reason.
The Charter does not give one an absolute and unassailable right to their religious beliefs. In fact it does not give any absolute and unassailable rights. Article 1 of the Charter starts off by saying all our rights and freedoms are subject to "reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society". So the question becomes, is it reasonable and justified to restrict religious rights when they are used to promote and protect toxic values that are not compatible with the fair and equal society we are trying to build.
I believe it is.
Last I checked Christianity was hella sexist.... Women can't be (catholic) priests, it's literally in the start of the book that women are subject to men and caused original sin.... We should just ban churches!
Your arbitrary line is silly Richy . If the women themselves wanted to not have to wear it full power to them and we have a society that will support them.
Now you are going to have the same women that may just never go to a hospital again or be able to access legal aid... You realize that is a government service, yeah? So good job Quebec making their situation worse so a bunch of racists can pat themselves on the back about how "progressive" they are.
The law is 100% targeted towards "others" and that continues QC Xenophobia
Sorry should have quoted the right post.
Ah, that makes more sense. I trimmed the unnecessary parts.
Anyway, I agree with you. I am completely against the ban on face-covering to receive public services. My post about that was near the end of the previous page, so it may have been buried by the ongoing conversation. There is a line between secularism and xenophobia, and the last batch of amendments to Bill 21 moved it on the wrong side of that line IMO and it lost my support.
And yes, there is sexism in Catholicism and other religions, and I am against that as well. We should be fighting sexism and misogyny everywhere it exists, not exclusively in Islam nor in fact exclusively in religions. But that's not the same as banning religions. Just fighting back and limiting their toxic aspects.
The government should not be in the role of deciding what culture is ok and what isn't.
We already have laws for all of this.
There are laws against domestic violence, there are laws against unlawful confinement, honor killings are illegal, etc.
You also can't make the judgement that a woman wearing the niqab is oppressed here in Canada.
Or, are we supposed to believe that only Muslim women wearing head/face coverings are suffering from misogyny? White women with their heads uncovered must be so free.
It's ridiculous to have what is essentially a colonial government to some decide what culture is.
Can you fucking imagine if there was a law anywhere else that said that indigenous people weren't able to wear their cultural garb if they wanted certain jobs?
If you have a problem talking to someone in a position of power who is wearing a turban, a niqab, a kippah or whatever else the problem is with you, not them.
The government should not be in the role of deciding what culture is ok and what isn't.
We already have laws for all of this.
There are laws against domestic violence, there are laws against unlawful confinement, honor killings are illegal, etc.
First of all, the laws we have for this are there because the government decided what was and wasn't ok. And second, those things you listed, honour killings, some forms of domestic violence and unlawful confinement, are part of some cultures. The government has banned them here, because it (we) decided that even under the heading of cultural tolerance those were beyond the pale.
So, that unacceptable nightmare scenario of the government deciding which cultural practices we'll accept and which we'll make illegal and ban, it's already the reality we live in.
The government should not be in the role of deciding what culture is ok and what isn't.
We already have laws for all of this.
There are laws against domestic violence, there are laws against unlawful confinement, honor killings are illegal, etc.
You also can't make the judgement that a woman wearing the niqab is oppressed here in Canada.
Or, are we supposed to believe that only Muslim women wearing head/face coverings are suffering from misogyny? White women with their heads uncovered must be so free.
It's ridiculous to have what is essentially a colonial government to some decide what culture is.
Can you fucking imagine if there was a law anywhere else that said that indigenous people weren't able to wear their cultural garb if they wanted certain jobs?
If you have a problem talking to someone in a position of power who is wearing a turban, a niqab, a kippah or whatever else the problem is with you, not them.
Someone can think the niqab et all should be banned and still believe women, white and otherwise, suffer from other forms of discrimination and misogyny.
And the government decides what behaviour is and is not acceptable all the time. The question of rightness or constitutionality depends on how one sees what their role is in doing that and on what grounds it happens.
Yeah, my co-worker's family came over from Iran. She and another Persian co-worker were pretty happy with the ban. They're both pretty down on religion in general, having watched it ruin their previous country.
edit: they don't wear the headscarves unless they go back to visit family, they both view it as bullshit basic misogyny to keep women down.
So they're OK with a law that prevents them from wearing something they don’t want to wear and unhappy when dealing either a law that forces them to wear that same thing. Nice.
Um, yeah? They are against laws that say you have to do X and for laws that say you can't do X. This is perfectly consistent with a belief that X is bad. I'm not sure what point you were trying to make here.
The government should not be in the role of deciding what culture is ok and what isn't.
We already have laws for all of this.
There are laws against domestic violence, there are laws against unlawful confinement, honor killings are illegal, etc.
First of all, the laws we have for this are there because the government decided what was and wasn't ok. And second, those things you listed, honour killings, some forms of domestic violence and unlawful confinement, are part of some cultures. The government has banned them here, because it (we) decided that even under the heading of cultural tolerance those were beyond the pale.
So, that unacceptable nightmare scenario of the government deciding which cultural practices we'll accept and which we'll make illegal and ban, it's already the reality we live in.
That's exactly my point?
The point is the behaviour is disallowed, not the dress because actions matter and fear based perceptions don't.
Are female Muslim heads of state allowed to visit Quebec?
Also, how about the supporters of this bill don't skip the other parts of my post. Specifically what would you tell indigenous leaders that wear traditional religious/cultural garb?
Or is that another "different" exception with some bullshit post hoc reasoning like wedding rings.
The government should not be in the role of deciding what culture is ok and what isn't.
We already have laws for all of this.
There are laws against domestic violence, there are laws against unlawful confinement, honor killings are illegal, etc.
You also can't make the judgement that a woman wearing the niqab is oppressed here in Canada.
Or, are we supposed to believe that only Muslim women wearing head/face coverings are suffering from misogyny? White women with their heads uncovered must be so free.
It's ridiculous to have what is essentially a colonial government to some decide what culture is.
Can you fucking imagine if there was a law anywhere else that said that indigenous people weren't able to wear their cultural garb if they wanted certain jobs?
If you have a problem talking to someone in a position of power who is wearing a turban, a niqab, a kippah or whatever else the problem is with you, not them.
Someone can think the niqab et all should be banned and still believe women, white and otherwise, suffer from other forms of discrimination and misogyny.
And the government decides what behaviour is and is not acceptable all the time. The question of rightness or constitutionality depends on how one sees what their role is in doing that and on what grounds it happens.
Yes they decide the behaviour, the ACTIONS, are unacceptable which I've been saying in every post since this thread was created.
What they do NOT do is ban what people wear because, in their racism, they believe a specific culture or cultures promotes said behaviour.
Can't wait for Quebec to ban tapout shirts and biker jackets for the same reasons.
Yeah, my co-worker's family came over from Iran. She and another Persian co-worker were pretty happy with the ban. They're both pretty down on religion in general, having watched it ruin their previous country.
edit: they don't wear the headscarves unless they go back to visit family, they both view it as bullshit basic misogyny to keep women down.
So they're OK with a law that prevents them from wearing something they don’t want to wear and unhappy when dealing either a law that forces them to wear that same thing. Nice.
Um, yeah? They are against laws that say you have to do X and for laws that say you can't do X. This is perfectly consistent with a belief that X is bad. I'm not sure what point you were trying to make here.
How is it hard to understand that the government saying you can't wear what you want isn't better than your abusive husband saying you can't wear what you want?
Yeah, my co-worker's family came over from Iran. She and another Persian co-worker were pretty happy with the ban. They're both pretty down on religion in general, having watched it ruin their previous country.
edit: they don't wear the headscarves unless they go back to visit family, they both view it as bullshit basic misogyny to keep women down.
So they're OK with a law that prevents them from wearing something they don’t want to wear and unhappy when dealing either a law that forces them to wear that same thing. Nice.
Um, yeah? They are against laws that say you have to do X and for laws that say you can't do X. This is perfectly consistent with a belief that X is bad. I'm not sure what point you were trying to make here.
If your problem is with women being told what they are allowed to wear then a law telling women that they are not allowed to wear something is a strange thing to support.
The government should not be in the role of deciding what culture is ok and what isn't.
We already have laws for all of this.
There are laws against domestic violence, there are laws against unlawful confinement, honor killings are illegal, etc.
You also can't make the judgement that a woman wearing the niqab is oppressed here in Canada.
Or, are we supposed to believe that only Muslim women wearing head/face coverings are suffering from misogyny? White women with their heads uncovered must be so free.
It's ridiculous to have what is essentially a colonial government to some decide what culture is.
Can you fucking imagine if there was a law anywhere else that said that indigenous people weren't able to wear their cultural garb if they wanted certain jobs?
If you have a problem talking to someone in a position of power who is wearing a turban, a niqab, a kippah or whatever else the problem is with you, not them.
Someone can think the niqab et all should be banned and still believe women, white and otherwise, suffer from other forms of discrimination and misogyny.
And the government decides what behaviour is and is not acceptable all the time. The question of rightness or constitutionality depends on how one sees what their role is in doing that and on what grounds it happens.
Yes they decide the behaviour, the ACTIONS, are unacceptable which I've been saying in every post since this thread was created.
What they do NOT do is ban what people wear because, in their racism, they believe a specific culture or cultures promotes said behaviour.
Can't wait for Quebec to ban tapout shirts and biker jackets for the same reasons.
The action in this case would be "wearing X item of clothing". The action itself is the issue. The logic is that these kind of headcoverings and the wearing thereof is a act of oppression by the patriarchy in order to control women and their sexuality.
Which, you know, it 100% is. It's just highly questionable that a legal ban is actually a good way to deal with the issue.
The government should not be in the role of deciding what culture is ok and what isn't.
We already have laws for all of this.
There are laws against domestic violence, there are laws against unlawful confinement, honor killings are illegal, etc.
You also can't make the judgement that a woman wearing the niqab is oppressed here in Canada.
Or, are we supposed to believe that only Muslim women wearing head/face coverings are suffering from misogyny? White women with their heads uncovered must be so free.
It's ridiculous to have what is essentially a colonial government to some decide what culture is.
Can you fucking imagine if there was a law anywhere else that said that indigenous people weren't able to wear their cultural garb if they wanted certain jobs?
If you have a problem talking to someone in a position of power who is wearing a turban, a niqab, a kippah or whatever else the problem is with you, not them.
Someone can think the niqab et all should be banned and still believe women, white and otherwise, suffer from other forms of discrimination and misogyny.
And the government decides what behaviour is and is not acceptable all the time. The question of rightness or constitutionality depends on how one sees what their role is in doing that and on what grounds it happens.
Yes they decide the behaviour, the ACTIONS, are unacceptable which I've been saying in every post since this thread was created.
What they do NOT do is ban what people wear because, in their racism, they believe a specific culture or cultures promotes said behaviour.
Can't wait for Quebec to ban tapout shirts and biker jackets for the same reasons.
The action in this case would be "wearing X item of clothing". The action itself is the issue. The logic is that these kind of headcoverings and the wearing thereof is a act of oppression by the patriarchy in order to control women and their sexuality.
Which, you know, it 100% is. It's just highly questionable that a legal ban is actually a good way to deal with the issue.
Is the misogyny inherent in the cloth or in the removal of agency from women by dictating their manner of dress?
The government should not be in the role of deciding what culture is ok and what isn't.
We already have laws for all of this.
There are laws against domestic violence, there are laws against unlawful confinement, honor killings are illegal, etc.
You also can't make the judgement that a woman wearing the niqab is oppressed here in Canada.
Or, are we supposed to believe that only Muslim women wearing head/face coverings are suffering from misogyny? White women with their heads uncovered must be so free.
It's ridiculous to have what is essentially a colonial government to some decide what culture is.
Can you fucking imagine if there was a law anywhere else that said that indigenous people weren't able to wear their cultural garb if they wanted certain jobs?
If you have a problem talking to someone in a position of power who is wearing a turban, a niqab, a kippah or whatever else the problem is with you, not them.
Someone can think the niqab et all should be banned and still believe women, white and otherwise, suffer from other forms of discrimination and misogyny.
And the government decides what behaviour is and is not acceptable all the time. The question of rightness or constitutionality depends on how one sees what their role is in doing that and on what grounds it happens.
Yes they decide the behaviour, the ACTIONS, are unacceptable which I've been saying in every post since this thread was created.
What they do NOT do is ban what people wear because, in their racism, they believe a specific culture or cultures promotes said behaviour.
Can't wait for Quebec to ban tapout shirts and biker jackets for the same reasons.
The action in this case would be "wearing X item of clothing". The action itself is the issue. The logic is that these kind of headcoverings and the wearing thereof is a act of oppression by the patriarchy in order to control women and their sexuality.
Which, you know, it 100% is. It's just highly questionable that a legal ban is actually a good way to deal with the issue.
Besides the fact that someone choosing what to wear isn't an action in the context we're discussing I'd ask who is harmed by that action? Racists?
I am in no way harmed by having my leader wear a kippah or a niqab or a turban. If you are harmed by this I would suggest some time in front of a mirror and a counselor.
High heals are an act of oppression by the patriarchy and they aren't banned.
The law solves no problems. It does not make this hypothetical woman more free, it doesn't stop oppression at home.
It does make sure they'll never get into a powerful position and therefore stay dependent on others which, hurray!? This is what we're hoping for here?
In your culture you're expected to wear a head covering but the government says you can't have certain positions available to everyone else (except those in your culture) so you are excluded from power in the state.
Man, I'm sure this will have no lasting consequences...
Yeah, my co-worker's family came over from Iran. She and another Persian co-worker were pretty happy with the ban. They're both pretty down on religion in general, having watched it ruin their previous country.
edit: they don't wear the headscarves unless they go back to visit family, they both view it as bullshit basic misogyny to keep women down.
So they're OK with a law that prevents them from wearing something they don’t want to wear and unhappy when dealing either a law that forces them to wear that same thing. Nice.
Um, yeah? They are against laws that say you have to do X and for laws that say you can't do X. This is perfectly consistent with a belief that X is bad. I'm not sure what point you were trying to make here.
If your problem is with women being told what they are allowed to wear then a law telling women that they are not allowed to wear something is a strange thing to support.
No it's not. Because the objection is not to the idea of someone telling someone else what they can and cannot wear, but to the specific thing and what it represents.
You know, the same way one could be against a ban on the niqab but in favour of a ban on wearing nazi symbolism or something similar.
How is it hard to understand that the government saying you can't wear what you want isn't better than your abusive husband saying you can't wear what you want?
Pretty hard because they aren't even remotely the same thing. The government has many powers that any individual does not possess.
Yeah, my co-worker's family came over from Iran. She and another Persian co-worker were pretty happy with the ban. They're both pretty down on religion in general, having watched it ruin their previous country.
edit: they don't wear the headscarves unless they go back to visit family, they both view it as bullshit basic misogyny to keep women down.
So they're OK with a law that prevents them from wearing something they don’t want to wear and unhappy when dealing either a law that forces them to wear that same thing. Nice.
Um, yeah? They are against laws that say you have to do X and for laws that say you can't do X. This is perfectly consistent with a belief that X is bad. I'm not sure what point you were trying to make here.
If your problem is with women being told what they are allowed to wear then a law telling women that they are not allowed to wear something is a strange thing to support.
No it's not. Because the objection is not to the idea of someone telling someone else what they can and cannot wear, but to the specific thing and what it represents.
Yeah, my co-worker's family came over from Iran. She and another Persian co-worker were pretty happy with the ban. They're both pretty down on religion in general, having watched it ruin their previous country.
edit: they don't wear the headscarves unless they go back to visit family, they both view it as bullshit basic misogyny to keep women down.
So they're OK with a law that prevents them from wearing something they don’t want to wear and unhappy when dealing either a law that forces them to wear that same thing. Nice.
Um, yeah? They are against laws that say you have to do X and for laws that say you can't do X. This is perfectly consistent with a belief that X is bad. I'm not sure what point you were trying to make here.
If your problem is with women being told what they are allowed to wear then a law telling women that they are not allowed to wear something is a strange thing to support.
No it's not. Because the objection is not to the idea of someone telling someone else what they can and cannot wear, but to the specific thing and what it represents.
You know, the same way one could be against a ban on the niqab but in favour of a ban on wearing nazi symbolism or something similar.
How is it hard to understand that the government saying you can't wear what you want isn't better than your abusive husband saying you can't wear what you want?
Pretty hard because they aren't even remotely the same thing. The government has many powers that any individual does not possess.
I don't agree that they aren't the same in this context.
The only difference is the "man" in this is the Quebec government and they're doing it to "save" these poor savages from their horrible culture.
Where have we heard this before I wonder....
Like, fundamentally the problem here is y'all seem to want some sort of first principles kind of ruling here. But that shit is stupid. The law (as in, the law in general not this specific bill) is not a mathematical axiom and exists to take specifics into consideration. The argument y'all are floating is the same kind of thing you see thrown around when it comes to banning certain kinds of speech. As if the law can't make a judgement on what is and is not acceptable.
Like, fundamentally the problem here is y'all seem to want some sort of first principles kind of ruling here. But that shit is stupid. The law (as in, the law in general not this specific bill) is not a mathematical axiom and exists to take specifics into consideration. The argument y'all are floating is the same kind of thing you see thrown around when it comes to banning certain kinds of speech. As if the law can't make a judgement on what is and is not acceptable.
I agree with you about the law but what someone wears doesn't do anything and the government regulating cultural beliefs and practices that don't directly affect other people is wrong and should not be done.
Also, everyone so far has side stepped the indigenous persons thing which is really all you need to know about supporters of this kind of law.
I'm just glad these kind of laws would never fly in any other province where institutional and cultural racism is at least a little less prevalent.
The only reason conservatives in other provinces are not pushing for those kind of laws is that Québec did it first. Now, they would lose a way to express their ancestral racism too if they stopped opposing it.
So give it 6 months. Once it's down the memory hole and Ontario has a legislative again.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/election-poll-climate-change-1.5178514
Public Square Research and Maru/Blue to capture a portrait of the country in this election year, found that while nearly two-thirds of Canadians see fighting climate change as a top priority, half of those surveyed would not shell out more than $100 per year in taxes to prevent climate change, the equivalent of less than $9 a month.
edit: If you agree to spend $15 on netflix every month but not more than $10 for climate change I am gonna go ahead and challenge your assertion that fighting Climate Change is a "Top" priority.
Like, fundamentally the problem here is y'all seem to want some sort of first principles kind of ruling here. But that shit is stupid. The law (as in, the law in general not this specific bill) is not a mathematical axiom and exists to take specifics into consideration. The argument y'all are floating is the same kind of thing you see thrown around when it comes to banning certain kinds of speech. As if the law can't make a judgement on what is and is not acceptable.
I agree with you about the law but what someone wears doesn't do anything and the government regulating cultural beliefs and practices that don't directly affect other people is wrong and should not be done.
Also, everyone so far has side stepped the indigenous persons thing which is really all you need to know about supporters of this kind of law.
I'm just glad these kind of laws would never fly in any other province where institutional and cultural racism is at least a little less prevalent.
I don't think anyone side-stepped it so much as they argued the core philosophical point at hand. But, I mean, if you really want to use another example, bring it up. What specific indigenous practice do you think applies here? What's the objectionable one in this case?
Like, fundamentally the problem here is y'all seem to want some sort of first principles kind of ruling here. But that shit is stupid. The law (as in, the law in general not this specific bill) is not a mathematical axiom and exists to take specifics into consideration. The argument y'all are floating is the same kind of thing you see thrown around when it comes to banning certain kinds of speech. As if the law can't make a judgement on what is and is not acceptable.
I agree with you about the law but what someone wears doesn't do anything and the government regulating cultural beliefs and practices that don't directly affect other people is wrong and should not be done.
Also, everyone so far has side stepped the indigenous persons thing which is really all you need to know about supporters of this kind of law.
I'm just glad these kind of laws would never fly in any other province where institutional and cultural racism is at least a little less prevalent.
I don't think anyone side-stepped it so much as they argued the core philosophical point at hand. But, I mean, if you really want to use another example, bring it up. What specific indigenous practice do you think applies here? What's the objectionable one in this case?
How about you stop trying to steer this to the actions and focus on what the law does which is outlaw clothing. Does everyone object to stoning adulterers? yes? Ok great, let's move on to what the law actually is.
I already addressed the fact that everything harmful about the practices are already illegal and therefore this law does nothing except further institutionalize racism and make more "others" who have no route to power without abandoning their culture.
edit: I'll take a stab at what you're asking anyway. Can an indigenous person, under this law, wear their traditional clothing and/or head dress as Premier? Or a cop? or a public school teacher?
My read of it is no and I'd like to understand how that is explained without racism.
Posts
I may be out of step here with the rest of the thread, but while I have absolutely no problems with hijabs (or chadors, or shayla, or al-amira for that matter), I do have a problem with niqabs. I think that it's serves to dehumanize women. I don't think it should be given a pass for cultural reasons; just because something has become part of a culture doesn't make it any less shitty. I don't know if banning it is the answer, and I recognize that the Quebec government are doing what they're doing because they're shitheads rather than because they actually care about women's rights.
Until we find a cure for religion, we will have to deal with their dehumanizing effects.
Religion does not need to be "cured."
But where religion is being used as a shield for shitty beliefs, I think that there's an argument for doing something. For example, Christians running conversion therapy - I'm perfectly happy to tell people to fuck off and that it's not permitted, even if and when people say that they want to go.
Steam: CavilatRest
The Charter does not give one an absolute and unassailable right to their religious beliefs. In fact it does not give any absolute and unassailable rights. Article 1 of the Charter starts off by saying all our rights and freedoms are subject to "reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society". So the question becomes, is it reasonable and justified to restrict religious rights when they are used to promote and protect toxic values that are not compatible with the fair and equal society we are trying to build.
I believe it is.
Would you say that the toxic value represented by veils &c is that women are being told what to wear, or something else?
Best reference to the niqab and such not being an islam thing is their ban over in Egypt...at a Islamic school. "On 8 October 2009, Egypt's top Islamic school and the world's leading school of Sunni Islam, Al-Azhar, banned the wearing of the niqab in classrooms and dormitories of all its affiliate schools and educational institutes." Their big religious leader type came out swinging against them.
I wasn't talking about veils specifically, or even about women rights in general. Any toxic belief - limiting women rights, gay rights, access to education and healthcare for children, and more - is a problem. Most religions have some form of them.
To answer your question now, my problem is not with being told what to wear. Frankly, I feel that's dodging the issue - we're all being told what to wear, all the time, by indecency laws, safety regulations, uniforms in some professions/schools, peer pressure, fashion trends, taboos and traditions, unwritten guidelines about what's "appropriate" in specific places and circumstances... Our freedom to wear whatever we want is very much less than we think. My problem is with any aspect of any religion (or law or culture) that sets women apart as lesser than men. A requirement to cover oneself, separate entrance, separate section in a house of worship, lower hierarchical roles in the organization, lesser weight in arbitration, lesser portion of inheritance, different classes in religious schooling, etc. etc., all fall in that category. That's the toxic value I have a problem with.
I do prefer Christianity in that respect. St Paul's requirement that women wear head covering in church is rooted in the Genesis story that angels saw uncovered women and fell in love with them, and begot half-human-half-angel superhuman children that God had to wipe out in the Flood.
I mean, if you're going to make up a theological reason for women to cover up, why stop at meek modesty when you can go all in with the insane world-destroying inhuman hybrid justification.
Great, yes, there is a section on reasonable limits. But I don't see how the law in question (Quebec one) passes either the pressing/substantial objective or minimal impairment components of the Oakes Test. Of course this is a question for the courts, but I think it's significant challenge to craft a law regarding this subject that wouldn't be struck down.
Steam: CavilatRest
Have you spoken to any women that wear a Niqab? Because that seems like a fairly important element in a discourse about what a woman can and cannot wear.
Of course then you need to wade into the debate around ethnocentrism, entrenched beliefs, etc etc. It's not a simple concept.
edit: they don't wear the headscarves unless they go back to visit family, they both view it as bullshit basic misogyny to keep women down.
Last I checked Christianity was hella sexist.... Women can't be (catholic) priests, it's literally in the start of the book that women are subject to men and caused original sin.... We should just ban churches!
Your arbitrary line is silly @Richy . If the women themselves wanted to not have to wear it full power to them and we have a society that will support them.
Now you are going to have the same women that may just never go to a hospital again or be able to access legal aid... You realize that is a government service, yeah? So good job Quebec making their situation worse so a bunch of racists can pat themselves on the back about how "progressive" they are.
The law is 100% targeted towards "others" and that continues QC Xenophobia
Generally, like the crusade against short skirts or whatever we've seen more recently here in the west, it's always about stopping men from being tempted. Women must cover themselves lest a man stray. Or, even worse, lest another man covet your property.
You realize that post of mine you quoted was in jest, right? I am not actually in favour of sexism when it is justified by half-angel-superhuman-baby-phobia. I'm sorry, I didn't realize that was something I needed to explicitly explain around here.
Sorry should have quoted the right post.
So they're OK with a law that prevents them from wearing something they don’t want to wear and unhappy when dealing either a law that forces them to wear that same thing. Nice.
Ah, that makes more sense. I trimmed the unnecessary parts.
Anyway, I agree with you. I am completely against the ban on face-covering to receive public services. My post about that was near the end of the previous page, so it may have been buried by the ongoing conversation. There is a line between secularism and xenophobia, and the last batch of amendments to Bill 21 moved it on the wrong side of that line IMO and it lost my support.
And yes, there is sexism in Catholicism and other religions, and I am against that as well. We should be fighting sexism and misogyny everywhere it exists, not exclusively in Islam nor in fact exclusively in religions. But that's not the same as banning religions. Just fighting back and limiting their toxic aspects.
We already have laws for all of this.
There are laws against domestic violence, there are laws against unlawful confinement, honor killings are illegal, etc.
You also can't make the judgement that a woman wearing the niqab is oppressed here in Canada.
Or, are we supposed to believe that only Muslim women wearing head/face coverings are suffering from misogyny? White women with their heads uncovered must be so free.
It's ridiculous to have what is essentially a colonial government to some decide what culture is.
Can you fucking imagine if there was a law anywhere else that said that indigenous people weren't able to wear their cultural garb if they wanted certain jobs?
If you have a problem talking to someone in a position of power who is wearing a turban, a niqab, a kippah or whatever else the problem is with you, not them.
First of all, the laws we have for this are there because the government decided what was and wasn't ok. And second, those things you listed, honour killings, some forms of domestic violence and unlawful confinement, are part of some cultures. The government has banned them here, because it (we) decided that even under the heading of cultural tolerance those were beyond the pale.
So, that unacceptable nightmare scenario of the government deciding which cultural practices we'll accept and which we'll make illegal and ban, it's already the reality we live in.
Someone can think the niqab et all should be banned and still believe women, white and otherwise, suffer from other forms of discrimination and misogyny.
And the government decides what behaviour is and is not acceptable all the time. The question of rightness or constitutionality depends on how one sees what their role is in doing that and on what grounds it happens.
Um, yeah? They are against laws that say you have to do X and for laws that say you can't do X. This is perfectly consistent with a belief that X is bad. I'm not sure what point you were trying to make here.
That's exactly my point?
The point is the behaviour is disallowed, not the dress because actions matter and fear based perceptions don't.
Are female Muslim heads of state allowed to visit Quebec?
Also, how about the supporters of this bill don't skip the other parts of my post. Specifically what would you tell indigenous leaders that wear traditional religious/cultural garb?
Or is that another "different" exception with some bullshit post hoc reasoning like wedding rings.
Yes they decide the behaviour, the ACTIONS, are unacceptable which I've been saying in every post since this thread was created.
What they do NOT do is ban what people wear because, in their racism, they believe a specific culture or cultures promotes said behaviour.
Can't wait for Quebec to ban tapout shirts and biker jackets for the same reasons.
How is it hard to understand that the government saying you can't wear what you want isn't better than your abusive husband saying you can't wear what you want?
If your problem is with women being told what they are allowed to wear then a law telling women that they are not allowed to wear something is a strange thing to support.
The action in this case would be "wearing X item of clothing". The action itself is the issue. The logic is that these kind of headcoverings and the wearing thereof is a act of oppression by the patriarchy in order to control women and their sexuality.
Which, you know, it 100% is. It's just highly questionable that a legal ban is actually a good way to deal with the issue.
Is the misogyny inherent in the cloth or in the removal of agency from women by dictating their manner of dress?
Besides the fact that someone choosing what to wear isn't an action in the context we're discussing I'd ask who is harmed by that action? Racists?
I am in no way harmed by having my leader wear a kippah or a niqab or a turban. If you are harmed by this I would suggest some time in front of a mirror and a counselor.
High heals are an act of oppression by the patriarchy and they aren't banned.
The law solves no problems. It does not make this hypothetical woman more free, it doesn't stop oppression at home.
It does make sure they'll never get into a powerful position and therefore stay dependent on others which, hurray!? This is what we're hoping for here?
In your culture you're expected to wear a head covering but the government says you can't have certain positions available to everyone else (except those in your culture) so you are excluded from power in the state.
Man, I'm sure this will have no lasting consequences...
Female empowerment m i rite?!
No it's not. Because the objection is not to the idea of someone telling someone else what they can and cannot wear, but to the specific thing and what it represents.
You know, the same way one could be against a ban on the niqab but in favour of a ban on wearing nazi symbolism or something similar.
Pretty hard because they aren't even remotely the same thing. The government has many powers that any individual does not possess.
Then we have very different objections.
I don't agree that they aren't the same in this context.
The only difference is the "man" in this is the Quebec government and they're doing it to "save" these poor savages from their horrible culture.
Where have we heard this before I wonder....
I mean its a bit more complex then that but
I agree with you about the law but what someone wears doesn't do anything and the government regulating cultural beliefs and practices that don't directly affect other people is wrong and should not be done.
Also, everyone so far has side stepped the indigenous persons thing which is really all you need to know about supporters of this kind of law.
I'm just glad these kind of laws would never fly in any other province where institutional and cultural racism is at least a little less prevalent.
So give it 6 months. Once it's down the memory hole and Ontario has a legislative again.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/election-poll-climate-change-1.5178514
Public Square Research and Maru/Blue to capture a portrait of the country in this election year, found that while nearly two-thirds of Canadians see fighting climate change as a top priority, half of those surveyed would not shell out more than $100 per year in taxes to prevent climate change, the equivalent of less than $9 a month.
edit: If you agree to spend $15 on netflix every month but not more than $10 for climate change I am gonna go ahead and challenge your assertion that fighting Climate Change is a "Top" priority.
I don't think anyone side-stepped it so much as they argued the core philosophical point at hand. But, I mean, if you really want to use another example, bring it up. What specific indigenous practice do you think applies here? What's the objectionable one in this case?
How about you stop trying to steer this to the actions and focus on what the law does which is outlaw clothing. Does everyone object to stoning adulterers? yes? Ok great, let's move on to what the law actually is.
I already addressed the fact that everything harmful about the practices are already illegal and therefore this law does nothing except further institutionalize racism and make more "others" who have no route to power without abandoning their culture.
edit: I'll take a stab at what you're asking anyway. Can an indigenous person, under this law, wear their traditional clothing and/or head dress as Premier? Or a cop? or a public school teacher?
My read of it is no and I'd like to understand how that is explained without racism.