Banning/Allowing Religious Garbs

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by GGG

Your looking at it wrong. You don't expand a restriction because it's similar to other restrictions. You would expand a restriction if the causes for the restriction are the same.

So if people start robbing banks in Burkas then you deal with the issue but you don't ban a burka because people rob banks in Balaclavas.

As an aside can you really not have your face obscured in a bank? Is that a real law, or just a businesses policy.

It must just be business policy? I honestly don't know. They ask me to take my cover and shades off everytime. Shades are prescription.

To your first point, was there not a robbery in a jewelry store... Last year? Maybe a lil more? Believe it was Toronto, two individuals wearing the full suit, walked in, smashed and grabbed. I remember police asking for any help in identifying the perps as they had no leads. I'll look for the story.

[2Stonedbirds]

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/t...eist-1.2840489

GGG: Now would we not expand the restriction, as this case proves, the need for restriction is the same?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

Way to label about 700 million men misogynistic. I know that's your Favorite word to use but that's simply not true.

I live about 2 km away from Canada's largest nude beach. It is truly one of the few places in Canada where clothes-free behaviour is culturally ingrained. To be honest, as an Alberta, I was a little wary of the beach, but it is beautiful, and now my wife and I frequent it in the evening. Much of what goes on at the beach is pretty tame. There is a strong ethic of privacy, and people who take out cameras and attempt to take pictures - whether they are of the view or the beach - are quickly called out by regular beach-goers.

Yes, there is a little bit too much alcohol and drug consumption for my liking, but overall Wreck Beach is probably one of the best living examples of how a liberal society works at its best. People have their autonomy, but they use it to form communities that look out for the constituent members.

Anyway, there is a fairly regular occurrence - particularly on busy days - of Muslim men coming down to the beach, staying clothed, and uncomfortably gawking at topless or naked women. They are brazen, sometimes sitting or standing less than 2 or 3 meters from their targets. They freely take pictures, and when challenged become very aggressive, and one two occasions, there have been fisticuffs - once between a group of very gay, muscular men and a very uncomfortable group of Muslim men.

It's really hard to say there is not a misogyny problem in Islam, generally. It's also entirely wrong to solve this problem by taking it out on Muslim women.

EDIT: Total ramble.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

The following is a passage from the Qur'an.

Originally Posted by Qur'an, Sura 4:34

Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand.

Not all Muslim men are misogynistic. I suspect that very few Canadian Muslim men are. But it's hardly surprising, given the above and other examples, that societies that interpret the Qur'an and certain Hadiths strictly and attempt to enforce them lead to bad results for the women in those societies.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/t...eist-1.2840489

GGG: Now would we not expand the restriction, as this case proves, the need for restriction is the same?

I would probably argue first that there should be no restriction for ski masks. If there is an actual law restricting ski masks and upon review of data (rather than anecdote) the prevalence of Burka robberies is roughly equal to the prevalence of ski mask robberies then a law could be crafted on the same grounds.

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by GGG

I would probably argue first that there should be no restriction for ski masks. If there is an actual law restricting ski masks and upon review of data (rather than anecdote) the prevalence of Burka robberies is roughly equal to the prevalence of ski mask robberies then a law could be crafted on the same grounds.

I'm against restrictions as well. Religious or not but the powers that be have deemed otherwise. Now that we have seen burkas being used in the omission of a crime we... Don't do anything until it's as big a problem as balaclavas? That's BS. Either it's a risk or its not.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by peter12

Anyway, there is a fairly regular occurrence - particularly on busy days - of Muslim men coming down to the beach, staying clothed, and uncomfortably gawking at topless or naked women. They are brazen, sometimes sitting or standing less than 2 or 3 meters from their targets. They freely take pictures, and when challenged become very aggressive, and one two occasions, there have been fisticuffs - once between a group of very gay, muscular men and a very uncomfortable group of Muslim men.

This is the sort of behaviour that is suppressing topless sunbathing in Germany and Scandanavia, where it used to be common. People who think an influx of ultra-conservative men doesn't affect the social climate of the host country are kidding themselves.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

The following is a passage from the Qur'an.

Not all Muslim men are misogynistic. I suspect that very few Canadian Muslim men are. But it's hardly surprising, given the above and other examples, that societies that interpret the Qur'an and certain Hadiths strictly and attempt to enforce them lead to bad results for the women in those societies.

The following is a passage from the Christian Bible.

Galatians 3:28

28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave[a] nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Obviously, there is a single letter, attributed to Paul, that contradicts this spirit of Christian egalitarianism, but scholars now think it was a later insertion.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by taco.vidal

[GGG]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

I'm against restrictions as well. Religious or not but the powers that be have deemed otherwise. Now that we have seen burkas being used in the omission of a crime we... Don't do anything until it's as big a problem as balaclavas? That's BS. Either it's a risk of its not.

As far as I can tell there is no law about having your face covered in a bank.

In Bill 309 it bans face coverings in a riot and this appears to not include any caveats for Burkas.

So this whole discussion is likely moot.

However it's absolutely reasonable to distinguish between types of face coverings used to commit robberies when deciding whether or not to restrict a face covering in a place of business.

If there is 1 Burka robbery vs millions of ski mask robberies (no idea what the real numbers are) you'd absolutely be justified in ignoring the burka robberies until it became an issue. You evaluate the risk of each situation independently and react accordingly.

Now if your crafting a law the law similar to banning face masks in a riot is a good model as it only criminalizes criminal behaviour. So in the same way that committing a crime with a weapon carries a higher penalty you could (and there might already be a law like this) increase the penalty for committing a crime with your face obscured.

However it's perfectly reasonable to evaluate face coverings on a case by case basis looking to accommodate rather than exclude.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by peter12

The following is a passage from the Christian Bible.



Obviously, there is a single letter, attributed to Paul, that contradicts this spirit of Christian egalitarianism, but scholars now think it was a later insertion.

Have you read Leviticus?

In any of these surveys they should also survey Christians by denomination and location, Jews, Hindus, and Athiests to see a baseline. I wouldn't be surprised to see the Christian wives should obey their husbands in the same regions to be similar to the Muslim levels

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Yikes, this thread is about to go off the rails in a big way.

[calgaryblood]

Originally Posted by peter12

The following is a passage from the Christian Bible.



Obviously, there is a single letter, attributed to Paul, that contradicts this spirit of Christian egalitarianism, but scholars now think it was a later insertion.

The bible is full of Misogynstic quotes.

12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;[a] she must be quiet.


The women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.

[Looch City]

Sorry guys I think my holy book says it best:

Spoiler!

[peter12]

Originally Posted by GGG

Have you read Leviticus?

In any of these surveys they should also survey Christians by denomination and location, Jews, Hindus, and Athiests to see a baseline. I wouldn't be surprised to see the Christian wives should obey their husbands in the same regions to be similar to the Muslim levels

New Testament. Christian Scriptures. Second half.

Never mind.

EDIT: This was a defensive response, and I take it back.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

This is the sort of behaviour that is suppressing topless sunbathing in Germany and Scandanavia, where it used to be common. People who think an influx of ultra-conservative men doesn't affect the social climate of the host country are kidding themselves.

The topless sunbathing that used to be the norm in Northern Europe was/is almost entirely free of sexualization or voyeurism.

Social insouciance towards public nudity is an interesting medium between total misogyny and stigmatization of women's bodies, and the kind of bacchanalian pornographic display that you see at a Florida Spring Break Party.

A society's place on that rough spectrum is probably a good litmus of cultural egalitarianism and liberalism.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by peter12

New Testament. Christian Scriptures. Second half.

Never mind.

New Testament, eh?

Originally Posted by Ephesians 5:22-33

Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

[calgaryblood]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

New Testament, eh?

I really hope Peter12 replies to this and doesn't ignore it after he tried to make it seem the bible isn't Misogynstic earlier in this thread.

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by GGG

As far as I can tell there is no law about having your face covered in a bank.

In Bill 309 it bans face coverings in a riot and this appears to not include any caveats for Burkas.

So this whole discussion is likely moot.

However it's absolutely reasonable to distinguish between types of face coverings used to commit robberies when deciding whether or not to restrict a face covering in a place of business.

If there is 1 Burka robbery vs millions of ski mask robberies (no idea what the real numbers are) you'd absolutely be justified in ignoring the burka robberies until it became an issue. You evaluate the risk of each situation independently and react accordingly.

Now if your crafting a law the law similar to banning face masks in a riot is a good model as it only criminalizes criminal behaviour. So in the same way that committing a crime with a weapon carries a higher penalty you could (and there might already be a law like this) increase the penalty for committing a crime with your face obscured.

However it's perfectly reasonable to evaluate face coverings on a case by case basis looking to accommodate rather than exclude.

I think we likely agree on this issue as a whole, outside of my petulance in playing devils advocate. I wanna respond to this post but my long day just got longer. I'll do so later.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

New Testament, eh?

Yeah, I don't want to bring this off-track any further, but that particular quote is considered to be a later insertion. When you look at St. Paul's letters, there is significant evidence that a) the early church had significant female leadership, b) that equality between the sexes was paramount to Christian virtue, and, c) that Paul actively encouraged this process.

Not to say that it wasn't controversial, and hasn't retained that in this modern age. All religions tend to crystallize certain passages or interpretations based on current cultural trends. As a result, Christianity has inspired, produced, or been used to form the basis of a wide plurality of views on marriage, equality, and sexuality.