Nenshi stance on wearing the niqab

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

That's nice and all, but other Muslims say it is a part of Islam. So does their Holy book.

They aren't wearing it for any reason other than their religion bids them to.

Well it has has been said that they wear it because men want them to wear it and the reason they want them to wear it is to keep women in a subjugated state. Looks like a cultural thing to me.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

That's nice and all, but other Muslims say it is a part of Islam. So does their Holy book.

They aren't wearing it for any reason other than their religion bids them to.

If the Quran actually states women need to cover up it just shows what a barbaric aged religion it really is.

[JohnnyB]

Are people in this thread trying to make a distinction between religious and cultural practice, as though any religious practice is not just cultural practice?

Also, what's not a "barbaric aged religion"? Scientology?

How can judging the barbarity of any religion be done except on the basis of cultural mores which, if they're actually different things and religion holds a special place, can't be as important as religious practice?

So many things I don't understand. This is a wacky conversation happening in here.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

Are people in this thread trying to make a distinction between religious and cultural practice, as though any religious practice is not just cultural practice?

Also, what's not a "barbaric aged religion"? Scientology?

How can judging the barbarity of any religion be done except on the basis of cultural mores which, if they're actually different things and religion holds a special place, can't be as important as religious practice?

So many things I don't understand. This is a wacky conversation happening in here.

It's folks just discussing a contentious subject that most don't have a cultural connection to. Most people in this forum, and most intelligent people in western cultures believe people should have the choice on how they dress, what they believe in, what their hobbies are, etc, etc etc. The difficult part is the niqab for all intensive purposes represents oppressing women, yet many women claim it's a choice for them.

So people here have a hard time forming their opinion on whether or not Canada should ban them in the interest of liberating women from oppressive practices from a far away culture, or allow the niqabs so women who choose to wear one can have their choice.

Me, I think what the niqab represents is incompatible with western culture of openness, freedom and choice.

[FlamesAddiction]

In the case of Zunera Ishaq, if anyone ever bothered to listen to her, she said that no one in her family wears one and it wasn't something that her husband ever thought of. It's something she chose to do after coming to Canada.

Surely a free-thinking woman doesn't need to be brainwashed to wear a veil.

Is it a sign of fundamentalism? Perhaps, but fundamentalism isn't against the law. There are fundamentalist Calvinist sects in Canada, that besides obeying the laws of the country, are not obligated to adhere to cultural norms. Why should Islam be any different?

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

In the case of Zunera Ishaq, if anyone ever bothered to listen to her, she said that no one in her family wears one and it wasn't something that her husband ever thought of. It's something she chose to do after coming to Canada.

Surely a free-thinking woman doesn't need to be brainwashed to wear a veil.

Is it a sign of fundamentalism? Perhaps, but fundamentalism isn't against the law. There are fundamentalist Calvinist sects in Canada, that besides obeying the laws of the country, are not obligated to adhere to cultural norms. Why should Islam be any different?

I think the answer to this question might make me sad.

[darklord700]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

In the case of Zunera Ishaq, if anyone ever bothered to listen to her, she said that no one in her family wears one and it wasn't something that her husband ever thought of. It's something she chose to do after coming to Canada.

This weakens the pro niqab argument in Ishaq's case significantly. You cannot just by choice wear anything you fancy to all social outings in Canada. You cannot wear denim, for example, to play golf. And some restaurants will not let male patrons in without a jacket and sometimes without a tie.

What should niqab be treated differently from those situations?

[JohnnyB]

Nobody's rights are significantly infringed upon by being unable to play golf or dining at a restaurant that requires a tie. They're not equivalent at all to being sworn in as a citizen.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

Nobody's rights are significantly infringed upon by being unable to play golf or dining at a restaurant that requires a tie. They're not equivalent at all to being sworn in as a citizen.

I think what the darklord is saying is that if there are dress codes for trivial things like a country club or restaurant, surely there should be one for an important ceremony like citizenship.

Afterall, she said that no one in her family wears one and her decision to wear one was just a choice.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by darklord700

This weakens the pro niqab argument in Ishaq's case significantly. You cannot just by choice wear anything you fancy to all social outings in Canada. You cannot wear denim, for example, to play golf. And some restaurants will not let male patrons in without a jacket and sometimes without a tie.

What should niqab be treated differently from those situations?

Jesus Christ, are you really unable to discern between what standards businesses can set and those that the government can set? The government has to abide by the Charter, businesses do not.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

^I think it goes further than that - wearing a tie or jeans don't actually have to do with a person's core beliefs, so denying someone the right to wear jeans does not interfere with their core values in the same way. If someone opened a golf course and said, "jeans are fine, hell, wear whatever you want to play golf; except no niqabs", odds are that person is doing it because they just don't like muslims. That's arguably a human rights issue even though it isn't a charter issue.

Originally Posted by Vulcan

I was misinformed about female circumcision, thanks but this CTV clip of the founder of the Canadian Congress denies that the Niqab is a part of Islam.

Yeah, I'm not terribly surprised he's saying that. But then there's the actual scripture. This is pretty much just like saying the eucharist isn't a part of Christianity.

There's this obfuscation practice that some people have been participating in for a number of years now, where they deny that there is a religious motivation for clearly religiously motivated behavior. Even Jihad, for some people, has no basis in Islamic doctrine.

That's insanity.

There are always multiple factors, including cultural and economic factors, that play into the way people behave. But denying that someone is doing something in large part because of religious belief, especially when they explicitly tell you they're doing it because of religious belief, is absolutely bonkers.

[darklord700]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Jesus Christ, are you really unable to discern between what standards businesses can set and those that the government can set? The government has to abide by the Charter, businesses do not.

So businesses don't have to follow the Charter and only government must? So it is perfectly ok for a restaurant to say not allowing anyone wearing a niqab entering, is that right?

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

I think what the darklord is saying is that if there are dress codes for trivial things like a country club or restaurant, surely there should be one for an important ceremony like citizenship.

Afterall, she said that no one in her family wears one and her decision to wear one was just a choice.

Hang on.


My understanding is:

1: She took the citizenship oath in private with a female judge and showed her face. Am I wrong?
2: She is legally allowed to wear the Nigab during the ceremonial public ceremony.


Am I wrong on this? She didn't break any laws. Again am I wrong on this?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by darklord700

So businesses don't have to follow the Charter and only government must? So it is perfectly ok for a restaurant to say not allowing anyone wearing a niqab entering, is that right?>

Correct. The Charter governs the relationship between citizens and the state. A business could run afoul of a provincial Human Rights tribunal by denying service to someone wearing a niqab, but the Charter does not play into it.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by darklord700

So businesses don't have to follow the Charter and only government must? So it is perfectly ok for a restaurant to say not allowing anyone wearing a niqab entering, is that right?>

Yes.

No, sort of.

Charter applies to the government not private persons. Human rights legislation deals with private persons.

[V]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

...for all intensive purposes...

You took a stupid debate about a stupid non-issue and made it even more stupider. Well done.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

EDIT: beaten twice.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by darklord700

This weakens the pro niqab argument in Ishaq's case significantly. You cannot just by choice wear anything you fancy to all social outings in Canada. You cannot wear denim, for example, to play golf. And some restaurants will not let male patrons in without a jacket and sometimes without a tie.

What should niqab be treated differently from those situations?

I won't pile on, but when I go to a social event that requires a dress code, part of the appeal for me is that I have an excuse to clean up and mingle in that type of atmosphere (although I can really only do it in small doses).

No one goes to a citizenship ceremony for the formal attire. They should be free to express who they are as Canada prides itself on freedom.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by V

You took a stupid debate about a stupid non-issue and made it even more stupider. Well done.

Chill gestapo. It's an ongoing joke to piss off gestapo like you.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

You can't even separate female genital mutilation from Islam, or more accurately, religion generally. I understand that it is a practice that is undertaken by multiple religions, and certainly not practiced by any significant number of muslims in the developed world. But that doesn't suggest there isn't a religious basis for it, only that there are religious motivations behind scorning women's sexuality in multiple religions (unsurprisingly given the role of women in the times and places these religions were founded).

There's a specific hadith in which Muhammad recommends female genital mutilation... there's certainly a basis for saying it's obligatory in islam and there are certainly a non-miniscule number of conservative muslims who think it's obligatory.

As for the niqab, how many passages in holy scripture do you need to conclude that this is a religious practice? There's a hadith stating that when the passage relating to "wearing veils over faces" was revealed by the Prophet, the women present tore up their sheets and covered their faces with them. How obvious does the connection need to be here?

I swear, the sensitivities to admitting there are any bad doctrines in just this one religion, or any connection between those doctrines and the way adherents behave... it's absolutely insane. Are you also going to suggest that Catholics refusing to wear condoms is a cultural practice?

I agree with you - you simply cannot divorce the religious aspect from this practice.

However, what I liked about the interviewee was the fact that he wasn't willing to give something a pass just because it was done under the guise of a belief in Islam. Whether he was trying to create separation between the niqab and Islam, or deflect criticism from Islam doesn't really concern me (and this is coming from someone who believes Islam deserves far more criticism than it already gets).