Rubecube, you have totally lost the plot on this ethically speaking.
Certainly not. Though it manifests itself in more extreme ways in many Islam-majority countries.
No we aren't. Aren't you the first to stand against slut-shaming? Rightly so. This is a far more patriarchical incarnation, of course - not all "women should be modest" ideas or implementations thereof are equal. Some result in conservative people thinking less of a girl for wearing a miniskirt, others involve burning said girl alive.
I never made the argument that they were all equal. I think we're largely in agreement here.
Quote:
Totally off the rails here. Islam is a set of ideas, not a race. It's also a religion practiced by 1.6 billion people from very different cultural and ethnic backgrounds. Even classifying this as a race issue is inherently racist. It implies you think that Islam = brown people.
Not really. I'm arguing that the "othering" that is happening here likely has racist undertones to it because it is generally directed at Muslims with darker skin, and that the colour of their skin and that religion isn't the only factor here.
The clothing that extreme mormon sects, mennonites, etc., mandate their women to wear are also forms of patriarchal oppression. The punishments may not be as severe and violent, but they can include things like expulsion from the sect for non-conformity, but these things are non-issues because they've been normalized and they look like 'us."
If you want to argue that the niqab is worse because it's symbolic of the severe violence women face in parts of the world, I'm not going to disagree, but I think we both would agree that symbolic-meaning is pretty subjective, and hardly something to base laws around.
Quote:
First of all, if a woman wants to wear a veil freely, that is her choice and no one in Canada should be permitted to stop her from doing so - subject to such limits as are appropriate in a democratic society (e.g. can't wear it in your driver's license photo or passport photo for ID reasons; if she gets arrested, she can't wear it in her mugshot). However, disagreeing with her choice is not the same as telling her what she can't wear, any more than you saying "you're an ####### if you wear a confederate flag shirt" is telling some guy he can't wear a confederate flag shirt. Sure he can, you just disagree with his beliefs, or at least what the flag stands for. Again, rightly so.
This is pretty much exactly my position on the subject. I don't like niqabs. I think they're vile and oppressive, but I don't feel I have a right to tell someone they can't wear one.
I don't think rube is championing it, but a lot of people do.
Like I said in my original post, this is something that I struggled with because in general forbidding something that's not physically hurting someone goes against the core of my beliefs. I just find the whole debate around it ironic.
It's a ####ty argument with no real winners. You're either restricting someone's personal autonomy, or you're allowing them a demonstration of an oppressive cultural practice.
It's perfectly valid to question why conservative Christians are routinely called out by Western progressives for their backward and intolerant credos, while ultra-conservative non-Christians get a free pass. Identity politics fosters some peculiar double-standards.
Agreed. But to suggest there's some "typical liberal hypocrisy" because if conflicting views is absurd.
I don't support forcing any women to dress modestly, but I certainly don't support a ban on wearing it as that's now the government restricting choice (except where necessary).
That's not hypocrisy, it's a complex issue and boiling anything down to "typical response" is insulting to everyone
It's a ####ty argument with no real winners. You're either restricting someone's personal autonomy, or you're allowing them a demonstration of an oppressive cultural practice.
Yeah, and I think in addition to the ####ty rationale behind it, there's just a basic humanity that gets interrupted by it. We're a social species, we communicate through more than just language. A Mennonite in a scarf and long dress or a woman in a hijab and long dress don't block this. You can look them in the face, which is so crucial in our communication.
I think root of the issue is this reason. You're becoming a citizen, and we want you to allow the person swearing you in the look you in the face. I think a lot of people who support it do it for a racist reason, no doubt, But not everyone who does does it for racial reasons.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterJoji
Johnny eats garbage and isn’t 100% committed.
Last edited by nik-; 10-14-2015 at 12:30 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to nik- For This Useful Post:
It's not like "liberal" or "conservative" have set templates that one person has to firmly fit inside.
The niqab issue issue is a wedge issue precisely because an argument can be made either way.
Personally, I believe that even if a minority of women want to wear it because they feel good about it (and some have stated such), then the government has no place in telling them they can't.
We should however be doing our best to educate muslim women in Canada on their rights and more to deter men who make them wear it.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
The Following User Says Thank You to FlamesAddiction For This Useful Post:
It's perfectly valid to question why conservative Christians are routinely called out by Western progressives for their backward and intolerant credos, while ultra-conservative non-Christians get a free pass. Identity politics fosters some peculiar double-standards.
This is always some weird red herring that gets trotted out whenever progressives criticize Christianity. I can only speak for myself personally, but I recognize there has and always will be barbaric aspects of most major religions, and that they should be called out when those acts are committed in their names. The most likely reason that Christians get called to the carpet more often by Western progressives is because they wield a tremendous amount of influence that actually contributes to the poor treatment or denial of rights to certain sections of Western society, whereas Muslims in the West do not.
This is always some weird red herring that gets trotted out whenever progressives criticize Christianity. I can only speak for myself personally, but I recognize there has and always will be barbaric aspects of most major religions, and that they should be called out when those acts are committed in their names. The most likely reason that Christians get called to the carpet more often by Western progressives is because they wield a tremendous amount of influence that actually contributes to the poor treatment or denial of rights to certain sections of Western society, whereas Muslims in the West do not.
But there is also a clear trend by progressives to deny that actions explicitly stated to be motivated by doctrines in Islam are actually motivated by them. Which is why the President of the USA feels that in order to not offend people he needs to say that suicide bombings have nothing to do with Islam.
In other words, there seems to be a safe haven for Islam, from the exact sort of criticism you're talking about here for Christianity among a ton of progressives. It's characterized by these guys as "racist", which is why I wasn't in a hurry to accept your earlier characterization of this issue. Including guys who get on CNN to talk about it:
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
Harper's Israel cheerleading has more to do with the decline of how Canada is viewed in the ME than the Niqab debate. Personally I dislike the niqab and feel it has no place in any civilized society. It's not a religious obligation and thus has no justification to be worn here. Immigrating to Canada is a privilege and if you feel you can't exist in this society except by hiding yourself, than plainly you don't belong here.
Harper's Israel cheerleading has more to do with the decline of how Canada is viewed in the ME than the Niqab debate.
This. Also, our treatment of aboriginals is starting to get more play internationally, which I can't really lay that at Harper's feet, though he's done absolutely nothing in regards to addressing aboriginal issues.
Quote:
Personally I dislike the niqab and feel it has no place in any civilized society. It's not a religious obligation and thus has no justification to be worn here. Immigrating to Canada is a privilege and if you feel you can't exist in this society except by hiding yourself, than plainly you don't belong here.
"If you don't like it, go back to where you came from!" is a more Canadian value than freedom of expression?
"If you don't like it, go back to where you came from!" is a more Canadian value than freedom of expression?
That's not what he said at all, so there's no reason to hyperbole it up. The fact is that Canada pretty much has the pick of the litter when it comes to immigrants. Why take people who would need to be re-educated to conform to a modern, secular society? Why not just take people who more or less value the norms of modern democracies? You can still have fabulous diversity by choosing the latter over the former.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterJoji
Johnny eats garbage and isn’t 100% committed.
The Following User Says Thank You to nik- For This Useful Post:
I don't think we should give up very much ground to Wahhabists that are fundamentally against our society. That ideology is a recent invention that has been exported around the world by Saudi oil money.
Last edited by burn_this_city; 10-14-2015 at 01:40 PM.
But there is also a clear trend by progressives to deny that actions explicitly stated to be motivated by doctrines in Islam are actually motivated by them. Which is why the President of the USA feels that in order to not offend people he needs to say that suicide bombings have nothing to do with Islam.
Well I think that comes down to a matter of personal autonomy. You can criticize Islam for the scripture, ideology, whatever, but it still comes down to personal choice. It's not Islam itself that is causing suicide bombings. It's #######s who are choosing to follow a literal interpretation of it. I think progressives tend to get their backs up when the argument reduced to the idea that violence is something that a majority of Muslims are capable of or prone to, without considering the social and political contexts that go along with the religious factors.
I'd say the same thing about Christians. Islam and Christianity are both generally terrible, patriarchal, outdated, and vile to me, but they're just beliefs. They don't cause anyone to do anything. If someone is indoctrinated with scripture to the point that they're willing to commit a violent act, that falls on those doing the indoctrinating and those committing the violence, not on the scripture or the religious abstract. I don't blame Christianity for the ####ty things that Christians do. I blame the Catholic Church as an institution for the egregious acts they've committed and continue to do so, but Catholicism itself isn't to blame.
That's not what he said at all, so there's no reason to hyperbole it up. The fact is that Canada pretty much has the pick of the litter when it comes to immigrants. Why take people who would need to be re-educated to conform to a modern, secular society? Why not just take people who more or less value the norms of modern democracies? You can still have fabulous diversity by choosing the latter over the former.
That's a fair point, and I guess it depends on what you view as our duty to the international community. However if a few slip through the cracks, I'd rather make the accommodations (so long as they're not hurting anyone else) and attempt re-educate rather than put limits on personal freedoms.
The most likely reason that Christians get called to the carpet more often by Western progressives is because they wield a tremendous amount of influence that actually contributes to the poor treatment or denial of rights to certain sections of Western society, whereas Muslims in the West do not.
In Canada? Can you give some examples of Christians contributing to the poor treatment of other sections of society? Let's look at opposition to sex education in schools. A disproportionate number of parents strongly opposed to it are immigrants from countries more socially conservative than Canada (which is almost all of them). And when Harper's conservatives use social issues as a wedge, it's with the knowledge that they appeal to immigrants.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
It sort of seems like we're kicking the can down the road. This niqab debate isn't a big deal. But when someone's kid shows up to school with one, we'll have a much bigger issue. We'll be having a pretty careful look a freedom from religion at some point.
Also mormon men also have dress codes, equally boring and plain being the order of the day.
I'd say the same thing about Christians. Islam and Christianity are both generally terrible, patriarchal, outdated, and vile to me, but they're just beliefs. They don't cause anyone to do anything. If someone is indoctrinated with scripture to the point that they're willing to commit a violent act, that falls on those doing the indoctrinating and those committing the violence, not on the scripture or the religious abstract. I don't blame Christianity for the ####ty things that Christians do. I blame the Catholic Church as an institution for the egregious acts they've committed and continue to do so, but Catholicism itself isn't to blame.
This is nonsense though. Beliefs clearly cause people to do things in the sense that they motivate specific behaviour. This should be completely obvious, whether the beliefs are religious or otherwise.
This is why if you're a particularly strict believer in Christianity, you're not out blowing up synagogues because of some belief in martyrdom during the course Jihad being a guaranteed path to paradise, which isn't an explicit doctrine of Christianity. By the same token, if you're a particularly devout Muslim, you're not sending death threats to people doing embryonic stem cell research, it's not an Islamic doctrine that a soul enters an embryo at conception. And if you're a total fundamentalist practitioner of Jainism, we have nothing to worry about from you at all, really.
The actual beliefs contained in these religious traditions have actual real-world consequences that manifest in how people live their lives according to those beliefs.
The practical upshot of this is, we need to point the finger not just at the crazy people doing crazy things, but at the doctrines that are motivating them to do those crazy things, and talk about why those doctrines don't work in modern society.
"No, we should not be cutting off the hands of thieves, and here is why..."
"No, it is not a good thing to compare women to livestock, because..."
"No, people should not be killed for changing their religious views, and here is why..."
"No, it is not productive to try to find and burn witches, because..."
This should be completely uncontroversial and it sadly isn't. All ideas must be exposed to criticism in a free and liberal democratic society. Every single one. It's the only way to expose the bad ideas.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
Yeah, and I think in addition to the ####ty rationale behind it, there's just a basic humanity that gets interrupted by it. We're a social species, we communicate through more than just language. A Mennonite in a scarf and long dress or a woman in a hijab and long dress don't block this. You can look them in the face, which is so crucial in our communication.
I think root of the issue is this reason. You're becoming a citizen, and we want you to allow the person swearing you in the look you in the face. I think a lot of people who support it do it for a racist reason, no doubt, But not everyone who does does it for racial reasons.
I'm not sure how many people know this or not, but Mennonites aren't allowed to swear. There is a simple reason for this, but you won't catch a hard and fast Mennonite in a swearing in ceremony anyways.
So you can look a Mennonite in the eye, but you won't hear them saying an oath to you. Especially an oath taken with a Bible.
All ideas must be exposed to criticism in a free and liberal democratic society. Every single one. It's the only way to expose the bad ideas.
This.
You used to be able to count on conservatives pushing back against that fundamental tenet of liberalism. But today, it's the dogmatic left who get agitated when the cold light of reason is raised high.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Without going into how I feel about the whole thing, I thought I'd share an interesting story for me today. I work for a post-secondary where I travel to talk to students about studying at my school in Canada. I'm currently in the Middle East and the Canadian election and specifically the niqab is all over all the local media here. For the first time in five years I had multiple students (and I've never heard this before) say to me.. "Not interested in Canada.. I am obviously not welcome" ... I am still taken back by this. I've recruited on almost every continent and I have never heard a student and I have never heard anything like this. As much as people say it is a non-issue, it was clear to me today that it has global implications
I've certainly seen sentiments change towards Canada over the last ten years and it has become more negative than before.
While it's easy to dismiss perception abroad, it is not only people outside Canadian borders who are being made to feel marginalised by the conservative position. People who say "we don't need them anyways" are missing the bigger picture.
__________________
"If stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?"
Location: In a land without pants, or war, or want. But mostly we care about the pants.
Exp:
Personally I think even debating the niqab is perpetuating the practice, you are setting up a confrontation on something that's quite nebulous and peripheral, which only gives traditionalists a fight they can win. You're not going to alter what older generations think, what you want to do is convince the young that Canadian values are superior to their traditional values, and the problem solves itself.
Creating an exclusive society where Muslims are perceived as not being welcome is actively harmful to that strategy. It is short-sighted and foolish, and that the CPC has embraced this as some kind of flag-waving "values" battle shows their utter lack of principle in the pursuit of power.
__________________
Better educated sadness than oblivious joy.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to jammies For This Useful Post:
