Quebec's Religious Neutrality Law

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

It's true that Islam isn't a race. Still, it's hard to dispute that concern over the niqab has nothing to do with racists. Some criticism is over displays of religion, some is about the oppression of women, and some is about nativism and hostility to foreign cultures.

On the other hand, race is also a factor in the defence of the niqab. If it wasn't Islam, but some fundamentalist Christian sect out of the U.S. that mandated women had to cover their faces in public, I wager a great many people championing tolerance of the niqab today wouldn't have any problem with enacting legislation to suppress that custom.

Okay, perhaps "nothing to do with racists" is too black and white. I'd concede that -- in some contexts -- it probably has something to do with racist opinions. I agree with your second paragraph 100%, I don't even think it would be in question as to what response you'd see.

It's a touchy subject at the best of times, but far too often I find that my people -- those on the left side of the political spectrum -- are way too quick to jump in and blanket defend foreign cultures. Exposure to foreign cultures are generally a good thing; among other things, they bring new forms of entertainment, food, and viewpoint diversity. Hell, the fact that I was raised with a significant amount of foreign cultural influence alongside my decidedly lower-middle class Canadian upbringing is something I'm very thankful for (I'm half Pakistani).

But we have to evaluate individual cultural components on their merits, and the mixing of both Canadian and (in my case) Pakistani components allowed me to compare, contrast, and reject negative components of each as I got older, while also appreciating their differences and value to my life.

Now, whether the niqab is a religious or cultural effect is of no meaningful distinction to me, though they are viewed differently in a legal context; neither is a good excuse. The way in which people are coerced to wear it (and the punishments for failure to comply) and the underlying implication it has (women are chattel, women must be modest and cover themselves because somehow men in those cultures just can't help themselves if they see a bit of skin) doesn't wash. It's anti-woman. People want to bitch about patriarchy, well here's one of the most egregious offenders literally staring them in the face, and they're tripping over themselves to defend the practice.

Again, I don't know what the answer is here. It isn't ideal to tell people "you can't wear X", but it is definitely not ideal to allow an abusive and dehumanizing practice like this one to survive scrutiny in our country under the guise of either religion or culture, and it should be discouraged. Quebec's approach is a far less severe one than that of France, and in my opinion, it's a much more reasonable first step.

[Fuzz]

I think the problem is that these women have probably been made to wear the burka, not by choice, all their lives. They may now feel comfortable in it, even if it is a symbol of repression. So by banning it in this situation, it actually does more harm to the woman by ostracizing them, so much so that they may choose it is better to not put themselves in a situation where they would be forced to remove it.

I'm not sure the solution to burka issue, other than, as usual, education and preventing young women being forced into the practice.

[TorqueDog]

^I'd thank you twice if I could. Great points.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

Now, whether the niqab is a religious or cultural effect is of no meaningful distinction to me, though they are viewed differently in a legal context; neither is a good excuse. The way in which people are coerced to wear it (and the punishments for failure to comply) and the underlying implication it has (women are chattel, women must be modest and cover themselves because somehow men in those cultures just can't help themselves if they see a bit of skin) doesn't wash. It's anti-woman. People want to bitch about patriarchy, well here's one of the most egregious offenders literally staring them in the face, and they're tripping over themselves to defend the practice.

Yes, and pointing out the genesis and rationale underlying this practice and its ties to purity culture, and thereby hopefully convincing people not to wear it if they don't want to display a symbol of those wrongs, is the correct response. Not banning it because the moral majority knows what's best for people. I mean, we don't arrest people for wearing the confederate flag, and look what that's associated with.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Yes, and pointing out the genesis and rationale underlying this practice and its ties to purity culture, and thereby hopefully convincing people not to wear it if they don't want to display a symbol of those wrongs, is the correct response. Not banning it because the moral majority knows what's best for people. I mean, we don't arrest people for wearing the confederate flag, and look what that's associated with.

Yes but there is a difference, if you wear a confederate flag in public, you're going to basically get called out on it.

Nice flag you racist Ahole.

Hey maybe you should spend less on your flag and more on your dental care

Get an education dumba$$.

I don't think we want to have it that people are doing then same thing to woman do we.

Frankly we can argue about education leading to the end of the Burka, but most of the woman that are forced to wear it are coming from a home that is more fundamentalist and no education is going to change that because they're under the thumb of that findamental family, and then married off to some like minded schlub that's going to make them wear it.

If you deny services to woman wearing these things, they're just going to further remove themselves from the general society.

[CliffFletcher]

Canadian law prohibits the practice of polygamy, even though many of the women in the cultures where it's practised will say they don't object to it. So this sort of imposition of cultural norms isn't without precedent.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Canadian law prohibits the practice of polygamy, even though many of the women in the cultures where it's practised will say they don't object to it. So this sort of imposition of cultural norms isn't without precedent.

I think you can legitimately prove harm from polygamy. You can't with burqas. So I think it might be unprecedented in that sense. I can't think of another cultural norm we uphold by law that causes no harm. Gay marriage being the latest to fall.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

I think you can legitimately prove harm from polygamy. ...

How?

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

I think you can legitimately prove harm from polygamy. You can't with burqas. So I think it might be unprecedented in that sense. I can't think of another cultural norm we uphold by law that causes no harm. Gay marriage being the latest to fall.

That's ridiculous. What's the harm with polygamy. There's literally nothing preventing three people from living together as husband(s) and wife(s), they just can't legally get married but can act in the same way.


The symbol of the burka is prima facie harmful. They serve no other function to oppress women.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

How?

Oh I think you know. It does skew the marriage possibilities for other men in societies that practice polygamy. You may think it's not a real issue but in fact it is. A small polygamous community in Northern Arizona routinely drops off "extra" young men in other towns so that more of "its" women folk are available for marriage to older men. This strains social services. On a large scale polygamous societies are more violent and less productive. I also suspect social benefits become in equal portions abused and unavailable to those who need them. I'm married to two hundred women...where are my health benefits coming from? Civil legal issues abound. And frankly, 190 kids, one dad, 200 moms? Does that sound like an advantageous upbringing?

Originally Posted by corporatejay

That's ridiculous. What's the harm with polygamy. There's literally nothing preventing three people from living together as husband(s) and wife(s), they just can't legally get married but can act in the same way.


The symbol of the burka is prima facie harmful. They serve no other function to oppress women.

Disagree with all that. Polyamourous and polygamous are very different.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

Oh I think you know. It does skew the marriage possibilities for other men in societies that practice polygamy. You may think it's not a real issue but in fact it is. A small polygamous community in Northern Arizona routinely drops off "extra" young men in other towns so that more of "its" women folk are available for marriage to older men. This strains social services. On a large scale polygamous societies are more violent and less productive. I also suspect social benefits become in equal portions abused and unavailable to those who need them. I'm married to two hundred women...where are my health benefits coming from? Civil legal issues abound. And frankly, 190 kids, one dad, 200 moms? Does that sound like an advantageous upbringing?..

I admit, I was a little facetious. But the examples above prove that polygamy may result in harmful consequences for its practitioners. But so can any marriage. And it does in roughly 50% of the cases. Polygamy can also result in numerous positive outcomes. We just do not like polygamy, in general, because it goes against the established norms of a modern secular(-ish) society. Angst and protest against face covering are analogous in approach.

[blankall]

Do people really think that education is the solution? Or that change will come naturally? Have you not looked at a newspaper in the last 10 years? Things are going the exact opposite way. These fundamentalist behaviours are not traditional behaviours that are slowly being wiped out. In fact, it's the opposite, these are new behaviours that are being imposed recently. Look at pictures of places like Iran, Afghanistan, or even Saudi Arabia from 40 years ago. These communities were far more liberal than they are today.

And yes, obviously wearing a burqa is not going to be great for your career prospects. Do you honestly see a woman wearing a burqa, which prevents all eye contact and expression of facial feature, having the same job opportunities as a woman who gets to wear whatever she chooses.

Another issue, is that many women don't really have the choice. The choice for them is wearing a burqa or total ostracization from their family and community. These are women who are largely economically dependent on family, as they are less likely to be educated. Even if 99% of the women are for wearing it, there are likely to be a sizeable number of women who are effectively forced into wearing it.

That being said, I don't think that Quebec is going about this in the right way. Their approach is likely to create further conflict. I have no idea what the right answer is.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

I admit, I was a little facetious. But the examples above prove that polygamy may result in harmful consequences for its practitioners. But so can any marriage. And it does in roughly 50% of the cases. Polygamy can also result in numerous positive outcomes. We just do not like polygamy, in general, because it goes against the established norms of a modern secular(-ish) society. Angst and protest against face covering are analogous in approach.

No that's not true. Polygamy when widely practiced in society drives down the age of married women creates too many single men. It's a quantifiable hazard to modern society not to mention a moral and cultural blemish to the way we live. It's a strain on public services and costs you unfairly.

Burqa's harm you in no way. Socially, it's much more believable when a woman of any age chooses to wear a burqa than when a 16 year old agrees to marry a 55 year old.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

No that's not true. Polygamy when widely practiced in society drives down the age of married women creates too many single men. It's a quantifiable hazard to modern society not to mention a moral and cultural blemish to the way we live. It's a strain on public services and costs you unfairly.

Burqa's harm you in no way. Socially, it's much more believable when a woman of any age chooses to wear a burqa than when a 16 year old agrees to marry a 55 year old.

You're using the underage girl card to make it easier. Take it out of the issue. In fact, take a completely opposite situation – an older man marrying several older women in a community, where older women outnumber older men significantly. Everyone's happy. Why not then?

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by blankall

D...Their approach is likely to create further conflict. ...

There is no way to deal with these issues without creating a conflict. It has to create a conflict and it has to live through the conflict. The conflict itself should not be a deterrent to a good public policy. Yes, it will be difficult and uncomfortable for those women that are covering their faces now. But it will be much easier for their daughters and grand-daughters.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

There is no way to deal with these issues without creating a conflict. It has to create a conflict and it has to live through the conflict. The conflict itself should not be a deterrent to a good public policy. Yes, it will be difficult and uncomfortable for those women that are covering their faces now. But it will be much easier for their daughters and grand-daughters.

I don't disagree. However, is the policy actually going to achieve its goals? In the long run, will it just close dialogue between groups and further force women out of the public?

Honestly, I don't know the answer to these questions. Thus far, every attempt to deal with radical Islam has failed miserably. Olive branches have been taken advantage of by radical elements (see the UK). Aggressive opposition has led to destabalization and further radicalization.

[OMG!WTF!]

You're using the underage girl card to make it easier. Take it out of the issue. In fact, take a completely opposite situation – an older man marrying several older women in a community, where older women outnumber older men significantly. Everyone's happy. Why not then?

Yes, but that's not what happens. Polygamy patently drives down the age women get married. You can create a happy scenario for burqa's as well...established women deciding with no coercion that they want to faithfully fulfill a more pious life. I know that's not what happens all the time. You know that's not what happens. But we already have laws protecting women from coercion and what is essentially kidnapping. It should be our responsibility to try to enforce those laws rather than add new laws that make the problem worse. If we had no laws against polygamy it would be legal to create detrimental societal conditions. There would be nothing protecting the rest of us from a more violent and less productive society.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by blankall

Do people really think that education is the solution? Or that change will come naturally? Have you not looked at a newspaper in the last 10 years? Things are going the exact opposite way. These fundamentalist behaviours are not traditional behaviours that are slowly being wiped out. In fact, it's the opposite, these are new behaviours that are being imposed recently. Look at pictures of places like Iran, Afghanistan, or even Saudi Arabia from 40 years ago. These communities were far more liberal than they are today.

This is a good point. The notion that Islamic societies naturally move away from conservative religious mores doesn't hold up. Look at Turkey - it's far less secular than it was even 15 years ago.

So I guess what we're hoping for is assimilation into broader Canadian norms. But isn't that something we don't like to push in Canada?

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

... If we had no laws against polygamy it would be legal to create detrimental societal conditions. There would be nothing protecting the rest of us from a more violent and less productive society.

This is where I was driving with the argument, actually. I could care less about polygamy, which is no longer an issue, really. Create the law against face covering and it will eventually be gone. If that's the outcome the society desires, it will get it. Does the society truly desire this outcome and what is it willing to sacrifice to get there, is a totally different matter. The personal liberty argument is so weak in this case though...

[SebC]

OMG!WTF!

Do you think that polygamy would have the same effects in Canada that it does in the places where it's practiced? Women here, generally, have far greater economic power.

As for the "unmarried men" argument, there are plenty of policies that create winners and "losers". Not pushing women to marry less-desirable men by limiting the ability of a desirable man to marry them is a case where I think creating "losers" is acceptable. Again though, this would be less of a factor in Canada or a similar society where less-desirable men are less likely to find partners anyways - as there are many women who would rather be single than settle.

Polygamy is a problem where the liberty of the married is in question. Likewise, the niqab is a problem where the liberty of the wearer is in question. And if I had to take my chances with one of them being consensual and not the result of oppressive circumstances, I'd go with polygamy.