Nenshi stance on wearing the niqab

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by pylon

My position is politics should never, ever pander to religion.

This sentence is open to interpretation. "Pander" can mean a lot of different things.

Consider for example, that in Canada, with gender equality enshrined in our Charter, and to a less binding level, in our human rights legislation provincially, not one female has been elevated to role of Priest in a Catholic church, nor to my knowledge has any person taken the issue to the courts or a human rights commission. To flip it to the males, I am unaware of any priest in Canada challenging the church obligation on the (necessarily male) priest to remain celibate as a condition of their priesthood.

It seems we accept these things as given and reasonable even though when you look at it, we're just defending practice given down to us from those before us-- those practices have been part of Canadian society for a couple hundred years at least but aren't challenged.

Here we have identified a clear wrong -- men requiring women they "own" to hide their identity -- and I think we all agree it is wrong -- yet some of us defend it as a religious right protected under our Charter.

I've looked this up further, and its not even accepted as a religious requirement in most Muslim "sects" (I use that word loosely I don't understand it).

But it is a requirement in some aspects of Sharia Law.

Today Jason Kenney provided a good defence of the PC position, not related to what I've posted above, but what he said included that, someone who seeks Canadian citizenship in the public ceremony should at least be required to show their face for 30 seconds.

What is wrong with that? Why do these women need to go see a female-only citizenship officer, to confirm their identity in a side booth? And then why would the other citizens be prevented from seeing who is in that ceremony with them? In some ways this would suggest that the ideals implicit in the Charter, are subservient to Sharia Law for the purposes of a citizenship ceremony in Canada.

[darklord700]

Originally Posted by Delgar

Today Jason Kenney provided a good defence of the PC position, not related to what I've posted above, but what he said included that, someone who seeks Canadian citizenship in the public ceremony should at least be required to show their face for 30 seconds.

We shouldn't discuss the oppression the niqab represents, it is the right of the woman who chooses to wear it or not.

The simple fact is, to this country, this society and their people, is the requirement of showing your face for a brief moment a violation of your personal rights or the Charter?

To me the answer is no. Particularly in this country, those women would have needed to show their faces for immigration, passport or drivers license application purposes already.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Delgar

And then why would the other citizens be prevented from seeing who is in that ceremony with them?

Who cares? I really doubt you actually do.

Do you think the people in that ceremony are worried, or actually have some sort of right to see the nose and lips of the other people in the room with them while they go through the motions?

Originally Posted by Delgar

In some ways this would suggest that the ideals implicit in the Charter, are subservient to Sharia Law for the purposes of a citizenship ceremony in Canada.

"In some ways it would suggest..." indeed. That goddamn Sharia law is taking over! Today the morons pretend we can't say Merry Christmas. Tomorrow we'll be going to mosque at gunpoint.

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Who cares? I really doubt you actually do.

Do you think the people in that ceremony are worried, or actually have some sort of right to see the nose and lips of the other people in the room with them while they go through the motions?





"In some ways it would suggest..." indeed. That goddamn Sharia law is taking over! Today the morons pretend we can't say Merry Christmas. Tomorrow we'll be going to mosque at gunpoint.

I don't think there is anything worthwhile in here to respond to but quote it before it gets deleted, for posterity.

[Amethyst]

Originally Posted by Delgar

Here we have identified a clear wrong -- men requiring women they "own" to hide their identity -- and I think we all agree it is wrong -- yet some of us defend it as a religious right protected under our Charter.

I disagree, First of all, how do we know in any case that the first statement is true? Maybe the woman grew up in a family where it was done. She is now married to a main who is a little more open-minded, moving to Canada and all, who is fine with her not wearing it, but she feels more comfortable that way. We just say, "Sorry, your wishes don't matter, take it off"?

What if a woman had been horribly disfigured in an accident and didn't feel comfortable having strangers stare at her wounds? "Nope, sorry, if you want to join this country, you must let us see."

Not sure what other's reasons are, but I don't defend it as a religious right. I defend it as no one (husband, father, or government official) should be telling any adult woman what to wear.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Amethyst

I disagree, First of all, how do we know in any case that the first statement is true? Maybe the woman grew up in a family where it was done. She is now married to a main who is a little more open-minded, moving to Canada and all, who is fine with her not wearing it, but she feels more comfortable that way. We just say, "Sorry, your wishes don't matter, take it off"?

You can invent any argument you want for why any hypothetical singular person would have different reasoning for it, but I think we both know the overall purpose behind dehumanizing a person like this.

[MarchHare]

There are certain branches of Christianity, like the Pentecostals and Mennonites, where women are forced to dress in modest clothing and have "feminine" hairstyles. This is absolutely no different whatsoever than the dress codes of some branches of Islam where women wear a hijab or niqab. The dress codes of all these religious groups stem from an outdated patriarchal system where women were expected to conform to the will of their fathers and husbands.

If a woman shows up to a Canadian citizenship ceremony dressed like this, neither Jason Kenney nor Stephen Harper nor 82% of polled Canadians would care in the least. However, if a woman shows up to a Canadian citizenship dressed like this, now all of a sudden Kenney and Harper oppose it and see themselves as champions of women's equality. If they're so concerned about fighting against the oppression of women, though, then why aren't they equally opposed to the dress codes of Pentecostal and Mennonite women? It's because they don't give a damn about these Muslim women, they're just cynically engaging in identity politics and attempting to capitalize on Islamaphobia, racism, and xenophobia.

[Dagger]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

There are certain branches of Christianity, like the Pentecostals and Mennonites, where women are forced to dress in modest clothing and have "feminine" hairstyles. This is absolutely no different whatsoever than the dress codes of some branches of Islam where women wear a hijab or niqab. The dress codes of all these religious groups stem from an outdated patriarchal system where women were expected to conform to the will of their fathers and husbands.

If a woman shows up to a Canadian citizenship ceremony dressed like this, neither Jason Kenney nor Stephen Harper nor 82% of polled Canadians would care in the least. However, if a woman shows up to a Canadian citizenship dressed like this, now all of a sudden Kenney and Harper oppose it and see themselves as champions of women's equality. If they're so concerned about fighting against the oppression of women, though, then why aren't they equally opposed to the dress codes of Pentecostal and Mennonite women? It's because they don't give a damn about these Muslim women, they're just cynically engaging in identity politics and attempting to capitalize on Islamaphobia, racism, and xenophobia.

There is no such thing. It's a completely rational fear to harbour.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Dagger

There is no such thing. It's a completely rational fear to harbour.

notsureifserious.jpg

[pylon]

Originally Posted by Amethyst

I disagree, First of all, how do we know in any case that the first statement is true? Maybe the woman grew up in a family where it was done. She is now married to a main who is a little more open-minded, moving to Canada and all, who is fine with her not wearing it, but she feels more comfortable that way. We just say, "Sorry, your wishes don't matter, take it off"?

What if a woman had been horribly disfigured in an accident and didn't feel comfortable having strangers stare at her wounds? "Nope, sorry, if you want to join this country, you must let us see."

Not sure what other's reasons are, but I don't defend it as a religious right. I defend it as no one (husband, father, or government official) should be telling any adult woman what to wear.

I am sorry, but you are grasping at straws.

Then fine, I should be able to wear an old timey 70's goalie mask any time I need to attend an official event or get official photos done, because I am insecure about a scar on my face and my receding hair line.

I think the point is, the government is standing up to a practice and tradition that treats and implies women are 2nd class humans, and the property of a man. I am sure a very large portion of these women feel the same, but are utterly terrified to stand up and debate it with their spouse, as 'tradition' would suggest that would be a very unwise thing for her to disagree with her spouse about.

[transplant99]

I've thought all along and still do that this "issue" is completely overblown and non-important to the campaign, though I will always believe if someone wants to make it an issue for themselves then all the power to them.

What did get me thinking a bit about happened yesterday as I just happened to catch about 3 minutes of Kincaid and Breckenridge on QR and a question was posed,

"What if someone wants to wear KKK hood over their face at the ceremony"? It's more or less the same thing.

I was unable to listen to the debate that followed, (if any) but am interested which way the needle moved.

[RougeUnderoos]

The feminism outbreak among conservatives is quite refreshing. Less than a year ago, Mr. Harper said that the murder and disappearance of more than a thousand indigenous women was not on his radar. Now, absolutely sincerely, he is willing to do (and spend) whatever it takes to rescue a small subset of a minority from oppression.

A real turnaround!

The fact that so many conservatives are now so stridently against outdated religious practices is also a nice twist.

[Igottago]

Originally Posted by transplant99

"What if someone wants to wear KKK hood over their face at the ceremony"? It's more or less the same thing.

Not the same thing.

A KKK hood is pretty much a direct threat of racism towards others. Anyone who wears one is implying hate towards others.

While it may seem oppressive to the woman wearing it, it poses no threat to anyone else.

[darklord700]

Originally Posted by Amethyst

I defend it as no one (husband, father, or government official) should be telling any adult woman what to wear.

This is hardly one person telling another person what to wear. We have dress codes in numerous places in this country. In the business world, female employees are told not to wear revealing clothing or expose their cleavage. Is this telling adult woman what to wear too?

Again this is not a ban on niqab altogether just not to wear the niqab during the 30 second ceremony, big freaking differences between the two.

[darklord700]

Originally Posted by transplant99

I've thought all along and still do that this "issue" is completely overblown and non-important to the campaign, though I will always believe if someone wants to make it an issue for themselves then all the power to them.

Every move at this stage is calculated. For most people, this is a non-issue but the Tories are targeting QC votes and Quebecois are big opponent on niqab wearing. This is the reason why Kenney continue playing this card. And Nenshi keeps feeding the flame and thinks he is winning the debate without knowing the longer he stays in this, the more he has helped the Tories and their cause.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Igottago

Not the same thing.

A KKK hood is pretty much a direct threat of racism towards others. Anyone who wears one is implying hate towards others.

While it may seem oppressive to the woman wearing it, it poses no threat to anyone else.

I'm not sure that a "threat of racism" is any more of a reason to deny someone wanting to wear it though.

Being racist and hating someone is not, in and of itself, illegal. It's offensive and immoral to the vast majority for sure. However unless someone is actually being harmed or denied service or something along those lines, the actual belief that race X is better than race Y is allowed.

I assume some would also argue, correctly to some degree, that the hood/outfit is a religious symbol as well.

So in that sense, both the naqib and the "glory suit" are extremely similar in their basis.

And just to note...I am most certainly against anything Klan or racist related being allowed at any official ceremony of the government but realize that if one exception is made then its entirely reasonable that others will ask the same and in the legal sense, would have to be granted I think.

[octothorp]

To me, it's either:
a) a woman is making a choice based on her religious beliefs, and that choice is preserved by the constitution unless it infringes on the rights of others, which in this case I don't see how it's infringing on anyone else's rights.

or

b) this is not the woman's true choice, as a result of living in either an extremely repressive society or relationship. In which case, the woman should be treated as a victim, and requires all the compassion and understanding that we strive (and often fail) to provide for other victims in our society. Telling such a victim that she must reveal herself in a very public setting where she's already likely to feel exposed seems to me the opposite of the sort of compassion we should strive for.

I wouldn't pretend to know which of the above scenarios is more common, or which would apply to any individual case. But fortunately, I don't need to know, because the correct response to either is the same.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by transplant99

I assume some would also argue, correctly to some degree, that the hood/outfit is a religious symbol as well.

So in that sense, both the naqib and the "glory suit" are extremely similar in their basis.

Ha ha. Do they really call it a "glory suit"? Jesus, these people are dumber than I thought.

The Klan isn't a religion. It's a bunch of disaffected morons getting together to talk about hating and killing people.

To say the hood is a religious symbol akin to a niqab is like saying a ballcap with "I Hate ######s" written on it is the same thing as a yarmulke.

Originally Posted by transplant99

And just to note...I am most certainly against anything Klan or racist related being allowed at any official ceremony of the government but realize that if one exception is made then its entirely reasonable that others will ask the same and in the legal sense, would have to be granted I think.

It seems entirely reasonable that others will be asking to wear Klan hoods, balaclavas, or bags on their heads at citizenship ceremonies? You think this will happen?

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Ha ha. Do they really call it a "glory suit"? Jesus, these people are dumber than I thought.

The Klan isn't a religion. It's a bunch of disaffected morons getting together to talk about hating and killing people.

To say the hood is a religious symbol akin to a niqab is like saying a ballcap with "I Hate ######s" written on it is the same thing as a yarmulke.

Hey I didn't say it is, they do! (Even if they are past the batcrap crazy line)

The symbolism behind the insignia, according to various KKK groups, is that the blood drop in the center of the cross represents the blood shed by Jesus Christ at the Crucifixion, for the white Aryan race, whom they see as God's master race or chosen people

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

It seems entirely reasonable that others will be asking to wear Klan hoods, balaclavas, or bags on their heads at citizenship ceremonies? You think this will happen?

I don't know if it happens or not...I certainly hope not but what I think is truly irrelevant. This is based on what the law says and the naqib is setting precedence in this case which could be a precursor to there things like this.

I'm no lawyer but this has slippery slope possibilities all over it because its been taken to the court system IMO. Happy to be proven wrong however.

[Swift]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

It seems entirely reasonable that others will be asking to wear Klan hoods, balaclavas, or bags on their heads at citizenship ceremonies? You think this will happen?

<- Me at my citizenship ceremony in the future