Nenshi stance on wearing the niqab

[Dagger]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

notsureifserious.jpg

Will that get published at Charlie Hebdo?

[Amethyst]

Originally Posted by pylon

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.

If the government was truly standing up for women, they would be doing more than forcing them to take off their niqabs for one ceremony. And if the women are terrified, forcing them to do something like remove their niqabs in public, is not going to make them feel safe or welcome in Canada.

As far as I'm concerned, you are welcome to wear a goalie mask everywhere you go. :-)

[Amethyst]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

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.

I don't disagree with that, but to me saying that we somehow know their true feelings when they themselves don't is also wrong. Telling them you know what's good for them better than they themselves do is the exact thing you are supposedly trying to prevent (their husbands telling them what to do).

There are a lot of more effective things we could be doing to help oppressed women than ripping off their garments for one brief ceremony. That's not going to make anyone feel safe or supported.

[MarchHare]

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.

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.

LOL, does anyone legitimately think this is some kind of slippery slope, that if we allow wearing niqabs then we'll also have to allow KKK hoods? Did nobody bother to think this through? The reason KKK members wear hoods is because they want to hide their identities and remain anonymous. It defeats the purpose to wear a KKK hood at a citizenship ceremony because new Canadians have to state their name as part of the oath. What a ridiculous comparison.

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

LOL, does anyone legitimately think this is some kind of slippery slope, that if we allow wearing niqabs then we'll also have to allow KKK hoods? Did nobody bother to think this through? The reason KKK members wear hoods is because they want to hide their identities and remain anonymous. It defeats the purpose to wear a KKK hood at a citizenship ceremony because new Canadians have to state their name as part of the oath. What a ridiculous comparison.

Actually, the comparison works at a certain level. Your argument is not consistent. While I agree it enters into absurd territory to compare the niqab to the KKK hood for the purposes of a citizenship ceremony, the fact is, if you think someone should be able to cover their faces through the ceremony--- keeping in mind they've already been approved as citizens subject to the oath --- there is no legal or moral difference if the person wears a niqab or a KKK hood. Adding to that, they could wear a Winnie-the-Pooh mascot head, a colander, or whatever else whey want even if it conceals their identity to anyone other than the government agent (whom must be only female in the case of the niqab matter) who verified their identity.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Delgar

keeping in mind they've already been approved as citizens subject to the oath --- there is no legal or moral difference if the person wears a niqab or a KKK hood. Adding to that, they could wear a Winnie-the-Pooh mascot head, a colander, or whatever else whey want even if it conceals their identity to anyone other than the government agent (whom must be only female in the case of the niqab matter) who verified their identity.

There is in fact a tremendous legal and moral difference between a niqab and a KKK hood. I'm frankly quite surprised that anyone would try to argue otherwise.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Makarov

There is in fact a tremendous legal and moral difference between a niqab and a KKK hood. I'm frankly quite surprised that anyone would try to argue otherwise.

What is the legal difference? I'm genuinely curious and also hopeful that is the case.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by transplant99

What is the legal difference? I'm genuinely curious and also hopeful that is the case.

I don't think it is clear whether or not wearing a klu klux klan hood is an activity protected by s. 2 of the Charter. Even if it is, I strongly suspect that the courts will again find that such expression has no redeeming value and infringement of the right to such expression would be very easily justified (pursuant to s. 1 of the Charter), especially in the context of a citizenship ceremony.

That's just my two cents though. As I said, I probably overstated the obviousness of that conclusion in my initial post (for dramatic effect or something.) Sorry, Delgar.

[Swift]

Speaking of white supremacists...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...bate-1.3264849

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Cameron Swift

Speaking of white supremacists...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...bate-1.3264849

If you're a Canadian who is using the Confederate flag, you're not only racist, you're a complete idiot.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

What makes you think he's a white supremacist? Or at all racist? He claims to have been wearing the flag over his face to make a point about the niqab (and his being against it), which to me implies that he thinks the confederate flag is a symbol of oppression of blacks in the same way the niqab is a symbol of oppression of women.

I'd say that's a false equivalence, but it certainly doesn't imply he's in favour of the confederate flag or what it stands for. Quite the contrary.

EDIT: And I notice that they're talking about hate crimes legislation maybe being applied so I'm wondering what the hell happened? It says there was no violence, but also that things got "heated". Just no specifics at all. He must have said something or made some sort of threat?

[Dagger]

This is absolute nonsense. This is another case of pandering to Islam, and everyone who stood against that man is wrong.

I don't agree with his views in any way, shape or form, but the message from this is simple: covering your face is ok, but only if we agree with what you're covering it with. Anyone offended by a person covering their face with a niqab is a bigot, yet a man can't express his views by wearing a confederate flag.

The Liberal candidate standing in front of the camera pleading the victim card and talking about bigotry needs to have a good look in the mirror. This is shameful.

[EldrickOnIce]

Brookwell said the man was not previously known to police and there was no violence at any point during the incident.

Arrested for wearing a disguise, because his face was covered?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Delgar

Actually, the comparison works at a certain level. Your argument is not consistent. While I agree it enters into absurd territory to compare the niqab to the KKK hood for the purposes of a citizenship ceremony, the fact is, if you think someone should be able to cover their faces through the ceremony--- keeping in mind they've already been approved as citizens subject to the oath --- there is no legal or moral difference if the person wears a niqab or a KKK hood. Adding to that, they could wear a Winnie-the-Pooh mascot head, a colander, or whatever else whey want even if it conceals their identity to anyone other than the government agent (whom must be only female in the case of the niqab matter) who verified their identity.

It doesn't work at any level because it conflates religious observation with the association of hate-crimes membership punishable under the Canadian Charter.

Absolutely ludicrous comparison that I think says a lot about those who view it at as reasonable comparison.

KKK/White Supremacists/Aryan nations are listed as CRIMINAL ORGANIZATIONS.



HOnestly, Delgar/Transplant, this is a reasonable comparison?

Spoiler!

And

[Looch City]

The problem is that those posters view Islam as equal to those listed criminal organizations. You can't have a meaningful debate with someone who believes as such.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Dagger

This is absolute nonsense. This is another case of pandering to Islam, and everyone who stood against that man is wrong.

How on Earth can you possibly know that? Much less be so angry and certain about it? There is no information in that story. For all we know he said that "all them muslim sand n****** should be put on an island somewhere and all right-thinking white folk should be blowing up mosques" or some similar nonsense. We have no idea. You could of course be right, but it doesn't appear that anyone knows what happened.

I don't agree with his views in any way, shape or form, but the message from this is simple: covering your face is ok, but only if we agree with what you're covering it with. Anyone offended by a person covering their face with a niqab is a bigot, yet a man can't express his views by wearing a confederate flag.

This is clearly false and in this situation the confederate flag wearer would be immediately vindicated by a court, if that's all that happened.

The Liberal candidate standing in front of the camera pleading the victim card and talking about bigotry needs to have a good look in the mirror. This is shameful.

She apparently said this:

She said the man has a right to wear the flag and voice his concerns, but it's the alleged threats that worry her, as well as the tone of the political discourse at this point the election campaign.

"We need to stop these polarizing issues," Naidoo said. "It's whipping people up into a frenzy. It's making people think they have to choose a side."

I agree with all of that and I think you'd have to be nuts not to, it's pretty obviously correct.

[EldrickOnIce]

Does not pertain to any KKK talk, but the niqab is cultural, not religious.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

It doesn't work at any level because it conflates religious observation with the association of hate-crimes membership punishable under the Canadian Charter.

WTF are you talking about? Nothing is "punishable under the Charter", the Charter doesn't punish anything. Membership in any group isn't punishable under any Canadian law. You actually have to perform a criminal act to be charged criminally - if you want to belong to the KKK, and generally be a bigot, you're perfectly entitled to do so, so long as you don't promote violence against an identifiable group while you do so.

It's like you think thought crimes are a thing in Canada.

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

Does not pertain to any KKK talk, but the niqab is cultural, not religious.

I don't think this is right. Like any practice, it's certainly got culture tied up in it, but various verses of the Qu'Ran are widely interpreted to impose this requirement from a religious perspective.

Tell the believing men to lower their gaze and be modest. That is purer for them. Lo! Allah is Aware of what they do. And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and be modest, and to display of their adornment only that which is apparent, and to draw their veils over their bosoms, and not to reveal their adornment save to their own husbands or fathers or husbands’ fathers, or their sons or their husbands' sons, or their brothers or their brothers' sons or sisters’ sons, or their women, or their slaves, or male attendants who lack vigor, or children who know naught of women's nakedness. And let them not stamp their feet so as to reveal what they hide of their adornment. And turn unto Allah together, O believers, in order that ye may succeed

O Prophet, tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks close round them (when they go abroad). That will be better, so that they may be recognized and not annoyed. Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful.

I mean, you can see how that could easily be interpreted as a religious requirement, no?

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I mean, you can see how that could easily be interpreted as a religious requirement, no?

Yes

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

Does not pertain to any KKK talk, but the niqab is cultural, not religious.

The current laws allow the wearing of the nigab during the ceremonial swearing in, no?


Isn't the issue that the Government wants to change that law.


Am I missing the point here?