Federal Politics 2015 Thread

[PsYcNeT]

I personally cannot align myself with a stance that is right for the wrong reasons.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

^Explain?

[PsYcNeT]

I feel the niqab is an unflattering part of (certain) Muslim sartorial traditions. I believe it's a symbol of oppression against women in parts of the Middle East, and that is my opinion.

That said, I also feel that it is not an affront to me, my country, or our traditions, and banning it is a bigoted answer to a complex problem.

[evman150]

Originally Posted by ae118

And you know - there are more important things for us to be dealing with besides "othering" an entire group of new Canadians.

In this case, I think the woman is "othering" herself.

[ae118]

Originally Posted by evman150

In this case, I think the woman is "othering" herself.

Because she's wearing something that she chooses in a free society without harming others? I think that sounds very Canadian.

[evman150]

Originally Posted by ae118

Because she's wearing something that she chooses in a free society without harming others? I think that sounds very Canadian.

I went to my cousin's wedding a while back and a 30-something guest showed up in shorts, t-shirt and sandals.

It's about respect.

I'm somewhere on the fence on this issue, but I think I side with her being allowed to stay covered for the ceremony. That said, I think it's in incredibly poor taste and very disrespectful.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by ae118

Because she's wearing something that she chooses in a free society without harming others? I think that sounds very Canadian.

Weren't they just wanting her to remove it for the ceremony? No one is saying she can't wear it. Just in this one instance. Just like she would to have her drivers license photo taken. You could even akin it something as basic as removing your hat for an anthem, which is not mandatory, but you should do it.

Do I make a big stink because its a violation of my civil rights to expect me to remove a hat for 2 min as a sign of respect, something that I've chosen to wear as a free Canadian?

Come to think of it, why couldn't I wear a hat in high school? Or at the dinner table? These are not laws but social norms, and you are considered rude for not abiding by them. Why does a simple request like "Please uncover your face for this ceremony" turn into a civil rights issue?

[Rerun]

If this truly is not a symbol of oppression and there is equality between the sexes in Islam, I don't understand why men are also not required to wear a similar garment?

To me, it seems like men have a much greater freedom of choice.

Please explain why what's good for the goose is not also good for the gander.

Seems to me its men making rules that only apply to women.

[ae118]

Originally Posted by evman150

I went to my cousin's wedding a while back and a 30-something guest showed up in shorts, t-shirt and sandals.



It's about respect.



I'm somewhere on the fence on this issue, but I think I side with her being allowed to stay covered for the ceremony. That said, I think it's in incredibly poor taste and very disrespectful.

My brother-in-law wore jeans to my wedding. My cousin wore a tux. We still joke about "dress jeans" being acceptable anywhere, but my brother in law isn't kicked out of the family (yet, anyway).

I see your angle, but I also see it as being disrespectful to her to not allow her to wear what she chooses, and further, what may be important to her beyond just being a piece of clothing.

[ae118]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Weren't they just wanting her to remove it for the ceremony? No one is saying she can't wear it. Just in this one instance. Just like she would to have her drivers license photo taken. You could even akin it something as basic as removing your hat for an anthem, which is not mandatory, but you should do it.



Do I make a big stink because its a violation of my civil rights to expect me to remove a hat for 2 min as a sign of respect, something that I've chosen to wear as a free Canadian?



Come to think of it, why couldn't I wear a hat in high school? Or at the dinner table? These are not laws but social norms, and you are considered rude for not abiding by them. Why does a simple request like "Please uncover your face for this ceremony" turn into a civil rights issue?

They're your social norms, because you don't live in a majority Muslim country. Which, yes, she's officially joining. But I think we're more accepting than that and we allow for differing perspectives. This isn't like a baseball cap - it's more important to her than that. I wouldn't ask someone to remove a turban either, if there was some sort of face-covering turban. Basically, I don't consider someone rude for wearing something that is emblematic of their religion/culture even if it covers their face.

[ae118]

Originally Posted by Rerun

If this truly is not a symbol of oppression and there is equality between the sexes in Islam, I don't understand why men are also not required to wear a similar garment?

To me, it seems like men have a much greater freedom of choice.

Please explain why what's good for the goose is not also good for the gander.

Seems to me its men making rules that only apply to women.

I've never said that is isn't a tool of oppression for many women (in fact I think I stated that explicitly). But I generally leave the interpretation of what a piece of clothing symbolizes up to the wearer.

Absolutely, many Muslim men have much greater freedom and women's rights are a major issue in many Muslim countries and the double standard is just one example. Major issue. But there is diversity among Muslims and Muslim nations. And I won't speak for any of them.

[ae118]

I don't normally wade into these threads, so I think I'll step out, but my point has been that you should really ask Muslim women instead of making assumptions.

I actually googled to remember the specific details of the situation and discovered that the woman involved wrote an Op Ed in the Star explaining her position. So to my point, I will leave her own words here:

"I am Zunera Ishaq. I am a mother. I am university educated. I believe that the environment needs saving and I try to do my part by joining campaigns to plant trees. Chasing my boys in the snow is one of the things I love most about winter. I believe we should strive to give back to others, and for me that means volunteering: at women’s shelters, for political candidates or at schools.

I also wear a niqab. And according to my prime minister, that is all you need to know about me to know that I am oppressed.
It’s precisely because I won’t listen to how other people want me to live my life that I wear a niqab. Some of my own family members have asked me to remove it. I have told them that I prefer to think for myself.

My desire to live on my own terms is also why I have chosen to challenge the government’s decision to deny me citizenship unless I take off my niqab at my oath ceremony. I have taken my niqab off for security and identity reasons in every case where that’s been required of me, such as when I have taken a driver’s license photo or gone through airport security. I will take my niqab off again before the oath ceremony without protest so I can be properly identified. I will not take my niqab off at that same ceremony for the sole reason that someone else doesn’t like it, even if that person happens to be Stephen Harper.
I am not looking for Mr. Harper to approve my life choices or dress. I am certainly not looking for him to speak on my behalf and “save” me from oppression, without even ever having bothered to reach out to me and speak with me.

And by the way, if he had bothered to ask me why I wear a niqab instead of making assumptions, I would have told him that it was a decision I took very seriously after I had looked into the matter thoroughly. I would tell him that aside from the religious aspect, I like how it makes me feel: like people have to look beyond what I look like to get to know me. That I don’t have to worry about my physical appearance and can concentrate on my inner self. That it empowers me in this regard.

While I recognize that it’s not for everyone, it is for me. To me, the most important Canadian value is the freedom to be the person of my own choosing. To me, that’s more indicative of what it means to be Canadian than what I wear.

I am looking, however, for Mr. Harper to govern according to the law of Canada and not according his own personal preference. That is why I was very happy when the Federal Court ruled in my favour and found that the policy was not in line with the government’s own Citizenship Act.
And now that Mr. Harper is so busy speaking about me in public, I am looking for him to include me in the discussion.

Zunera Ishaq has been a permanent resident of Canada since 2008. She has put her citizenship ceremony on hold since last year, in order to ask the Federal Court to judge the legality of the 2012 Conservative policy requiring her to remove her niqab for that purpose. The Federal Court found that the policy was illegal and ordered that it be struck down."

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/comme...-ceremony.html

[RougeUnderoos]

Trimming the fat! Good job boys!

http://ottawacitizen.com/storyline/a...sabled-workers

Gladys Whincup is losing the $1.15-an-hour job she’s had for 35 years, and she’s devastated.

I loved working there. It was a nice job and we got paid for it. I liked everything about the job. All the people I work with I like very much — they are all my friends.
— Gladys Whincup

Whincup’s workplace is — or was — a wastepaper sorting and disposal plant at Tunney’s Pasture where she and dozens of other developmentally disabled people have been gainfully employed disposing of copious quantities of secret and confidential federal government paper — as much as 40 per cent of it — since 1980.

As of month’s end, their workplace and sense of community and friendship will be just another empty federal government building.

It's about time. Now we can hire some pros to destroy scientific research, and we know it won't fall into the hands of the terrorists.

[SebC]

If the Niqab is chosen freely, why is it so hard to take it off?

[evman150]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Trimming the fat! Good job boys!

http://ottawacitizen.com/storyline/a...sabled-workers



It's about time. Now we can hire some pros to destroy scientific research, and we know it won't fall into the hands of the terrorists.

Reminds me of the neo-con government cancelling the astronomical interpretive centre in Victoria a while back - saved taxpayers a whopping 200k/year.

[ae118]

Originally Posted by SebC

If the Niqab is chosen freely, why is it so hard to take it off?

Because freedom of choice is different than strength of conviction? If you're a vegetarian, I have a fresh, juicy steak you might be interested in.

[Dagger]

I think this is a fairly balanced, and unbiasedly written piece on the Niqab.

It has become increasingly clear that Stephen Harper will fight the 2015 election campaign by touting anti-niqabism while dropping hints that his opponents are therefore terrorist sympathizers. As far as political strategy goes, the approach is cost-free: An overwhelming majority of people are against the niqab and people are easy to frighten. The Liberals and NDP should be commended for opposing this style of politics, and standing up for liberal principles of choice. The state, after all, has no business in the dressing rooms of the nation.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe...ticle23469409/

[Coach]

Originally Posted by ae118

They're your social norms, because you don't live in a majority Muslim country. Which, yes, she's officially joining. But I think we're more accepting than that and we allow for differing perspectives. This isn't like a baseball cap - it's more important to her than that. I wouldn't ask someone to remove a turban either, if there was some sort of face-covering turban. Basically, I don't consider someone rude for wearing something that is emblematic of their religion/culture even if it covers their face.

Nothing wrong with differing perspectives, and she can wear it all she wants anywhere. But she was asked to remove the face cover for a ceremony, not fighting against a ban on her clothing. I could be just as religious about the The Flames or whatever is on my hat, so what's the difference? What about Christians who have to remove crosses when jewelry needs to be removed during sports? I agree that banning these types of clothing completely misses the point, but to be asked to remove it for a short period of time is not a ban.

The point about it being a norm, and one of the country she is joining, is exactly the point. It's not a legal issue but a social issue, and she is free to choose how she acts and what she wears, but that also leaves us free to consider her rude for not conforming to those types of things. That's not a racist or prejudice thing, its a social consequence of not adapting. You don't have to conform to everything, nor should you, but if you do things that other people consider rude, then people may not like you. Whether its from religious conviction or just plain being a dink is irrelevant. Like someone wearing sunglasses inside, they are fully within their rights to do so, but that doesn't mean they aren't a doosh.

[killer_carlson]

This guy is the MP for the riding i live in.

Thank God he is retiring. I don't think he would have survived a nomination battle had he not declared his intention to step down.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/pete...king-1.2999850

This does nothing to raise the public perception of the quality of our elected representatives.

[flames_fan_down_under]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

This guy is the MP for the riding i live in.

Thank God he is retiring. I don't think he would have survived a nomination battle had he not declared his intention to step down.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/pete...king-1.2999850

This does nothing to raise the public perception of the quality of our elected representatives.

This so accurately describes everything about the MP's in parliament. It's no wonder there is so much cynicism regarding politics when so many politicians behave like people completely detached from the citizens they "represent".