|
Post by fixit on Mar 20, 2015 5:06:46 GMT -5
You're entitled to your opinion.In a few years time Liberals will be complaining because a segment of the population is impoverished and society will be blamed for not integrating immigrants properly. You're not going to integrate people who insist on getting around in tents and not showing their faces. By supporting the niqab you're aligning yourself with Islamic extremists who have no respect for democracy and human rights. I'm with the moderate Muslims who want to ban the niqab as oppressive and un-Islamic. YOU STILL DON'T GET IT!
We are NOT taking about my opinion!
We are talking about making LAWS infringing on people's right to wear what they want to wear as long as it is no danger to others!
We are talking about the rights of a woman to wear what she wants to wear and not what YOU think that she should wear!
YOU want MY real opinion?
I think YOU should wear a long baggy shirt & long below the knee baggy swim pants when you go to the beach because I don't like to see your shirtless body in regular swim wear.
It offends me!
Maybe I should try and get a new law passed to that effect! That's what the Islamic extremists do - force women to wear baggy black tents that no one in their right mind would want to wear. Of course some women in the West will say it's their choice, but they've probably been guilt-tripped into it by some dinosaur Imam. Do you think women who cover their face in public can achieve equality? Do you think compulsory polio vaccination infringes on people's rights?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 20, 2015 7:19:35 GMT -5
That's what the Islamic extremists do - force women to wear baggy black tents that no one in their right mind would want to wear. Of course some women in the West will say it's their choice, but they've probably been guilt-tripped into it by some dinosaur Imam. Do you think women who cover their face in public can achieve equality? Would the ban extend to the oppose Catholic Canon Law requires identifiable clothing from members of some religious orders so that person may serve as a witness to Gospel values? Would you be in favor of stripping nuns of their white coif, bandeau wimple? No scapular for monks or nuns? Is vaccination against polio compulsory if you are not attending publicly funded institutions?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Mar 20, 2015 8:40:55 GMT -5
YOU STILL DON'T GET IT!
We are NOT taking about my opinion!
We are talking about making LAWS infringing on people's right to wear what they want to wear as long as it is no danger to others!
We are talking about the rights of a woman to wear what she wants to wear and not what YOU think that she should wear!
YOU want MY real opinion?
I think YOU should wear a long baggy shirt & long below the knee baggy swim pants when you go to the beach because I don't like to see your shirtless body in regular swim wear.
It offends me!
Maybe I should try and get a new law passed to that effect! That's what the Islamic extremists do - force women to wear baggy black tents that no one in their right mind would want to wear. Of course some women in the West will say it's their choice, but they've probably been guilt-tripped into it by some dinosaur Imam. Do you think women who cover their face in public can achieve equality? Do you think compulsory polio vaccination infringes on people's rights? The moderate Muslim women who want the freedom to wear what they want, especially in Iran, do NOT want a ban on the niqab or the hijab. All they want is the freedom to wear what they want to wear. In fact, you are misrepresenting their position in the same way the Iranian propaganda machine does. They also say that moderate Muslims want to ban the hijab, because this drives a wedge between conservative and liberals in their society. You are following the same course as they are, polarizing the situation instead of working to a reasonable solution. Turkey under Ataturk tried to ban the hijab and it only made radical Islam stronger. This is not what you want to do.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Mar 20, 2015 8:44:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by snow on Mar 20, 2015 11:12:06 GMT -5
YOU STILL DON'T GET IT!
We are NOT taking about my opinion!
We are talking about making LAWS infringing on people's right to wear what they want to wear as long as it is no danger to others!
We are talking about the rights of a woman to wear what she wants to wear and not what YOU think that she should wear!
YOU want MY real opinion?
I think YOU should wear a long baggy shirt & long below the knee baggy swim pants when you go to the beach because I don't like to see your shirtless body in regular swim wear.
It offends me!
Maybe I should try and get a new law passed to that effect! That's what the Islamic extremists do - force women to wear baggy black tents that no one in their right mind would want to wear. Of course some women in the West will say it's their choice, but they've probably been guilt-tripped into it by some dinosaur Imam. Do you think women who cover their face in public can achieve equality? Do you think compulsory polio vaccination infringes on people's rights? Just to offer a different perspective by women I have talked to that wear the 'baggy tent', they are quite happy wearing it and when I was told that I was somewhat surprised. Like you I felt it was forced on them and that they would be happier showing their faces. Not the case. I remember talking to a couple in my ESL class and they had a whole different idea of what it was like. They liked not having to worry about doing their hair and makeup in the morning, or worrying about what to wear etc. I was totally surprised by these insights and got thinking about them. It might not be so bad lol. Bottom line though, it's what we are used to and if we feel comfortable in that, then it's not wrong. To tell them to expose their faces or bodies if they are not comfortable with that seems more wrong imo. What I do agree with, that you have been saying fixit, is if they don't wish to wear the 'tent' and don't have a choice. That is the case of course in some. But I really got a different view of what they thought after talking to a few ladies who did wear them. So for me, I don't care what they wear if they are happy with it. I care more about freedom to chose which I agree some do not have. But passing a law saying that they can't wear them is not the best way of approaching the problem imo. Also, just to address your comments about those who wear full body dress not integrating into our society. Why wouldn't they be able to work and contribute? There are jobs that can be done with a full body covering. Yes, it would limit them from some of the more dangerous ones possibly like working with machinery, but there are jobs they can do. I see the biggest determent to integration being us. We being intolerant and not giving them the jobs because of what they wear. There is no reason why a woman wearing a full cover couldn't be a secretary, teacher, lawyer, even certain areas of medicine. What is stopping them from having these positions? Is it our intolerance and belief it's not right to wear a full covering so we don't allow them the chance to prove what they can do, no matter what they are wearing?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Mar 20, 2015 13:05:39 GMT -5
Also, just to address your comments about those who wear full body dress not integrating into our society. Why wouldn't they be able to work and contribute? There are jobs that can be done with a full body covering. Yes, it would limit them from some of the more dangerous ones possibly like working with machinery, but there are jobs they can do. I see the biggest determent to integration being us. We being intolerant and not giving them the jobs because of what they wear. There is no reason why a woman wearing a full cover couldn't be a secretary, teacher, lawyer, even certain areas of medicine. What is stopping them from having these positions? Is it our intolerance and belief it's not right to wear a full covering so we don't allow them the chance to prove what they can do, no matter what they are wearing? Facial expressions and facial recognition are an important part of human identity. I agree with the mother in this video, who objected to an unidentifiable black blob driving her kids to school.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Mar 20, 2015 13:15:56 GMT -5
Turkey under Ataturk tried to ban the hijab and it only made radical Islam stronger. This is not what you want to do. Can you provide a link to support your assertion? Didn't Ataturk achieve a great deal for Turkey, moving it forward from backwardness towards a modern secular democracy?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Mar 20, 2015 14:01:51 GMT -5
Moderate Muslims want the Niqab banned, saying it's not Islamic.
Fundamentalist Muslims insist that it's an Islamic obligation.
Women say they wear it because they want to, but clearly they wear it because they feel obliged to.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Mar 20, 2015 14:07:37 GMT -5
Also, just to address your comments about those who wear full body dress not integrating into our society. Why wouldn't they be able to work and contribute? There are jobs that can be done with a full body covering. Yes, it would limit them from some of the more dangerous ones possibly like working with machinery, but there are jobs they can do. I see the biggest determent to integration being us. We being intolerant and not giving them the jobs because of what they wear. There is no reason why a woman wearing a full cover couldn't be a secretary, teacher, lawyer, even certain areas of medicine. What is stopping them from having these positions? Is it our intolerance and belief it's not right to wear a full covering so we don't allow them the chance to prove what they can do, no matter what they are wearing? Facial expressions and facial recognition are an important part of human identity. I agree with the mother in this video, who objected to an unidentifiable black blob driving her kids to school. Spare me the 4 minutes and tell me the reason. I can't see one myself.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Mar 20, 2015 14:14:46 GMT -5
Turkey under Ataturk tried to ban the hijab and it only made radical Islam stronger. This is not what you want to do. Can you provide a link to support your assertion? Didn't Ataturk achieve a great deal for Turkey, moving it forward from backwardness towards a modern secular democracy? Some info here - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headscarf_controversy_in_TurkeyBut my understanding comes from the book, Snow, by Nobel prize winner Orhan Pamuk, which describes a highly polarised society. (Similar effects occurred in Iran under the Shah.) Yes, Ataturk achieved a lot for Turkey but often using brute force. In the case of the head scarf ban, he encountered growing resistance, and the result was more Muslim girls not getting an education, and some girls even committed suicide because they could not wear the hijab. Imagine if the f&w ladies were all told to cut their hair and see a hairdresser. That would be the Ataturk approach to modernisation.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Mar 20, 2015 14:21:16 GMT -5
Can you provide a link to support your assertion? Didn't Ataturk achieve a great deal for Turkey, moving it forward from backwardness towards a modern secular democracy? Some info here - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headscarf_controversy_in_TurkeyBut my understanding comes from the book, Snow, by Nobel prize winner Orhan Pamuk, which describes a highly polarised society. (Similar effects occurred in Iran under the Shah.) Yes, Ataturk achieved a lot for Turkey but often using brute force. In the case of the head scarf ban, he encountered growing resistance, and the result was more Muslim girls not getting an education, and some girls even committed suicide because they could not wear the hijab. Imagine if the f&w ladies were all told to cut their hair and see a hairdresser. That would be the Ataturk approach to modernisation. Are we discussing niqab or headscarf?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Mar 20, 2015 14:23:32 GMT -5
Facial expressions and facial recognition are an important part of human identity. I agree with the mother in this video, who objected to an unidentifiable black blob driving her kids to school. Spare me the 4 minutes and tell me the reason. I can't see one myself. That's because you're not looking. BTW, Enounce MySpeed is good for speeding up videos like this.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Mar 20, 2015 14:27:26 GMT -5
Some info here - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headscarf_controversy_in_TurkeyBut my understanding comes from the book, Snow, by Nobel prize winner Orhan Pamuk, which describes a highly polarised society. (Similar effects occurred in Iran under the Shah.) Yes, Ataturk achieved a lot for Turkey but often using brute force. In the case of the head scarf ban, he encountered growing resistance, and the result was more Muslim girls not getting an education, and some girls even committed suicide because they could not wear the hijab. Imagine if the f&w ladies were all told to cut their hair and see a hairdresser. That would be the Ataturk approach to modernisation. Are we discussing niqab or headscarf? Ataturk banned the hijab/ headscarf. I don't either one of us has a problem with the hijab, but that is what was banned in Turkey, and required today in Iran. The niqab is our subject of discussion ... ban it or not?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Mar 20, 2015 14:28:21 GMT -5
Spare me the 4 minutes and tell me the reason. I can't see one myself. That's because you're not looking. BTW, Enounce MySpeed is good for speeding up videos like this. No, I'm not looking and you are. So what's the concern in 20 words or less?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Mar 20, 2015 15:08:07 GMT -5
The way I see it, if women want to work wearing the niqab and we don't like it, then we are the problem. We can't just go willy nilly banning things just because they are different and something we don't like. We are the ones holding these women back from integrating, holding down jobs etc. if we can't look past how they are dressed.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Mar 20, 2015 15:26:10 GMT -5
The way I see it, if women want to work wearing the niqab and we don't like it, then we are the problem. We can't just go willy nilly banning things just because they are different and something we don't like. We are the ones holding these women back from integrating, holding down jobs etc. if we can't look past how they are dressed. You can't integrate a pair of eyes peering through a black blanket.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Mar 20, 2015 15:27:34 GMT -5
That's because you're not looking. BTW, Enounce MySpeed is good for speeding up videos like this. No, I'm not looking and you are. So what's the concern in 20 words or less? A mother wants to see the face of the person she is trusting to take her kids to school. Would you entrust this person with your kids?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Mar 20, 2015 15:33:30 GMT -5
Are we discussing niqab or headscarf? Ataturk banned the hijab/ headscarf. I don't either one of us has a problem with the hijab, but that is what was banned in Turkey, and required today in Iran. The niqab is our subject of discussion ... ban it or not? It depends whether you want to support progressives and moderates in Islamic culture - or fundamentalists.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Mar 20, 2015 15:59:32 GMT -5
I'd say the niqab being worn by another woman in the video is not even close to the one being worn by the bus driver. That woman could easily be identified day by day. I did like the suggestion that it woould be good for the mother to establish an identity by having frequent verbal contact with the bus driver.
Now I think that those strongly encouraging choice in the dress of Muslim women should never point a finger at women (not all f&w either) who dress in a traditionally modest way. They also are capable of holding nearly any position wearing whatever they choose to wear. Can a woman in a niqab play beach volleyball? ride a horse? play a pick-up game of basketball or softball? Hmm.. do they want to?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Mar 20, 2015 17:35:40 GMT -5
Islamic justice?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 20, 2015 18:13:28 GMT -5
As usual, you are completely off the subject being discussed: the banning the Niqāb, najah.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Mar 20, 2015 18:39:12 GMT -5
Islamic respect for places of worship...
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 21, 2015 1:37:21 GMT -5
That's what the Islamic extremists do - force women to wear baggy black tents that no one in their right mind would want to wear. Of course some women in the West will say it's their choice, but they've probably been guilt-tripped into it by some dinosaur Imam. Do you think women who cover their face in public can achieve equality? Do you think compulsory polio vaccination infringes on people's rights? Just to offer a different perspective by women I have talked to that wear the 'baggy tent', they are quite happy wearing it and when I was told that I was somewhat surprised. Like you I felt it was forced on them and that they would be happier showing their faces. Not the case. I remember talking to a couple in my ESL class and they had a whole different idea of what it was like. They liked not having to worry about doing their hair and makeup in the morning, or worrying about what to wear etc. I was totally surprised by these insights and got thinking about them. It might not be so bad lol. Bottom line though, it's what we are used to and if we feel comfortable in that, then it's not wrong. To tell them to expose their faces or bodies if they are not comfortable with that seems more wrong imo. What I do agree with, that you have been saying fixit, is if they don't wish to wear the 'tent' and don't have a choice. That is the case of course in some. But I really got a different view of what they thought after talking to a few ladies who did wear them. So for me, I don't care what they wear if they are happy with it. I care more about freedom to chose which I agree some do not have. But passing a law saying that they can't wear them is not the best way of approaching the problem imo. Also, just to address your comments about those who wear full body dress not integrating into our society. Why wouldn't they be able to work and contribute? There are jobs that can be done with a full body covering. Yes, it would limit them from some of the more dangerous ones possibly like working with machinery, but there are jobs they can do. I see the biggest determent to integration being us. We being intolerant and not giving them the jobs because of what they wear. There is no reason why a woman wearing a full cover couldn't be a secretary, teacher, lawyer, even certain areas of medicine. What is stopping them from having these positions? Is it our intolerance and belief it's not right to wear a full covering so we don't allow them the chance to prove what they can do, no matter what they are wearing? Thank you, snow, for commenting so well on the issue.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Mar 21, 2015 6:51:39 GMT -5
I've read maybe 10% of this 50 page thread, so I apologize if the French Connection has already been discussed. But I kind of agree with the French: (From Wikipedia)The French ban on face covering (French: Loi interdisant la dissimulation du visage dans l'espace public, "Act prohibiting concealment of the face in public space") is an act of parliament passed by the Senate of France on 14 September 2010, resulting in the ban on the wearing of face-covering headgear, including masks, helmets, balaclava, niqābs and other veils covering the face in public places, except under specified circumstances.[1] The ban also applies to the burqa, a full-body covering, if it covers the face. Consequently, full body costumes and Zentais (skin-tight garments covering entire body) were banned. The bill had previously been passed by the National Assembly of France on 13 July 2010.[2] The key argument supporting this proposal is that face-coverings prevent the clear identification of a person, which is both a security risk, and a social hindrance within a society which relies on facial recognition and expression in communication. The key argument against the ban is that it encroaches on individual freedoms.[3] --- The wearing of all conspicuous religious symbols in public schools was previously banned in 2004 by a different law, the French law on secularity and conspicuous religious symbols in schools. This affected the wearing of Islamic veils and headscarves in schools, as well as turbans and other distinctive items of dress. The law was challenged and taken to the European Court of Human Rights which upheld the French law on 1 July 2014, accepting the argument of the French government that the law was based on "a certain idea of living together".[9]
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Mar 21, 2015 8:09:52 GMT -5
The way I see it, if women want to work wearing the niqab and we don't like it, then we are the problem. We can't just go willy nilly banning things just because they are different and something we don't like. We are the ones holding these women back from integrating, holding down jobs etc. if we can't look past how they are dressed. You can't integrate a pair of eyes peering through a black blanket. You mean you can't. We lived for 20 years surrounded by Old Order Mennonite, and they like to keep to themselves. Integration is desirable, but not a necessity.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Mar 21, 2015 8:14:19 GMT -5
No, I'm not looking and you are. So what's the concern in 20 words or less? A mother wants to see the face of the person she is trusting to take her kids to school. Would you entrust this person with your kids? The school board will have trained this driver on policy, screened her criminal and employment record, and she'll have passed a series of driving tests. The rest I don't care about.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Mar 21, 2015 8:19:27 GMT -5
Laws do draw lines. You should study a bit on where those lines are. The judge who ruled the Citizenship guideline on the niqab was illegal certainly understands those lines; he's had years of training and decades of experience in the area. I really don't understand where you draw the lines in your mind, and this is what I've been asking you. It seems unprincipled to say that the law should not "pander to every religious inclination" as if that is what the judge above is doing. To you the "niqab" and "a suicide belt" are part of the same culture and mindset. That is unfortunate, but also irrelevant. The law deals with the individual and everyone is equal before the law. The law does not judge you on your religious background but on your actions as an individual. A niqab is a niqab. A suicide belt is a suicide belt. There is no tangible harm to anyone in the case of the former. Canadian women who wear niqabs state they are quite open to security checks. Obviously, suicide belts are an issue and are illegal anywhere, any time. Your mention of suicide belts in connection with the judge's ruling demonstrates a lack of understanding of core legal and constitutional principles. The same with your knowledge of the principles of individual liberty and the "tyranny of the majority". I suppose you can't be blamed for not knowing these things, as many people don't. But then you should not make such strong statements on the treatment of Muslims either. I don't like the niqab either, and would like to see the practice end. But I believe the best way to do that is through education, and through tolerating those women who wear the niqab in our country. More and more Muslim women are demanding an end to "moral policing". Let me put it like this. If you were in a church where some of the people are "rules based" and morally judgemental, will the church be more progressive overall if the more liberal minded among them are friendly and continue to dialogue with the judgemental types. Or is it better to ignore the conservative people entirely and have nothing to do with them. I think open-ness, dialogue and tolerance are always the better approach; for Muslims within our society no less so. The second generation of young women will shed the niqab. The hijab, of course, is not at issue. Many Muslims are supportive of a niqab ban so your argument that a ban would be anti-Muslim and "tyranny of the majority" is rather weak. Your support for the niqab is making it harder for the second generation to shed the niqab. Dinosaur Imams in the West try to guilt-trip women into wearing niqab, and extremist organisations like Al Qaeda and the Taleban force women to wear them, while moderate Muslims say they are not Islamic and are supportive of a ban. I support moderate Muslims on this issue. Moderate Muslims here in Canada do not support a ban on the niqab. Certainly a vocal few of them do, but it contradicts the position of any Muslim organisation that I've read.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Mar 21, 2015 8:29:00 GMT -5
I've read maybe 10% of this 50 page thread, so I apologize if the French Connection has already been discussed. But I kind of agree with the French: (From Wikipedia)The French ban on face covering (French: Loi interdisant la dissimulation du visage dans l'espace public, "Act prohibiting concealment of the face in public space") is an act of parliament passed by the Senate of France on 14 September 2010, resulting in the ban on the wearing of face-covering headgear, including masks, helmets, balaclava, niqābs and other veils covering the face in public places, except under specified circumstances.[1] The ban also applies to the burqa, a full-body covering, if it covers the face. Consequently, full body costumes and Zentais (skin-tight garments covering entire body) were banned. The bill had previously been passed by the National Assembly of France on 13 July 2010.[2] The key argument supporting this proposal is that face-coverings prevent the clear identification of a person, which is both a security risk, and a social hindrance within a society which relies on facial recognition and expression in communication. The key argument against the ban is that it encroaches on individual freedoms.[3] --- The wearing of all conspicuous religious symbols in public schools was previously banned in 2004 by a different law, the French law on secularity and conspicuous religious symbols in schools. This affected the wearing of Islamic veils and headscarves in schools, as well as turbans and other distinctive items of dress. The law was challenged and taken to the European Court of Human Rights which upheld the French law on 1 July 2014, accepting the argument of the French government that the law was based on "a certain idea of living together".[9] I don't terribly disagree with the French ban. 1) They're a homogenous culture, unlike Canada. 2) They ban all headcoverings not just the niqab. 3) Unlike Canada, they have Muslim enclaves and women may be more actively repressed than here. 4) Both they and the Euro council see the ban as an infringement of individual rights but they view the collective values of open communications as more important. You should be aware that many moderate Muslims in France are disappointed or outraged by the ban, and time will tell what the effects will be. Basically, Canada has a long tradition of being open to many different cultures throughout history. Many of our first settlers were peoples who were oppressed elsewhere. We also have a strong record of human rights, and have had few problems with Muslim extremists. There is no reason we can't tolerate those very few women that do wear the niqab.
|
|