The Bill 62 debate is back
#31
Re: The Bill 62 debate is back
I don't think so. If the objection is to people not showing their faces then all facial concealment is an equal target; Halloween masks, balaclavas, whatever. If the objection is to women being Muslim in public then a better worded regulation is required, perhaps something to do with the textiles in use or the combination of facial covering and robes?
#32
Re: The Bill 62 debate is back
I don't think so. If the objection is to people not showing their faces then all facial concealment is an equal target; Halloween masks, balaclavas, whatever. If the objection is to women being Muslim in public then a better worded regulation is required, perhaps something to do with the textiles in use or the combination of facial covering and robes?
#33
Re: The Bill 62 debate is back
I don't think so. If the objection is to people not showing their faces then all facial concealment is an equal target; Halloween masks, balaclavas, whatever. If the objection is to women being Muslim in public then a better worded regulation is required, perhaps something to do with the textiles in use or the combination of facial covering and robes?
I don't like the idea of people wandering around carrying guns, and I don't like the idea of people wearing veils. Both are decreed necessary for self-protection, by (mostly) male fundamentalists with a twisted view of the world.
#34
Re: The Bill 62 debate is back
I'm not a fan of guns nor of veils but I'm not keen on legislation either. Carrying guns is an activity likely to cause immediate harm to people who have not chosen to participate and so, by my standard, warrants legislation. Dressing badly, not so much.
#35
Re: The Bill 62 debate is back
If they were a gang of yuts wearing hoodies and scarves I can see that there would be cause for concern over the covered faces. Indeed, on the local news feed from home there was a warning today of just such a group of people in the street; public fear is reasonable in that circumstance.
A woman in a veil though, for what you have to see her face? One of my egg customers is a woman who always wears a headscarf and sometimes a veil, she doesn't seem more or less likely to explode in one costume or the other. I don't like her religion or her customs but they don't affect anyone but her and so we've no business interfering.
A woman in a veil though, for what you have to see her face? One of my egg customers is a woman who always wears a headscarf and sometimes a veil, she doesn't seem more or less likely to explode in one costume or the other. I don't like her religion or her customs but they don't affect anyone but her and so we've no business interfering.
#36
Re: The Bill 62 debate is back
There's no right not to be made uncomfortable. Hipsters make me uncomfortable but I don't call for a ban on pomade. Chelsea fans make me uncomfortable but, if they're not actively hissing, they're free to go about their dubious business. All those people laying in the street with begging bowls make me uncomfortable but I don't demand that they be housed. People do make each other uncomfortable, it's how life works.
#37
Re: The Bill 62 debate is back
There's no right not to be made uncomfortable. Hipsters make me uncomfortable but I don't call for a ban on pomade. Chelsea fans make me uncomfortable but, if they're not actively hissing, they're free to go about their dubious business. All those people laying in the street with begging bowls make me uncomfortable but I don't demand that they be housed. People do make each other uncomfortable, it's how life works.
#38
Re: The Bill 62 debate is back
No one cares what the public think, they vote on this today and what will be will be !
#39
Re: The Bill 62 debate is back
That's why we can't go around banning things that make us uncomfortable. Everyone is discomforted by something.
#40
Re: The Bill 62 debate is back
There's no right not to be made uncomfortable. Hipsters make me uncomfortable but I don't call for a ban on pomade. Chelsea fans make me uncomfortable but, if they're not actively hissing, they're free to go about their dubious business. All those people laying in the street with begging bowls make me uncomfortable but I don't demand that they be housed. People do make each other uncomfortable, it's how life works.
I thought that assuaging everyone's discomfort was the new norm.
#41
Re: The Bill 62 debate is back
Well, unlike hipsters, they are veiled. But my objections to that mode of dress are far deeper than my own discomfort.
#42
Re: The Bill 62 debate is back
I must confess I haven't read the detailed wording of the proposed amendment to Bill 62, but it strikes me as somewhat ridiculous in a province that gets so cold in wintertime to try to ban workers providing a public service from covering their faces while doing so. Presumably that means that garbage collectors and city-contracted snow removal operatives will not be allowed to cover their faces for the duration of their shift outside in -30 weather? I can see one or two potential issues with that once the first damages claim for frostbite comes in...
#44
Re: The Bill 62 debate is back
Rightly or wrongly, we do not live in anarchy where anything goes. We live in society. That, by definition, implies social engagement, social interaction. Our society has developed on the basis of dealing with people face-to-face, and over the centuries we have arrived at a place where we try to treat everyone equally regardless of gender, race or whatever. To do that, we engage with each other, not encourage certain sectors to withdraw from society. Going out veiled to deal with society is a backward step.
I’m all for people doing whatever they want provided it causes no harm, but I believe that the veiling of women in public is a harmful step for society, especially given the misogynistic origin of the practice.
I’m all for people doing whatever they want provided it causes no harm, but I believe that the veiling of women in public is a harmful step for society, especially given the misogynistic origin of the practice.
#45
Re: The Bill 62 debate is back
Rightly or wrongly, we do not live in anarchy where anything goes. We live in society. That, by definition, implies social engagement, social interaction. Our society has developed on the basis of dealing with people face-to-face, and over the centuries we have arrived at a place where we try to treat everyone equally regardless of gender, race or whatever. To do that, we engage with each other, not encourage certain sectors to withdraw from society. Going out veiled to deal with society is a backward step.
I’m all for people doing whatever they want provided it causes no harm, but I believe that the veiling of women in public is a harmful step for society, especially given the misogynistic origin of the practice.
I’m all for people doing whatever they want provided it causes no harm, but I believe that the veiling of women in public is a harmful step for society, especially given the misogynistic origin of the practice.