Go Back  British Expats > Living & Moving Abroad > Canada > The Maple Leaf
Reload this Page >

The Bill 62 debate is back

The Bill 62 debate is back

Thread Tools
 
Old Oct 18th 2017, 12:35 pm
  #31  
Assimilated Pauper
 
dbd33's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2005
Location: Ontario
Posts: 40,018
dbd33 has a reputation beyond reputedbd33 has a reputation beyond reputedbd33 has a reputation beyond reputedbd33 has a reputation beyond reputedbd33 has a reputation beyond reputedbd33 has a reputation beyond reputedbd33 has a reputation beyond reputedbd33 has a reputation beyond reputedbd33 has a reputation beyond reputedbd33 has a reputation beyond reputedbd33 has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: The Bill 62 debate is back

Originally Posted by macadian
Another example of gravitating from the rediculous to the sublime?
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?
dbd33 is offline  
Old Oct 18th 2017, 12:51 pm
  #32  
Yo
 
Shard's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 24,474
Shard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: The Bill 62 debate is back

Originally Posted by dbd33
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?
As it happens, full niqab is a fine Halloween costume so special provisions in the wording could be made to allow it on the 31st of October.
Shard is offline  
Old Oct 18th 2017, 1:00 pm
  #33  
Lowering the tone
 
Jingsamichty's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2007
Location: Here and there
Posts: 7,346
Jingsamichty has a reputation beyond reputeJingsamichty has a reputation beyond reputeJingsamichty has a reputation beyond reputeJingsamichty has a reputation beyond reputeJingsamichty has a reputation beyond reputeJingsamichty has a reputation beyond reputeJingsamichty has a reputation beyond reputeJingsamichty has a reputation beyond reputeJingsamichty has a reputation beyond reputeJingsamichty has a reputation beyond reputeJingsamichty has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: The Bill 62 debate is back

Originally Posted by dbd33
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?
My objection is not to all facial concealment - as you point out, there are times when faces are reasonably concealed. My objection is to facial concealment at times when it is not reasonable by normal standards... when discussing your child's progress at a school parent's evening, when driving, when requiring to interact with other members of society etc. etc. etc.

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.
Jingsamichty is online now  
Old Oct 18th 2017, 1:14 pm
  #34  
Assimilated Pauper
 
dbd33's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2005
Location: Ontario
Posts: 40,018
dbd33 has a reputation beyond reputedbd33 has a reputation beyond reputedbd33 has a reputation beyond reputedbd33 has a reputation beyond reputedbd33 has a reputation beyond reputedbd33 has a reputation beyond reputedbd33 has a reputation beyond reputedbd33 has a reputation beyond reputedbd33 has a reputation beyond reputedbd33 has a reputation beyond reputedbd33 has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: The Bill 62 debate is back

Originally Posted by Jingsamichty
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.
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.
dbd33 is offline  
Old Oct 18th 2017, 1:22 pm
  #35  
Lost in BE Cyberspace
 
Almost Canadian's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2005
Location: South of Calgary
Posts: 13,374
Almost Canadian has a reputation beyond reputeAlmost Canadian has a reputation beyond reputeAlmost Canadian has a reputation beyond reputeAlmost Canadian has a reputation beyond reputeAlmost Canadian has a reputation beyond reputeAlmost Canadian has a reputation beyond reputeAlmost Canadian has a reputation beyond reputeAlmost Canadian has a reputation beyond reputeAlmost Canadian has a reputation beyond reputeAlmost Canadian has a reputation beyond reputeAlmost Canadian has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: The Bill 62 debate is back

Originally Posted by dbd33
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.
It wouldn't bother me, but I accept it may bother others. Flipping it one its head, what justification is there for the person wearing it to wear it, if it makes others uncomfortable (for whatever reason)?
Almost Canadian is offline  
Old Oct 18th 2017, 1:33 pm
  #36  
Assimilated Pauper
 
dbd33's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2005
Location: Ontario
Posts: 40,018
dbd33 has a reputation beyond reputedbd33 has a reputation beyond reputedbd33 has a reputation beyond reputedbd33 has a reputation beyond reputedbd33 has a reputation beyond reputedbd33 has a reputation beyond reputedbd33 has a reputation beyond reputedbd33 has a reputation beyond reputedbd33 has a reputation beyond reputedbd33 has a reputation beyond reputedbd33 has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: The Bill 62 debate is back

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian
It wouldn't bother me, but I accept it may bother others. Flipping it one its head, what justification is there for the person wearing it to wear it, if it makes others uncomfortable (for whatever reason)?
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.
dbd33 is offline  
Old Oct 18th 2017, 1:47 pm
  #37  
Yo
 
Shard's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 24,474
Shard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: The Bill 62 debate is back

Originally Posted by dbd33
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.
Why do hipsters make you uncomfortable? They're fairly docile in my estimation.
Shard is offline  
Old Oct 18th 2017, 1:51 pm
  #38  
Nuther day in paradise.ca
Thread Starter
 
magnumpi's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2008
Location: Ajax, Ontario
Posts: 7,263
magnumpi has a reputation beyond reputemagnumpi has a reputation beyond reputemagnumpi has a reputation beyond reputemagnumpi has a reputation beyond reputemagnumpi has a reputation beyond reputemagnumpi has a reputation beyond reputemagnumpi has a reputation beyond reputemagnumpi has a reputation beyond reputemagnumpi has a reputation beyond reputemagnumpi has a reputation beyond reputemagnumpi has a reputation beyond repute
Default 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 !
magnumpi is offline  
Old Oct 18th 2017, 1:51 pm
  #39  
Assimilated Pauper
 
dbd33's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2005
Location: Ontario
Posts: 40,018
dbd33 has a reputation beyond reputedbd33 has a reputation beyond reputedbd33 has a reputation beyond reputedbd33 has a reputation beyond reputedbd33 has a reputation beyond reputedbd33 has a reputation beyond reputedbd33 has a reputation beyond reputedbd33 has a reputation beyond reputedbd33 has a reputation beyond reputedbd33 has a reputation beyond reputedbd33 has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: The Bill 62 debate is back

Originally Posted by Shard
Why do hipsters make you uncomfortable? They're fairly docile in my estimation.
Why do veiled women make you uncomfortable? They're fairly docile in my estimation.

That's why we can't go around banning things that make us uncomfortable. Everyone is discomforted by something.
dbd33 is offline  
Old Oct 18th 2017, 1:53 pm
  #40  
Lost in BE Cyberspace
 
Almost Canadian's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2005
Location: South of Calgary
Posts: 13,374
Almost Canadian has a reputation beyond reputeAlmost Canadian has a reputation beyond reputeAlmost Canadian has a reputation beyond reputeAlmost Canadian has a reputation beyond reputeAlmost Canadian has a reputation beyond reputeAlmost Canadian has a reputation beyond reputeAlmost Canadian has a reputation beyond reputeAlmost Canadian has a reputation beyond reputeAlmost Canadian has a reputation beyond reputeAlmost Canadian has a reputation beyond reputeAlmost Canadian has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: The Bill 62 debate is back

Originally Posted by dbd33
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.
Would you use that same argument to require those that are not sure about their "gender" to have to use toilets that align with their "birth gender"?

I thought that assuaging everyone's discomfort was the new norm.
Almost Canadian is offline  
Old Oct 18th 2017, 1:54 pm
  #41  
Yo
 
Shard's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 24,474
Shard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: The Bill 62 debate is back

Originally Posted by dbd33
Why do veiled women make you uncomfortable? They're fairly docile in my estimation.

That's why we can't go around banning things that make us uncomfortable. Everyone is discomforted by something.
Well, unlike hipsters, they are veiled. But my objections to that mode of dress are far deeper than my own discomfort.
Shard is offline  
Old Oct 18th 2017, 1:58 pm
  #42  
Magnificently Withering
 
Oakvillian's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2007
Location: Oakville, ON
Posts: 6,891
Oakvillian has a reputation beyond reputeOakvillian has a reputation beyond reputeOakvillian has a reputation beyond reputeOakvillian has a reputation beyond reputeOakvillian has a reputation beyond reputeOakvillian has a reputation beyond reputeOakvillian has a reputation beyond reputeOakvillian has a reputation beyond reputeOakvillian has a reputation beyond reputeOakvillian has a reputation beyond reputeOakvillian has a reputation beyond repute
Default 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...
Oakvillian is offline  
Old Oct 18th 2017, 1:58 pm
  #43  
Magnificently Withering
 
Oakvillian's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2007
Location: Oakville, ON
Posts: 6,891
Oakvillian has a reputation beyond reputeOakvillian has a reputation beyond reputeOakvillian has a reputation beyond reputeOakvillian has a reputation beyond reputeOakvillian has a reputation beyond reputeOakvillian has a reputation beyond reputeOakvillian has a reputation beyond reputeOakvillian has a reputation beyond reputeOakvillian has a reputation beyond reputeOakvillian has a reputation beyond reputeOakvillian has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: The Bill 62 debate is back

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian
Would you use that same argument to require those that are not sure about their "gender" to have to use toilets that align with their "birth gender"?

I thought that assuaging everyone's discomfort was the new norm.
Can you say "whataboutism"?

FFS get a grip.
Oakvillian is offline  
Old Oct 18th 2017, 2:12 pm
  #44  
Lowering the tone
 
Jingsamichty's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2007
Location: Here and there
Posts: 7,346
Jingsamichty has a reputation beyond reputeJingsamichty has a reputation beyond reputeJingsamichty has a reputation beyond reputeJingsamichty has a reputation beyond reputeJingsamichty has a reputation beyond reputeJingsamichty has a reputation beyond reputeJingsamichty has a reputation beyond reputeJingsamichty has a reputation beyond reputeJingsamichty has a reputation beyond reputeJingsamichty has a reputation beyond reputeJingsamichty has a reputation beyond repute
Default 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.
Jingsamichty is online now  
Old Oct 18th 2017, 2:17 pm
  #45  
Yo
 
Shard's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 24,474
Shard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: The Bill 62 debate is back

Originally Posted by Jingsamichty
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.
It's a step toward segregation isn't it. Very pleased Ofsted banned segregation of pupils in that Birmingham school last week. We have to stick up for our enlightened culture!
Shard is offline  


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.