The Bill 62 debate is back
Oct 19th 2017, 7:26 pm
#61
Listen to the Music
Joined: Mar 2013
Location: Fraser Valley BC
Posts: 4,733
Re: The Bill 62 debate is back
Why do most western men wear trousers? Is it because it's expected of the western male? Is this is their choice or have they been brainwashed?
Oct 19th 2017, 7:33 pm
#62
Nuther day in paradise.ca
Thread Starter
Joined: Aug 2008
Location: Ajax, Ontario
Posts: 7,263
Re: The Bill 62 debate is back
These women in quebec don't have that choice now, nor does a guy with a scarf on in -25 weather or a biker dropping off a package, the persons choice to do something will be taken away, let's just call it the USSQ
Last edited by magnumpi; Oct 19th 2017 at 7:41 pm.
Oct 19th 2017, 7:43 pm
#63
Magnificently Withering
Joined: Jan 2007
Location: Oakville, ON
Posts: 6,891
Re: The Bill 62 debate is back
Enough women, including a fairly forceful commentary from the Canadian COuncil of Muslim Women (not exactly known for kowtowing to men's points of view in anything, least of all in how people should dress) have been absolutely unequivocal on this that it should be obvious that this sort of mansplaining is entirely the reason we got into this mess in the first place.
It's quite simple. Stop telling women what they can and cannot wear in public. Stop telling women why they make the decisions they do about what they can and cannot wear in public. Stop making crass assumptions about what women are thinking when they make decisions about what they can and cannot wear in public.
Or, of course, if what is genuinely desired by the Quebec government is a complete absence of all face coverings for people delivering or receiving public services, then prevent surgeons from wearing masks in the OR; prevent outside municipal employees from wearing scarves over their faces in wintertime; for heaven's sake do not allow police divers to wear face-covering wetsuit hoods when carrying out underwater search, rescue or recovery operations.
This entire Bill is so transparently aimed at suppressing the freedoms of Islamic women, and for no other purpose, that it will almost certainly collapse at the first sign of a legal challenge, which I doubt will be too long coming.
Oct 19th 2017, 7:46 pm
#64
Nuther day in paradise.ca
Thread Starter
Joined: Aug 2008
Location: Ajax, Ontario
Posts: 7,263
Re: The Bill 62 debate is back
Are "they" brainwashed? I dunno, perhaps you could try asking "them" instead of doing their thinking for them.
Enough women, including a fairly forceful commentary from the Canadian COuncil of Muslim Women (not exactly known for kowtowing to men's points of view in anything, least of all in how people should dress) have been absolutely unequivocal on this that it should be obvious that this sort of mansplaining is entirely the reason we got into this mess in the first place.
It's quite simple. Stop telling women what they can and cannot wear in public. Stop telling women why they make the decisions they do about what they can and cannot wear in public. Stop making crass assumptions about what women are thinking when they make decisions about what they can and cannot wear in public.
Or, of course, if what is genuinely desired by the Quebec government is a complete absence of all face coverings for people delivering or receiving public services, then prevent surgeons from wearing masks in the OR; prevent outside municipal employees from wearing scarves over their faces in wintertime; for heaven's sake do not allow police divers to wear face-covering wetsuit hoods when carrying out underwater search, rescue or recovery operations.
This entire Bill is so transparently aimed at suppressing the freedoms of Islamic women, and for no other purpose, that it will almost certainly collapse at the first sign of a legal challenge, which I doubt will be too long coming.
Enough women, including a fairly forceful commentary from the Canadian COuncil of Muslim Women (not exactly known for kowtowing to men's points of view in anything, least of all in how people should dress) have been absolutely unequivocal on this that it should be obvious that this sort of mansplaining is entirely the reason we got into this mess in the first place.
It's quite simple. Stop telling women what they can and cannot wear in public. Stop telling women why they make the decisions they do about what they can and cannot wear in public. Stop making crass assumptions about what women are thinking when they make decisions about what they can and cannot wear in public.
Or, of course, if what is genuinely desired by the Quebec government is a complete absence of all face coverings for people delivering or receiving public services, then prevent surgeons from wearing masks in the OR; prevent outside municipal employees from wearing scarves over their faces in wintertime; for heaven's sake do not allow police divers to wear face-covering wetsuit hoods when carrying out underwater search, rescue or recovery operations.
This entire Bill is so transparently aimed at suppressing the freedoms of Islamic women, and for no other purpose, that it will almost certainly collapse at the first sign of a legal challenge, which I doubt will be too long coming.
Exactly well said.
Oct 19th 2017, 8:05 pm
#65
Lowering the tone
Joined: Mar 2007
Location: Here and there
Posts: 7,351
Re: The Bill 62 debate is back
Are "they" brainwashed? I dunno, perhaps you could try asking "them" instead of doing their thinking for them.
Enough women, including a fairly forceful commentary from the Canadian COuncil of Muslim Women (not exactly known for kowtowing to men's points of view in anything, least of all in how people should dress) have been absolutely unequivocal on this that it should be obvious that this sort of mansplaining is entirely the reason we got into this mess in the first place.
It's quite simple. Stop telling women what they can and cannot wear in public. Stop telling women why they make the decisions they do about what they can and cannot wear in public. Stop making crass assumptions about what women are thinking when they make decisions about what they can and cannot wear in public.
Or, of course, if what is genuinely desired by the Quebec government is a complete absence of all face coverings for people delivering or receiving public services, then prevent surgeons from wearing masks in the OR; prevent outside municipal employees from wearing scarves over their faces in wintertime; for heaven's sake do not allow police divers to wear face-covering wetsuit hoods when carrying out underwater search, rescue or recovery operations.
This entire Bill is so transparently aimed at suppressing the freedoms of Islamic women, and for no other purpose, that it will almost certainly collapse at the first sign of a legal challenge, which I doubt will be too long coming.
Enough women, including a fairly forceful commentary from the Canadian COuncil of Muslim Women (not exactly known for kowtowing to men's points of view in anything, least of all in how people should dress) have been absolutely unequivocal on this that it should be obvious that this sort of mansplaining is entirely the reason we got into this mess in the first place.
It's quite simple. Stop telling women what they can and cannot wear in public. Stop telling women why they make the decisions they do about what they can and cannot wear in public. Stop making crass assumptions about what women are thinking when they make decisions about what they can and cannot wear in public.
Or, of course, if what is genuinely desired by the Quebec government is a complete absence of all face coverings for people delivering or receiving public services, then prevent surgeons from wearing masks in the OR; prevent outside municipal employees from wearing scarves over their faces in wintertime; for heaven's sake do not allow police divers to wear face-covering wetsuit hoods when carrying out underwater search, rescue or recovery operations.
This entire Bill is so transparently aimed at suppressing the freedoms of Islamic women, and for no other purpose, that it will almost certainly collapse at the first sign of a legal challenge, which I doubt will be too long coming.
Oct 19th 2017, 8:09 pm
#66
Magnificently Withering
Joined: Jan 2007
Location: Oakville, ON
Posts: 6,891
Oct 19th 2017, 8:14 pm
#68
Oscar nominated
Joined: Jan 2008
Location: Moncton, NB, CANADA
Posts: 50,904
Oct 19th 2017, 8:16 pm
#69
Lowering the tone
Joined: Mar 2007
Location: Here and there
Posts: 7,351
Re: The Bill 62 debate is back
But seriously, in my opinion, complete head covering is the same thing as chastity belts.. driven by insecure fanatical men using religion as a crutch.
After a lifetime of subjugation - or generations in reality - do these women REALLY have freedom of choice? It's like our giving women the vote... "of course they don't want it, most of them are quite happy being told what to do!"
After a lifetime of subjugation - or generations in reality - do these women REALLY have freedom of choice? It's like our giving women the vote... "of course they don't want it, most of them are quite happy being told what to do!"
Oct 19th 2017, 8:21 pm
#70
Magnificently Withering
Joined: Jan 2007
Location: Oakville, ON
Posts: 6,891
Oct 19th 2017, 8:25 pm
#72
Magnificently Withering
Joined: Jan 2007
Location: Oakville, ON
Posts: 6,891
Re: The Bill 62 debate is back
...although, having now read the text of the specific section of the Bill that deals with face covering, I think it will be very difficult for anybody but the most intransigent zealot to refuse an accommodation request on religious grounds for somebody who wants to visit a library or ride a bus. And they've already thought of the surgeons/wintertime workers angle by building in an "unless" clause.
The relevant section reads:
The relevant section reads:
Personnel members of bodies must exercise their functions with their face
uncovered, unless they have to cover their face, in particular because of their
working conditions or because of occupational or task-related requirements.
Similarly, persons receiving services from such personnel members must
have their face uncovered.
An accommodation that involves an adaptation of either of those rules is
possible but must be refused if the refusal is warranted in the context for security
or identification reasons or because of the level of communication required.
uncovered, unless they have to cover their face, in particular because of their
working conditions or because of occupational or task-related requirements.
Similarly, persons receiving services from such personnel members must
have their face uncovered.
An accommodation that involves an adaptation of either of those rules is
possible but must be refused if the refusal is warranted in the context for security
or identification reasons or because of the level of communication required.
Oct 19th 2017, 8:26 pm
#73
Magnificently Withering
Joined: Jan 2007
Location: Oakville, ON
Posts: 6,891
Re: The Bill 62 debate is back
Nowhere in the legislation is modesty or religion mentioned. It's about not permitting people to give or receive public services with their faces covered. That is the entire point - it is singling out Muslim women, by the crafting of the text of the Bill, without mentioning anything about who is likely to be targeted by this law. It is utterly insidious.
Oct 19th 2017, 8:36 pm
#74
Lowering the tone
Joined: Mar 2007
Location: Here and there
Posts: 7,351
Re: The Bill 62 debate is back
Nowhere in the legislation is modesty or religion mentioned. It's about not permitting people to give or receive public services with their faces covered. That is the entire point - it is singling out Muslim women, by the crafting of the text of the Bill, without mentioning anything about who is likely to be targeted by this law. It is utterly insidious.
Pandering to religious dogmas is not what we should be doing, especially if we claim to be a progressive society. Hey, perhaps we should shut all the stores on Sundays again?
Oct 19th 2017, 11:04 pm
#75
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Aug 2005
Location: South of Calgary
Posts: 13,375
Re: The Bill 62 debate is back
Nowhere in the legislation is modesty or religion mentioned. It's about not permitting people to give or receive public services with their faces covered. That is the entire point - it is singling out Muslim women, by the crafting of the text of the Bill, without mentioning anything about who is likely to be targeted by this law. It is utterly insidious.