magnumpi

They don't, it's not obligatory, it's a choice, ohh hold on !! it's not a choice, not in Quebec in certain places, not now.

caretaker

Something along the lines of DPRK and China beating the hell out of the Christian church or Israel's war on Gaza? The policy right now is inclusion, and we in Canada see diversity as a step forward, and with the US being a political whoopee-cushion right now we stand to benefit culturally and economically by embracing those who meet our qualifications, and aiding those who are in immediate distress.

Almost Canadian

So...

It likely won't be successfully challenged on religious freedom grounds then

Jingsamichty

No, I'm not suggesting we eliminate religion, just don't pander to the loopier elements of it. Quite sensibly, we don't allow some of the crazy stuff like an eye-for-an-eye or polygamy or allowing men to beat their wives, and we shouldn't allow certain womenfolk be made to wear a sack over their head in public.

Shard

For many it's simply their culture, something that they've seen amongst family and community and have decided to follow. For others there's an expectation by fathers or husband that the woman demonstrate her modesty. And then for more home-grown proponents there's a desire for cultural identity and a challenge to wider society (that to some extent discriminates and seeks to suppress minority culture). So for some it is "conditioning" for others it's choice.

Either way, it's a divisive practice. It does not bring people together, it drives a wedge between genders and cultures so the diversity argument falls flat.

Veiling women is a hideous practice, no matter what the apologists or even the women themselves say.

Fortunately, the good people of Quebec, including women, see through the spurious arguments and have a desire to shape their society in open and inclusive way.

dbd33

The central government better knows whether or not the woman with the bag over her head wants to have the bag over her head than she does herself.

I find that hard to credit, what does the central government think of my sock and sandal combination?

dbd33

I must stipulate that I am not in fact in socks and sandals, as far as I know, no one has stepped on to this board in such attire since iaink packed in posting. That is, however, a form of dress offensive to right minded people, one which causes bystanders to be uncomfortable, to cringe. Only people who play golf dress in a more ridiculous fashion. Nonetheless, loathsome as the sock and sandal people and the Pringle sweater people may be, they are defiling their own bodies with garments they have purchased. Aint nobody's business if they do.

Oakvillian

why do you focus on "required?" Why should women not be allowed to choose how they make a public demonstration of their faith, regardless of its documented requirements? Where in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms does it suggest that only "required" observances are to be permitted to Canadians?

Jingsamichty

Golfers are probably a more apt analogy than you realise. Most golf clubs insist that players adopt certain standards of dress. "Slacks", to use the ugliest word in the English language, collared shirt, golf shoes etc. Now, you could be a moderate golfer and abide by those rules and still look relatively normal, or you could be a fundamentalist golfer who interprets those rules as having to look like the aftermath of a polyester bomb landing on an Edinburgh Woollen Mill.

caretaker

And I never suggested it either. When the British defeated the French in Canada they graciously allowed them to keep their land, their religion, and their language, weird rites and customs included. Now decades of Quebec threatening to separate and the rest of Canada begging them to stay has emboldened them to legislate against the customs of new Canadians. It's reasonable for confirmation of identity to be made in some cases, but to say that you can't ride a frigging bus with a veil on is just bullshit. It's a great time for the far-right in Quebec, so watch for an increase in hate crimes now that intolerance has been officially sanctioned. If they aren't allowed to wear the burka in Quebec they'll either just stay indoors or move somewhere else that allows it, and so will some Quebecers that just don't like what their government has become.

Former Lancastrian

In my job I meet many Muslim women and I have to interact with them in a public service role.
I would say that 99% of the time these women are usually wearing a Hijab and therefore they don't need to be asked to uncover their faces. I know many Muslim women who wear normal clothing i.e. jeans, dresses with no head covering.

Now when coming across those who are wearing the Niqab or Burka they are requested to remove their face covering for Identity purposes. I have rarely come across this situation but have seen them being worn in normal day to day life. These women are usually true believers in Islam.

Is there a difference between Muslims and followers of Islam yes there is. Many say Islam is NOT a religion as it is an amalgam of social, political and judicial systems as well as a belief system. It is neither one thing nor the other – Islam is unique.

Many Muslim men drink alcohol whereas I doubt you would find a true follower of Islam drinking alcohol.

Most nightclubs have dress codes and if found in violation entry is denied. The 2009 Law introduced in Saskatchewan banning Gang colours was ruled unconstitutional and violates freedom of expression but the establishments could use their own dress codes to keep gang members out as the dress code did not fall under the 2009 law. Many if not most Provinces adopt the dress code policy.

I have no doubt there will be a challenge to bill 62 and in all likelihood it will be struck down. I highly doubt Municipalities will then introduce a dress code policy for transit buses or the Provincial Govt adopting a dress code for public services.

Providing those who continue to wear the Niqab or Burka then don't start complaining that they are always being asked to uncover their faces in a bank/credit union type of establishment, a jewellers shop wouldn't unlock the electronic entry door for them to enter the store, or some other places adopt a dress code then Im OK with them wearing it.

dbd33

Oy vey!

It's unique in the combination of systems but it's not unique in being "an amalgam of social, political and judicial systems as well as a belief system".

Every schmuck knows that religions and customs blend so that, for example, followers of a religion may use a dialect related to, but not of, the religion. Or they may eat, or not eat, specific foods on Fridays or Shrove Tuesdays even though that's a custom associated with the religion, not a requirement of it.

Former Lancastrian

I should have used the article link I took that from as those are not my words
Why Islam is Not a Religion > Rebecca Bynum

Also there are many other articles some that say Islam is a religion and others its not. Who am I to say if it is or it isn't. What we do know is that it is a very polarizing subject especially in places like the USA, Canada and the UK and others but probably not as much say in South American countries.

BTW I eat meat on Fridays.

dbd33

If you'd cited that source initially I would not have taken your post seriously enough to respond. That's akin to citing Yasser Arafat on Judaism or Ian Paisley on Catholicism or Katie Hopkins on anything at all.

How much relevance do you think this passage, from your link:

'The following are the words of the father of a failed female suicide bomber:



“'If I had known what [my daughter] was planning I would have told the Jews. I would have stopped her.”

“In our religion it is forbidden for a girl's body to be uncovered even at home. How could a girl allow her body to be smashed to pieces and then collected up by Jews? This is absolutely forbidden.”


Though this is an extreme circumstance, we see this pattern play out over and over again. Women are treated as if they were property because that is how they are defined by Islam.'

has to the veiled woman on the Clapham Omnibus?

Shard

There's two aspects, what's best for the (subjugated) woman, and what's best for society. I think Quebec is focusing on the latter, although the former is a byproduct. Sometimes government needs to set the tone.