U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Canada
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 10-03-2015, 04:22 PM
 
5,097 posts, read 2,489,437 times
Reputation: 4657

Advertisements

Let me simplify: Please quote a line from the Bible, and show how a related definition of modesty includes "covering one's nose".


I have to agree with Harper and his team on this one: that nose covering is not a valid interpretation of modesty; certainly not written in the Bible, and nose covering is "barbaric and medieval".

Last edited by Lieneke; 10-03-2015 at 04:45 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-03-2015, 05:34 PM
 
Location: Canada
5,692 posts, read 6,541,240 times
Reputation: 8193
Quote:
Originally Posted by Almrausch View Post
I thought about this issue many times and I think the problem could be solved if once or twice a year there would be a swearing in just for women who wear a niqāb .In front of a woman judge they would be able to remove their niqāb They may have to travel to Ottawa to attend the swearing in. This is just my personal thought to live in peace.
That is actually an excellent idea.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2015, 05:36 PM
 
Location: Canada
5,692 posts, read 6,541,240 times
Reputation: 8193
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lieneke View Post
Let me simplify: Please quote a line from the Bible, and show how a related definition of modesty includes "covering one's nose".


I have to agree with Harper and his team on this one: that nose covering is not a valid interpretation of modesty; certainly not written in the Bible, and nose covering is "barbaric and medieval".
If you are not capable of relating to cultures outside your immediate experience, then there really isn't any more to be said to that. If your viewpoint of how a democratic society works is based on a western Biblical interpretation, then I must respectfully disagree.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2015, 06:33 PM
 
Location: Canada
4,811 posts, read 4,443,437 times
Reputation: 3257
Quote:
Originally Posted by Almrausch View Post
I thought about this issue many times and I think the problem could be solved if once or twice a year there would be a swearing in just for women who wear a niqāb .In front of a woman judge they would be able to remove their niqāb They may have to travel to Ottawa to attend the swearing in. This is just my personal thought to live in peace.
This is a terrible idea. So people that want to become Canadian have to do so segregated? We might as well allow sharia law. If we allow this, then I think Latinos should demand citizenship ceremonies be held in Spanish.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2015, 06:51 PM
 
873 posts, read 815,497 times
Reputation: 554
I'm all for it. I don't care what you do as long as it doesn't hurt others. It's religious freedom, the Niqab doesn't affect me. You can make the women s rights argument but what's the difference between the woman's husband telling her to wear it and the government forcing you to take it off? All in all I don't think this should be a topic of discussion for the election though as there are more important issues. The Niqab is all about politics, nothing more.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2015, 07:11 PM
 
Location: Canada
4,811 posts, read 4,443,437 times
Reputation: 3257
An interesting point of view from a moderate muslim.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fe2x-GJRxfw
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2015, 09:10 PM
 
Location: Halifax, NS
225 posts, read 147,644 times
Reputation: 156
Canada ALREADY has an accommodation for women in the niqab. They can go to another room with another woman to take it off to verify their identity, then they can put it back on, go out, and swear the oath. The woman who is involved in the case has done this many times through the immigration process, getting her drivers license, etc.

That's how this has ALWAYS been done.

It's only become an issue with the election. Really, Harper has been PM since 2006, had a majority since 2011... he could have changed the law then. But he didn't, did he? No, this comes up in the election that he was losing.

He threw a dead cat on the table because he was losing in the polls.

And now we're talking about the dead cat (I responded to the thread on the Australian idiom here)

Though it's not like the other parties are innocent in throwing dead cats on the table. Justin Trudeau's is weed. He said he wanted to legalize it long ago, it was known, but threw that dead cat back on the table. I think that was a distraction strategy "Hey guys, remember, I want to legalize weed!"

Mind you, I'm all for legal weed. It could bring in revenue for the country, actually. Tax it, use the money to invest in health care, schools, infrastructure, etc. Like Colorado. That can bring in revenue, banning the niqab won't. So that cat might not be dead, he threw a live cat on the table.

Last edited by Souriquois; 10-03-2015 at 09:22 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2015, 09:30 PM
 
Location: Toronto
12,581 posts, read 11,146,540 times
Reputation: 3738
Quote:
Originally Posted by Souriquois View Post
Canada ALREADY has an accommodation for women in the niqab. They can go to another room with another woman to take it off to verify their identity, then they can put it back on, go out, and swear the oath. The woman who is involved in the case has done this many times through the immigration process, getting her drivers license, etc.

That's how this has ALWAYS been done.

It's only become an issue with the election. Really, Harper has been PM since 2006, had a majority since 2011... he could have changed the law then. But he didn't, did he? No, this comes up in the election that he was losing.

He threw a dead cat on the table because he was losing in the polls.

And now we're talking about the dead cat (I responded to the thread on the Australian idiom here)

Though it's not like the other parties are innocent in throwing dead cats on the table. Justin Trudeau's is weed. He said he wanted to legalize it long ago, it was known, but threw that dead cat back on the table. I think that was a distraction strategy "Hey guys, remember, I want to legalize weed!"

Mind you, I'm all for legal weed. It could bring in revenue for the country, actually. Tax it, use the money to invest in health care, schools, infrastructure, etc. Like Colorado. That can bring in revenue, banning the niqab won't. So that cat might not be dead, he threw a live cat on the table.
Hmmm good post Souriquois.. Seems like the accommodation is reasonable to me.. The rest of this post is very plausible.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2015, 09:32 PM
 
Location: Halifax, NS
225 posts, read 147,644 times
Reputation: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Migratory Chicken View Post
It's called the Bloc!


True, but in this case women need to remove their niqab before the ceremony when they have to prove their identity, they're just allowed to put it back on when swearing the oath. Mulcair's been pointing out this fact several times during debates.

Not only is Harper using this to his advantage, but he's actually planned his timing so the issue would come out right now. It's a joker he had in his sleeve for the campaign. And even though he's now trying to present himself as defender of the Canadian value of gender equality, he could have solved this a long time ago. The recent court decision doesn't even say that forbidding wearing a niqab at citizenship ceremonies is against the charter, it just says that the ministerial directive to this effect is in conflict with other laws and rules. It's all very Harperian.

The Bloc's position, which I don't entirely agree with, is much more honest. It says that all public services should be given and received with an uncovered face. I agree with given; for received I think it depends on what actual service is being received. But it's consistent, while Harper is being transparently demagogic. Of course Duceppe is also using the situation to his advantage, while accusing Harper of hypocrisy.

What I'm wondering now is what accessories I am allowed to wear while being inducted as Canadian citizen, and if there are some restrictions on philosophical or political symbols. For example, could I become a Canadian citizen if I have a visible swastika tattoo? What about if I wear a pin on my clothing that reads "Je suis souverainiste"? The answer to these questions could tell us if it's possible to forbid wearing a niqab on values grounds alone.


Just because some women would choose to wear a niqab doesn't mean I have to consider it empowering. Some women want to stay with their abusive husbands, too; doesn't mean I have to think it's a great victory for women's rights. But you're right that there's currently a divide in the feminist movement over whether we should tolerate women doing things that are harmful to women. We see this here, with people arguing for or against niqabs based on feminist arguments.

This also makes me think of the current process to reform the Quebec Civil Code to change the recognition informal unmarried couples receive. In contrast to other Canadian provinces, it's extremely common in Quebec for couples to never marry, and unmarried couples are also totally unrecognized in law while other provinces have a concept of common-law marriage. But some people, notably lawyer Anne-France Goldwater, were arguing on feminist grounds that the current law is harmful to women because it allows men to spend years working on their careers while their (unmarried) spouse often drops theirs to concentrate on the couple, only to end up with nothing when they get dumped. So giving more choices to women (get married, or have a more informal legal arrangement with one's spouse) was characterized as anti-woman. It really is a complicated issue.
Some women who wear the niqab feel it's empowering because they're not confined to beauty standards that are placed on women, don't have to put on make-up, and they don't get cat called.

And let's be real, Harper saying it's anti-woman is hypocritical, considering he made cuts to programs that help women, not to mention not caring about missing and murdered aboriginal women, and then the vast majority of solved homicides in Canada are men killing women, 1 in 4 women will be sexually assaulted in their lifetime, 50% of Canadian women experience domestic violence in their lifetime, Canada has a gender wage gap that is twice the global average... need I go on?

This video by a comedian from my hometown on the niqab issue is pretty funny:

https://youtu.be/rTtGwClFTxs

Both Western and Middle Eastern cultures are sexist. And all I see in these kinds of debates is a bunch of men arguing about who's version of oppressing women is better. It's men making these arguments, women rarely get a say.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2015, 11:30 PM
 
Location: Canada
5,692 posts, read 6,541,240 times
Reputation: 8193
Quote:
Originally Posted by Souriquois View Post
Some women who wear the niqab feel it's empowering because they're not confined to beauty standards that are placed on women, don't have to put on make-up, and they don't get cat called.

And let's be real, Harper saying it's anti-woman is hypocritical, considering he made cuts to programs that help women, not to mention not caring about missing and murdered aboriginal women, and then the vast majority of solved homicides in Canada are men killing women, 1 in 4 women will be sexually assaulted in their lifetime, 50% of Canadian women experience domestic violence in their lifetime, Canada has a gender wage gap that is twice the global average... need I go on?

This video by a comedian from my hometown on the niqab issue is pretty funny:

https://youtu.be/rTtGwClFTxs

Both Western and Middle Eastern cultures are sexist. And all I see in these kinds of debates is a bunch of men arguing about who's version of oppressing women is better. It's men making these arguments, women rarely get a say.
Always nice to read a post that gets it.

I didn't know that the women could go in another room.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Canada
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top