Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 05-22-2020, 05:19 PM
Jackmannii's Avatar
Jackmannii is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: the extreme center
Posts: 33,405
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
Yes, we should absolutely take action against illegal coercive measures used in many patriarchal communities to force women into compliance with their sexist norms. And yes, we should absolutely welcome noncompliant women from those communities into a safer and more open larger culture if they choose to leave their oppressive situations.
And yes, according to you we should drum up a silly scenario about American women culturally compelled to get breast augmentation and wear high heels so they can go to pizza joints with their families.

Because one must never never find fault with a repugnant practice mandated in other countries without trying to turn it back on the U.S.

Kind of a reverse tu quoque.
  #52  
Old 05-22-2020, 06:02 PM
Siam Sam is offline
Elephant Whisperer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
Posts: 42,053
I keep thinking of "nattering niqabs of negativity," to paraphrase Spiro Agnew.
__________________
"Hell is other people." -- Jean-Paul Sartre
  #53  
Old 05-22-2020, 08:22 PM
Yookeroo's Avatar
Yookeroo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: San Clemente, California
Posts: 5,131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broomstick View Post
People with iPhones set up for face recognition to unlock their phones do, in fact, have to uncover their faces to pay for anything with their phones, or basically use their phones at all.
No they don't. My phone uses facial recognition. When my face isn't recognized, I wait a half second and enter my passcode. Annoying, but not a hardship under these circumstances.
  #54  
Old 05-22-2020, 09:05 PM
Monty's Avatar
Monty is offline
Straight Dope Science Advisory Board
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Beijing, China
Posts: 24,690
I wonder how many people who use facial recognition for their phones are actually and actively aware of that, Yookeroo.
  #55  
Old 05-22-2020, 09:13 PM
Riemann's Avatar
Riemann is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Santa Fe, NM, USA
Posts: 8,471
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monty View Post
I wonder how many people who use facial recognition for their phones are actually and actively aware of that, Yookeroo.
On iOS, it's not something you need to be aware of - if face recognition fails, it automatically brings up a keyboard and asks for your numeric password.
  #56  
Old 05-22-2020, 10:39 PM
Kimstu is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 23,429
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackmannii View Post
And yes, according to you we should drum up a silly scenario about American women culturally compelled to get breast augmentation and wear high heels so they can go to pizza joints with their families.
Touched a nerve? Of course I have not at all been trying to argue that gender norms for dress restrictions are anywhere near as restrictive or as oppressively enforced in mainstream American society as they are in many radical Islamist societies. And I explicitly pointed that out right when I made that analogy.

My point was just that it's really easy to take a completely prohibitionist attitude to sexist gender norms in "alien" cultures, which tends to run roughshod over people's right to individual choice. What are you going to say to the many Muslim women in supportive families who voluntarily choose to wear burqa or niqab even though nobody's forcing them to? "No, we outsiders inevitably associate that custom with widespread oppression and abuse so we're going to disregard and disallow your choice about what clothing you want to wear?"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackmannii
Because one must never never find fault with a repugnant practice mandated in other countries without trying to turn it back on the U.S.
Wow, that did touch a nerve, apparently. What on earth is wrong with using our reflex reactions to "exotic" sexist expectations in other cultures as opportunities to reflect on ways that we've become desensitized to "normal, everyday" sexist expectations in our own? Sounds to me like more of a feature than a bug, tbh.

Now, if I were trying to argue---like the typical tired strawman liberal that so many people get so angry at in these discussions---that cultural expectations about women wearing makeup in mainstream American culture are just as pervasive and just as draconian and just as harmful as cultural expectations about women wearing niqab in radically patriarchal Islamist societies, you'd have a legitimate point of criticism. As it is, though, you're just flailing at that old strawman again.
  #57  
Old 05-23-2020, 09:24 AM
Jackmannii's Avatar
Jackmannii is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: the extreme center
Posts: 33,405
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
What on earth is wrong with using our reflex reactions to "exotic" sexist expectations in other cultures as opportunities to reflect on ways that we've become desensitized to "normal, everyday" sexist expectations in our own?
Such "reflex" actions become a sickness when it becomes impossible to delineate evil without someone trying to inflict guilt on those who point it out.

Your comparison of Muslim societies forcing women to wear niqabs with Western women supposedly being culturally compelled to have boob jobs and wear high heels to accompany their families out for pizza, just happened to be an especially ludicrous example of this phenomenon.*

*maybe you have examples of vigilantes in flyover communities corralling women outside the Pizza Hut to harass and berate them for makeup deficiencies and wearing comfortable shoes, in which case I stand corrected.

Last edited by Jackmannii; 05-23-2020 at 09:26 AM.
  #58  
Old 05-23-2020, 11:23 AM
saucywench is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Goat Therapy Institute
Posts: 1,046
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
Speaking as somebody who's always supported the right of individuals to wear niqab but also the right of decision makers in certain specific societal contexts to prohibit face-coverings including niqab, I don't see how the emergency practice of universal mask wearing as a public-health measure in response to a dangerous pandemic changes the merits of my position at all.

Yes, if anybody in the current situation is objecting to niqab but not to other kinds of face-coverings, that's hypocritical and bigoted. If this pandemic ends up fundamentally changing social customs in western societies so that public use of face-coverings becomes an acceptable societal norm, then objecting specifically to niqab will also be hypocritical and bigoted.

But if we return to a non-emergency situation where the wearing of face coverings in ordinary social/professional contexts is once again not considered an acceptable societal norm, then I'll resume my position of supporting the right of individuals to wear niqab but also the right of decision makers in certain specific societal contexts to prohibit face-coverings including niqab. I don't see anything bigoted or hypocritical about that.


More gobbledygook! Does your "supporting the rights of individuals," (women in this case) also include the women getting a choice, as to whether or not they want to wear these contraptions? Or are you speaking for them?
  #59  
Old 05-23-2020, 11:48 AM
saucywench is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Goat Therapy Institute
Posts: 1,046
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu
But if they are wearing veils out of deference to religious prohibitions against women participating in the public sphere, then ISTM they should not be attempting to participate in the public sphere.

This is the "burqa = pardah" argument that I've made before in threads like this one. Namely, the requirement in some Islamic cultures for women to cover their faces in public is part of the general principle of pardah or "purdah", the idea that women should stay "behind the curtain" of private and family life.

Cultures that practice pardah are maintaining the principle that women do not belong in the public sphere, and in particular should not interact with male strangers in any way.

Total veiling of women (wearing combinations of garments variously known as burqa, niqab, chador, abaya, etc.) outside the home is intended as a practical compromise with the pardah principle. It recognizes that the necessities of life compel women to leave the house sometimes to go shopping, go to the doctor, etc., and allows them to symbolically take the privacy of the house with them. The veil for pardah-nishin women isn't just a modest garment, it's a symbolic cloak of invisibility signifying that they're not really "in public" even though they have to be outside their private home environment temporarily.

And I'm totally fine with that practice and think that Western societies that pride themselves on freedom and religious tolerance should accommodate it. Pardah-nishin women should indeed be allowed to wear veils while riding buses, shopping at the supermarket, using gas station restrooms, whatever they have to do while being outside their home environment. Very few people find it practically feasible to stay in their own houses all the time, even if they believe in principle that they ought to do so, and I'm happy to follow the convention of letting veiled women go about their most necessary errands while visually pretending that they're not really there.

HOWEVER. I think that open democratic societies have a right to make their own rules about expectations for people participating in their public spheres. It is not unreasonable to expect that a person who is, say, applying for a job requiring them to deal with strangers, or enrolling in a class with other students, is tacitly consenting to participating in that society's public sphere.

And if that person insists on wearing a veil or following some other practice that is fundamentally based on the principle that they DON'T participate in the public sphere, then I think that's somewhat disrespectful to the society they're living in. If you want to be pardah-nishin, then be pardah-nishin, but if you're going to voluntarily participate in society's public sphere, then you can't be pardah-nishin.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You speak of freedom, yet your gobbledygook never includes said women having the "freedom" to choose whether or not, they want to wear these hot, ugly, evil-looking, antiquated garments.

Last edited by saucywench; 05-23-2020 at 11:49 AM.
  #60  
Old 05-23-2020, 01:43 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 21,718
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leaffan View Post
I don't think you're understanding my point.
Ah...I see. You have the "in public" qualifier in there.
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill
  #61  
Old 05-23-2020, 03:23 PM
Kimstu is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 23,429
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackmannii View Post
Such "reflex" actions become a sickness when it becomes impossible to delineate evil without someone trying to inflict guilt on those who point it out.
I'm not "trying to inflict guilt" on anybody. If thinking about the persistence of sexist gender norms in our own society makes you feel guilty---even if nobody else is trying to guilt you with any exaggerations or false equivalences about the severity of sexist gender norms in our society versus some other societies---then that's your issue to deal with, not anybody else's.

I'm sorry if you feel uncomfortable about this, but you don't get to evade your discomfort by trying to pretend that I'm saying something that I'm not.
  #62  
Old 05-23-2020, 03:46 PM
Kimstu is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 23,429
Quote:
Originally Posted by saucywench View Post
More gobbledygook! Does your "supporting the rights of individuals," (women in this case) also include the women getting a choice, as to whether or not they want to wear these contraptions? Or are you speaking for them? [...]

You speak of freedom, yet your gobbledygook never includes said women having the "freedom" to choose whether or not, they want to wear these hot, ugly, evil-looking, antiquated garments.
If the things I've clearly stated look like "gobbledegook" to you, that says more about your reading comprehension abilities than about my statements.

If you were reading more carefully, you'd have noticed that I very definitely indicated, more than once, that I support women having the individual freedom to choose what they want to wear. That applies equally to whether they're choosing to wear niqab/burqa or choosing not to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu
Well, I sure don't have anything good to say about the innate sexism of mandatory veiling for women, or the abuses and tyranny that many veiled women are subjected to by rabidly patriarchal ideology. [...]

Yes, we should absolutely take action against illegal coercive measures used in many patriarchal communities to force women into compliance with their sexist norms.
But saucywench, your personal opinion (or anybody else's) about whether niqab/burqa garments seem "hot" or "ugly" or "evil-looking" or "antiquated" doesn't have jack-shit to do with the rights of individuals in a free society to choose to wear them or not.

You seem to be having a really tough time here with separating out the fundamental matter of principle---namely, the right of the individual not to be coerced (at least beyond the most minimal requirements such as anti-nudity laws and the like) into following some gender-discriminatory imposed dress code---from your own personal aesthetic and/or xenophobic reactions.

That's why I initially raised the issue of some more familiar kinds of sexist dress norms in our own culture that got Jackmanii so upset. I think it's worth reminding ourselves that our support for individual rights involving, say, clothing choices should not be influenced by whether we personally consider the clothing in question to be "normal" and attractive versus "strange" and icky. Or even "ugly" or "evil-looking" or "antiquated", for that matter.
  #63  
Old 05-23-2020, 07:08 PM
Jackmannii's Avatar
Jackmannii is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: the extreme center
Posts: 33,405
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
I'm not "trying to inflict guilt" on anybody. If thinking about the persistence of sexist gender norms in our own society makes you feel guilty---even if nobody else is trying to guilt you with any exaggerations or false equivalences about the severity of sexist gender norms in our society versus some other societies---then that's your issue to deal with, not anybody else's.
Whatever "guilt" exists is yours, honeychild.

Having you postulating in all seriousness that there are Western social norms compelling women to get breast enhancements and wear high heels to go out to a pizza joint with their families mostly sparks incredulity that a usually reasonable poster has gone so far off the deep end.*

*there's a minor quotient of hilarity as well.
  #64  
Old 05-23-2020, 09:31 PM
Kimstu is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 23,429
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackmannii
Whatever "guilt" exists is yours, honeychild.
First you complain that I'm "trying to inflict guilt" on people who criticize sexist practices of mandatory veiling, and then when I point out that I'm not doing any such thing, you respond by directly trying to inflict guilt on me, for no clearly articulated reason and with a side order of sexist condescension. I really don't get why this conversation is bothering you to the point of such overreaction.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackmannii View Post
Having you postulating in all seriousness that there are Western social norms compelling women to get breast enhancements and wear high heels to go out to a pizza joint with their families
But I didn't postulate any such thing. The point I was making about "Western social norms"---which, I repeat, I very clearly acknowledged right from the get-go provide far more latitude for individual choice than social norms in a lot of Islamist-extremist societies---was simply that "there's never a totally bright line between an individual choice and a socially conditioned gender norm or expectation".

If you insist on misrepresenting that as any kind of claim on my part that women in Western societies are literally being "compelled" to "get breast enhancements and wear high heels to go out to a pizza joint with their families", then as I said, you're just flailing at a strawman.
  #65  
Old 05-24-2020, 09:25 AM
saucywench is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Goat Therapy Institute
Posts: 1,046
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
Well, I sure don't have anything good to say about the innate sexism of mandatory veiling for women, or the abuses and tyranny that many veiled women are subjected to by rabidly patriarchal ideology.
Great! Sounds reasonable.

Quote:
But I think we tend to forget that a lot of other gender norms are similarly rooted in "patriarchal display of backwards beliefs", but we just don't notice them because they're so familiar.
Maybe some people don't notice, and others just don't care about certain "gender norms," because once again...the woman is not being forced to submit to them.

Quote:
For example, suppose you saw a similar family walking out of a pizza joint on a hot day. The man and little son are dressed as you describe, in comfortable clothing with comfortable shoes, and utilitarian short haircuts. Hobbling along behind them is the wife, elaborately dressed with tight high-heeled shoes and constricting shapewear. She's clearly had cosmetic surgery for breast augmentation and facelifting. She's very hot in her fancy clothes and elaborate hairstyle and jewelry, but she can't even wipe away the sweat for fear of messing up her carefully applied makeup.

Would you feel angry with that husband? Would you feel like calling him out on his patriarchal backwardness in assuming that he and his son are entitled to live in public in their natural appearance with casual comfortable clothing, while he expects his wife to subject herself to constant discomfort (not to mention painful and risky surgical procedures) to look how she's "supposed" to look?
No, and no.

Quote:
You'll naturally respond...
If you're a mind reader, why bother with fora.

Quote:
"Oh, that's different! Our society isn't making the wife do that to herself! It's her own choice!" And you'll have a point, to some extent: women in most liberal-democracy societies nowadays have a lot more latitude about what constitutes a socially acceptable way for them to present themselves in public than women in several Islamic theocracies do.
People respond that way because it's true.

Quote:
But there's never a totally bright line between an individual choice and a socially conditioned gender norm or expectation.
I disagree! There is a big, bright line between having freedom of choice, or being forced to submit to something.

Quote:
A lot of veiled Muslim women living in western liberal democracies argue that they're freely choosing to wear the veil and should be allowed to do so. Whose individual choice deserves to be respected?
What is "a lot?" Have you spoken to all these women, or are you just speaking for "the women" again?

Last edited by saucywench; 05-24-2020 at 09:28 AM.
  #66  
Old 05-24-2020, 10:25 AM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 2,392
No adult in the USA is being literally forced to wear a niqab, either. The police won't enforce it, and any adult can legally leave their family if their family insists on it.

Of course people in some social circles may feel forced into it by their family members and/or neighbors. What Kimstu is pointing out, quite accurately, is that people in other social circles may feel forced into constricting and even physically damaging clothing of other types by their family members and/or neighbors; and that many people tend to notice this social pressure when it takes a form unfamiliar to them but not to notice it when the uncomfortable clothes seem normal to them.

The reason women can't go topless in public (which is societally enforced in the USA even in most areas where it's technically legal) is because of the remains of Christian modesty requirements. Christian missionaries went around the world telling women (among other things) to cover up their bodies. We no longer think of modern Western dress standards as being religiously influenced, but they are.

And as far as the OP: I had also noticed objections from some people, before the epidemic, to anyone's covering their faces in public; not just in situations where genuine security reasons might arguably require showing one's face, but just while walking down the street. And I had also noticed that the same objections weren't being made about face masks. Some people object to face masks because they want the freedom not to wear them -- but this is comparable to wanting (far more reasonably) the freedom not to wear niqab; it's not comparable to wanting to deny others the ability to do so. Limbaugh seems to object to face masks on the grounds that they remind people that the epidemic exists; if that's comparable to anything, it would be to an objection to anyone wearing clothing that appears to make a religious statement -- but the people complaining about niqab don't appear to complain about distinctive clothing worn by Old-Order Mennonites, or about crosses worn as jewelry or Christian religious imagery and slogans on t-shirts.

There are multiple reasons to legitimately object to any requirement to wear hijab. And nobody in this thread is supporting any requirement to do so. But some of the objections to people choosing to wear hijab are indeed due to religious prejudice; and an insistence that while the breasts must be covered the entire face must be visible may well be from religious prejudice. Sometimes of course it's just a matter of 'everybody ought to bare what we're used to seeing, and conceal what we're not used to seeing!' -- a sort of force of habit and discomfort with the unusual.
  #67  
Old 05-25-2020, 09:21 AM
saucywench is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Goat Therapy Institute
Posts: 1,046
Quote:
Originally Posted by puzzlegal View Post
Yup. I, too, would rather wear the lumpy covering clothing than high heels and fake boobs with fancy makeup.
Lucky you! You don't have to make a choice between the two, and you have the freedom to choose neither option.


Quote:
Can I just wear a hijab?
Silly girl! Of course you can. Unlike other women, you have the choice to wear what you want.

Quote:
Because that always struck me as a happy medium between modesty and freedom. And some of them look attractive and comfortable.

Happy medium between modesty and freedom, attractive and comfortable...I've got something just for you. It's called a scarf. Wear one of those if you want, and you can avoid making stupid, flippant comments like, "Can I just wear a hijab?"
  #68  
Old 05-25-2020, 09:33 AM
puzzlegal's Avatar
puzzlegal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 5,993
Actually, I hate scarves. And I think it would be culturally inappropriate for me to wear a hijab, despite them not having the features I hate about scarves.

But that's not really the point. No one is forced to wear niqab or fake boobs or a hijab in the US. It's true that both men and women are often required to cover their crotch, and women are often required to cover their bosom in the US, but these don't feel very oppressive to me. (Nor does a cultural requirement to cover your hair, fwiw.) And I agree that a cultural requirement to cover your face -because modesty- IS oppressive. BUT ... I don't see outlawing those garments as especially helpful to those being oppressed. Quite the contrary.

I'd be curious if the opinion of women who grew up in cultures that required them to be covered, however.
  #69  
Old 05-25-2020, 10:08 AM
Riemann's Avatar
Riemann is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Santa Fe, NM, USA
Posts: 8,471
Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
...The reason women can't go topless in public (which is societally enforced in the USA even in most areas where it's technically legal) is because of the remains of Christian modesty requirements. Christian missionaries went around the world telling women (among other things) to cover up their bodies. We no longer think of modern Western dress standards as being religiously influenced, but they are.
This is overstating the case. I don't doubt that Christianity influenced prudishness, but covering the breasts is widespread convention that is not solely attributable to Christianity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
...But some of the objections to people choosing to wear hijab are indeed due to religious prejudice; and an insistence that while the breasts must be covered the entire face must be visible may well be from religious prejudice. Sometimes of course it's just a matter of 'everybody ought to bare what we're used to seeing, and conceal what we're not used to seeing!' -- a sort of force of habit and discomfort with the unusual.
And I think this is false equivalence, or false cultural relativism. We use the face to communicate, to express emotion, all human interaction involves picking up subtle cues from facial expressions. Unlike any other part of the body, covering the face carries a distinct message of prohibition or limitation in interaction with other human beings.

Last edited by Riemann; 05-25-2020 at 10:09 AM.
  #70  
Old 05-25-2020, 08:42 PM
Muffin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Great White North
Posts: 20,808
WOMEN IN NIQAB SPEAK: A STUDY OF THE NIQAB IN CANADA

I expect that most of you will be surprised as to who in Canada wear a niqab, the various reasons why they wear a niqab, how they feel wearing a niqab, and what they think about exposing their faces for security reasons.
__________________
Hour after hour, day after day, we paddled and sang and slept under the hot sun on the northern ocean, wanting never to return.
  #71  
Old 05-25-2020, 08:53 PM
Muffin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Great White North
Posts: 20,808

Deleted duplicate message.


Deleted duplicate message.
__________________
Hour after hour, day after day, we paddled and sang and slept under the hot sun on the northern ocean, wanting never to return.

Last edited by Muffin; 05-25-2020 at 08:58 PM. Reason: Deleted duplicate message.
  #72  
Old 05-25-2020, 09:05 PM
puzzlegal's Avatar
puzzlegal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 5,993
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riemann View Post
...And I think this is false equivalence, or false cultural relativism. We use the face to communicate, to express emotion, all human interaction involves picking up subtle cues from facial expressions. Unlike any other part of the body, covering the face carries a distinct message of prohibition or limitation in interaction with other human beings.
I agree with this. I was joking about the hijab, because I think that "you must cover a woman's hair" is pretty comparable to "you must cover a woman's breasts". But I, too, draw a line at covering the face, and think that's fundamentally different.
  #73  
Old 05-25-2020, 09:06 PM
Muffin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Great White North
Posts: 20,808
Here's the study referred to in the CCMW's overview linked to above.

http://ccmw.com/wp-content/uploads/2...iqab_FINAL.pdf
__________________
Hour after hour, day after day, we paddled and sang and slept under the hot sun on the northern ocean, wanting never to return.
  #74  
Old 05-26-2020, 12:09 PM
Really Not All That Bright is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 68,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by saucywench View Post
I'd like to know what the women think about having to wear such hot, cumbersome, ugly garments?
They're really quite practical. In most Arab countries, traditional dress for men is not much different other than the face covering. For example, Omani men wear a disdasha and one of several variants of a turban or hat. These people may be repressive, but they aren't stupid. A burka is actually much more comfortable in hot climates than, say, pants and a shirt. Of course, whether the garments are ugly is rather in the eye of the beholder.

I take no position on whether the practice is unfair to women.
__________________
This can only end in tears.
  #75  
Old 05-26-2020, 02:39 PM
Omar Little's Avatar
Omar Little is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Within
Posts: 13,816
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
That's my point. If it really was necessary for identification purposes, then they'd still be necessary during the pandemic.

So far, I've seen absolutely no one argue that as a reason people even need to take off their mask temporarily. Suddenly that supposed concern disappeared.

If something is a necessity, it remains so at all times, even in emergency situations like a pandemic. So they were lying.
https://www.tsa.gov/travel/security-.../medical-masks

TSA will require you to temporarily remove your mask for identification purposes when going through airport screening.
  #76  
Old 05-29-2020, 11:11 AM
saucywench is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Goat Therapy Institute
Posts: 1,046
Iranian man arrested over so-called "honor killing" of his 14 year old daughter. She was beheaded by her father with a sickle while she was sleeping.


https://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/ori...g-rouhani.html




Maybe she forgot to don her niqab before she fled the house.
  #77  
Old 05-29-2020, 01:56 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 2,392
Quote:
Originally Posted by saucywench View Post
Iranian man arrested over so-called "honor killing" of his 14 year old daughter. She was beheaded by her father with a sickle while she was sleeping.
What on earth has that got to do with women wearing niqab in the USA or Canada?
  #78  
Old 05-29-2020, 02:06 PM
saucywench is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Goat Therapy Institute
Posts: 1,046
It ties into the bigger theme of the oppression of women in certain cultures.
  #79  
Old 05-29-2020, 02:59 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 2,392
Quote:
Originally Posted by saucywench View Post
It ties into the bigger theme of the oppression of women in certain cultures.
The perpetrator's in jail on a murder charge. And from your own cite:

Quote:
The killing has prompted outrage nationwide
So that hardly sounds like general cultural acceptance to me.

Plus which: not only are we not talking about murder, which people of all religions and cultures unfortunately occasionally go in for. We're not even talking about women being forced to wear niqab, which nobody on this thread is in favor of. We're talking about women in USA and Canadian culture choosing to wear niqab. That somebody's in jail for a murder that he gave a religious excuse for has nothing to do with it. I could give you cites of Christians giving religious reasons for having murdered their children, if you want them.
  #80  
Old 05-30-2020, 03:04 AM
Muffin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Great White North
Posts: 20,808
Quote:
Originally Posted by saucywench View Post
More gobbledygook! Does your "supporting the rights of individuals," (women in this case) also include the women getting a choice, as to whether or not they want to wear these contraptions? Or are you speaking for them?

Well let's see what they say for themselves.

Here's a link to a study commissioned by one of Canada's leading feminist organizations for just that purpose.

For folks who don't have the time to download and read it in full (a riveting
75 pages that is well worth the time), here are some paragraphs from it that get to the gist of it.

The bottom line is that women in Canada who wear a niqab do so of their own free will because they want to for various reasons.

Quote:
WOMEN IN NIQAB SPEAK: A STUDY OF THE NIQAB IN CANADA
The Canadian Council of Muslim Women (CCMW)

http://ccmw.com/wp-content/uploads/2...iqab_FINAL.pdf
. . . .
This study can be seen as a response to this growing national conversation and a reflection of CCMW’s values and continued commitment to the plurality of Muslim communities. It represents an attempt to cast light on the existing agency of and provide space for Canadian Muslim women who wear the niqab to speak for themselves.
. . . .
The findings of this report authored by Dr. Lynda Clarke of Concordia University paint a dynamic, engaging picture of Canadian women who wear the niqab and challenge many of the mainstream presumptions and stereotypes that are presented in the media, policy circles and the wider public.
. . . .
The reasons for why Canadian women wore the niqab, as the author notes were “highly personal and individual” with a mixture of responses and rationales. Yet, “religious obligation” including attaining a deeper stage in one’s religious development and “expression of Muslim identity” featured prominently in participants’ explanations, with sub-themes such as self-study/religious role models, appropriate gender-relations, confidence/self-esteem and freedom from the pressures of fashion also playing a determining factor. Present in only a minority of rationales for wearing the niqab were husbands and families as many of the participants came from families where they faced opposition for wearing it, often taking on the practice without consulting their families. While a small number of women cited spousal encouragement for why they wore the niqab, many women indicated facing spousal opposition and explained that their larger struggle was with soliciting spousal support for their decision.
. . . .
Very few pieces of faith based clothing in Canada have ignited as much impassioned debates as the Muslim practice of the niqab. Covering the woman’s body and hair and leaving only the eyes visible, the niqab has often been problematized as a symbol of Islamic extremism, women’s oppression and lastly the failure of Muslims to integrate. The Canadian Council of Muslim Women (CCMW) is no stranger when it comes to addressing the very issues that affect Canadian Muslim communities, including debates concerning Muslim women and their choice of dress. Committed to the equality, equity, empowerment and diversity of Muslim women and their voices, for more than 30 years the national organization has delivered community based projects and advocated on behalf of Muslim women and their families. CCMW has previously issued position papers about the niqab and also presented our statements to government bodies. This has resulted in the media, policy officials, community organizations and other inquiring minds asking the Council to weigh in on the debate.
. . . .
This study can be seen as a response to this growing national conversation and a reflection of CCMW’s values and continued commitment to the plurality of Muslim communities. It represents an attempt to cast light on the existing agency of and provide space for Canadian Muslim women who wear the niqab to speak for themselves. This study is not intended to dwell upon the religious or theological basis of the practice itself, but rather it is first and foremost about the lived experiences of the women and the diverse narratives that they have shared in their responses. The niqab itself is a complex issue and raises many questions for Muslim communities and the wider Canadian population itself. These questions do not yield simple answers, but they must be explored through open and honest discussion.

The findings of this report authored by Dr. Lynda Clarke of Concordia University paint a dynamic, engaging picture of Canadian women who wear the niqab and challenge many of the mainstream presumptions and stereotypes that are presented in the media, policy circles and the wider public. A total of approximately 81 women who wore the niqab participated in this study, 38 of whom responded to online surveys, 35 that participated in focus groups in Mississauga, Montreal, Ottawa and Waterloo and 8 who participated in in-depth individual interviews.

Keeping in mind the limitations of the sample, based on available data in the study the typical profile of woman in niqab is that of a married foreign-born citizen in her twenties to early thirties who adopted the practice after arriving in Canada. Most of the women possessed a high level of education, having attended university, graduate school, community college or some form of vocational education. The majority of the participants were homemakers, while others were self-employed or worked in a range of fields including Muslim communities, consulting, engineering and web design. Those that did not work expressed a desire to in their lifetime, but were concerned with the exclusion they would likely face in the workplace.

In terms of religious orientation, the majority of the respondents in the study adopted what can be viewed as a “conservative” approach to Islam. For instance, the majority of respondents did not agree with the practice of dating and did not believe that homosexuality was an acceptable practice. Yet the presence of a conservative religious outlook amongst participants did not translate into a uniformity of attitudes towards the niqab itself and whether it was a religiously mandatory practice. 44.7% of those surveyed established that it was necessary for a Muslim woman to wear it; while 47.4% indicated “Not necessary, but advisable” and 6.4% indicated that it was not, illustrating the variety of religious understandings concerning the article of dress amongst the participants themselves.

The reasons for why Canadian women wore the niqab, as the author notes were “highly personal and individual” with a mixture of responses and rationales. Yet, “religious obligation” including attaining a deeper stage in one’s religious development and “expression of Muslim identity” featured prominently in participants’ explanations, with sub-themes such as self-study/religious role models, appropriate gender-relations, confidence/self-esteem and freedom from the pressures of fashion also playing a determining factor. Present in only a minority of rationales for wearing the niqab were husbands and families as many of the participants came from families where they faced opposition for wearing it, often taking on the practice without consulting their families. While a small number of women cited spousal encouragement for why they wore the niqab, many women indicated facing spousal opposition and explained that their larger struggle was with soliciting spousal support for their decision.
. . . .
In response to religious accommodation and access to government services, including social, legal and health, all of our participants indicated that there would be situations when it was necessary to uncover or show their face including airport security, ID cards, accessing hospital services or even driving. As one interviewee indicated, “It’s part of our religion to cooperate with the government, so we have to.” When asked if it was appropriate to show their face in accessing government services, most of the participants indicated “Sometimes.” While many of the respondents indicated a preference for female service providers (physicians), some of the participants did not oppose receiving services from men. Interestingly, rather than describing their access to services as problematic, most of the women in the study expressed that their niqabs did not affect their access and relayed positive sentiments. Similar views were expressed when asked about access to education, where the majority of participants expressed comfort and acceptance in their educational programs.
. . . .
This larger trend of tolerance and accommodation within Canada is reflected in the optimistic attitudes that the women in the study expressed towards Canadian society as a whole. While some participants relayed their negative experiences which ranged from physical assault to verbal harassment, not a single participant in the study described her overall experience in Canada as being negative. Participants described these harmful experiences as reflecting a minority of the Canadian population and instead relayed a strong affinity to Canada, praising its multiculturalism, its respect for human rights, its freedom and life changing opportunities.
. . . .
__________________
Hour after hour, day after day, we paddled and sang and slept under the hot sun on the northern ocean, wanting never to return.
  #81  
Old 05-30-2020, 04:22 AM
Riemann's Avatar
Riemann is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Santa Fe, NM, USA
Posts: 8,471
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muffin View Post
Well let's see what they say for themselves.

Here's a link to a study commissioned by one of Canada's leading feminist organizations for just that purpose.
It seems dubious to call the Canadian Council of Muslim Women a "leading feminist organization". I know nothing more about the other values it espouses than what's stated in the introduction to the study, but that makes clear that it is first and foremost a Muslim organization. And this is not a "study", which implies at least some attempt at scientific methodology to obtain a representative sample. It's is a collection of anecdotes (N=38), and here's the method by which the anecdotes were gathered:

Quote:
Gathering of data began with an online survey created in July of 2012. The
survey included seventy questions. We received thirty-eight responses from women five resident in British Columbia and all the rest from the province of Ontario, with a large number from Mississauga, a city adjacent to Toronto, Ontario. The
survey was also offered in French, but the French version received only one response,
from a woman not wearing niqab also resident in Ontario. Participation was solicited
by posting a notice on the CCMW site, sending out appeals to religious and community organizations, and ultimately by word of mouth.
So this is barely more meaningful as evidence than citing the murderer upthread. How hard would it have been at any time in history in any society, however patriarchal and misogynistic, to find 38 women who enthusiastically endorse the structure of their society, adopting their roles "of their own free will"?

Last edited by Riemann; 05-30-2020 at 04:26 AM.
  #82  
Old 05-30-2020, 05:21 AM
Monty's Avatar
Monty is offline
Straight Dope Science Advisory Board
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Beijing, China
Posts: 24,690
^ You could always check out what they have to say about themselves:

Quote:
Vision

All Canadian Muslim women are treated equitably and equally and are empowered in Canadian society.

Mission

Our mission is to affirm our identity as Canadian Muslim women and promote an understanding of our lived experiences through community engagement, research, influence public policy and strive for positive change.

Guiding Principles
  1. We are guided by the Quranic message of God’s mercy and justice, and of the equality of all persons, and that each person is directly answerable to God.
  2. We value a pluralistic society; foster the goal of strength and diversity within a unifying vision and the values of Canada. Our identity of being Muslim women and of diverse ethnicity and race is integral to being Canadian.
  3. As Canadians, we abide by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the law of Canada.
  4. We believe in the universality of human rights, which means equality and social justice, with no restrictions or discrimination based on gender or race.
  5. We are vigilant in safeguarding and enhancing our identity and our rights to make informed choices.
  6. We acknowledge that CCMW is one voice amongst many who speak on behalf of Muslim women and that there are others who may represent differing perspectives

Yet most importantly, reflecting the principles and spirit of the Canadian Charter of Rights of Freedoms, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), the Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, and the http://International Convention on t...Discrimination.

What is clear is that they are first and foremost a Canadian Muslim women's organization. Just because you have some bone to pick with Islam does not negate what this group is nor who they are, nor even what they do.
  #83  
Old 05-30-2020, 07:09 AM
Riemann's Avatar
Riemann is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Santa Fe, NM, USA
Posts: 8,471
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riemann View Post
I know nothing more about the other values it espouses than what's stated in the introduction to the study, but that makes clear that it is first and foremost a Muslim organization.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monty View Post
^ You could always check out what they have to say about themselves:

What is clear is that they are first and foremost a Canadian Muslim women's organization. Just because you have some bone to pick with Islam does not negate what this group is nor who they are, nor even what they do.
And you could check out what I wrote in my post.

This is exactly what I did read, as I stated, and my opinion was based upon that. It is disingenuous to refer to them as "one of Canada's leading feminist organizations" when the Quran is the first item in their mission statement.

What is their record/position on apostate (ex-Muslim) women? That's a genuine question, not a rhetorical one - I don't know, and if you have some evidence on that I'm open to being convinced that their primary mission is really to support women's rights.
  #84  
Old 05-30-2020, 07:59 AM
Monty's Avatar
Monty is offline
Straight Dope Science Advisory Board
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Beijing, China
Posts: 24,690
Good Lord, you're fucking stupid. Goodbye.
  #85  
Old 05-30-2020, 09:40 AM
saucywench is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Goat Therapy Institute
Posts: 1,046
Monty-The poster you insulted has posted thoughtfully and intelligently, and asked some pertinent questions. You, on the other hand, have contributed zilch to this thread. No loss. Now you have more time to post your "sack of dung" on a loop tirades.
  #86  
Old 05-30-2020, 12:23 PM
Muffin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Great White North
Posts: 20,808
Riemann, Apostacy is a subset of sharia. When it comes to bringing sharia into Canadian law (e.g. applying sharia through binding arbitration, which was a hot issue here a few years ago):
Quote:
CCMW Position on the application of Muslim family law and human rights for Muslim Women.

. . . .

CCMW holds that human rights as declared in the United Nations Universal Declaration are consistent with the ideals of Islam, and as believing Muslim women we can adhere to the Quran and to the U.N Declaration. We see no contradiction between the rights and responsibilities as expressed in the divine message and those articulated by the nations of the world. As Canadian Muslim women we uphold the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and expect it to apply to us as fully as to any other Canadian.

There is no incongruity between the Quran and the U.N declaration which recognizes the “inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.” Further, it states that “ a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge.” We believe that all peoples must come to a recognition of the commonality and universality of these rights as they do not contradict nor are they limited to a specific culture or country.

An important right in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 7 states “all are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law.”
. . . .

We know that Muslim law is not monolithic, nor simple, nor applied consistently across the world and so we seriously question how it will be applied here in Canada and why is it needed here? The idealization of Muslim law based on a patriarchal family model does not work for women. We suggest that as with any law, it is problematic to apply some aspects and not consider the “totality” of the system, its context and its underpinning principles.

CCMW sees no compelling reason to live under any other form of law in Canada, as we want the same laws to apply to us as to other Canadian women. We like the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which safeguard and protect our equality rights. We know that the values of compassion, social justice and human rights, including equality, are the common basis of Islam and Canadian law.
. . . .
CCMW is advocating with law makers that there has to be a common civil code for all citizens of Canada and allowing the use of other legal systems discriminates against a group of Canadian women. http://archive.ccmw.com/activities/a...aw_sharia.html
__________________
Hour after hour, day after day, we paddled and sang and slept under the hot sun on the northern ocean, wanting never to return.
  #87  
Old 05-30-2020, 12:27 PM
EmilyG's Avatar
EmilyG is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Canada
Posts: 8,834
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leaffan View Post
You racist fucks. You thought covering a portion of your face was blah, blah, anti, blah blah, in public, blah blah.

And now you have no issue with the general public wearing face masks for viral protection.
Agreed.

It's especially bad/hypocritical here in the province of Quebec. When the current Quebec government got elected, they worked hard to quickly put limitations on religious clothing and symbols. Which is not only racist/prejudiced, but also diverted attention and resources from more important things, like healthcare.

Last edited by EmilyG; 05-30-2020 at 12:27 PM.
  #88  
Old 05-30-2020, 12:27 PM
Riemann's Avatar
Riemann is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Santa Fe, NM, USA
Posts: 8,471
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monty View Post
...Just because you have some bone to pick with Islam...
As for this, it just seems to be a lazy virtue-signaling insinuation of racism, and a failure to engage with difficult issues.

What I have "some bone to pick" with is misogyny, homophobia, theocracy, restriction of free speech, etc. And these things are objectively correlated with religious belief. To the extent that the majority of modern Christians and some reformist Muslims reject these things, they are welcome allies. To some extent, being "Muslim" is as much a cultural identity as a belief system, so social progress must come from reform movements within Islam - people must have valid ways to reject the bad ideas without losing their community identity.

If the Canadian Council of Muslim Women is one such progressive movement, they have my wholehearted support. But if you're prepared to assume that without evidence, it's not me who's fucking stupid. And a pro-niqab propaganda piece is not a favorable sign on their views of the role of women. You reproduce their mention of many admirable documents on human rights. Neither you nor they have any substantive comment on their position on specific issues where traditional Muslim values (and interpretations of the Quran) have often been in conflict these values.

I think there's a qualitative difference between modesty and subjugation. As mentioned upthread, there is obviously no difference between choosing a scarf-like head covering and choosing a hairstyle. But there's a qualitative difference in covering large parts the face and what that represents. I would strongly defend any individual Muslim woman's right to wear whatever she chooses, I think banning the niqab or burqa is an outrageous violation of human rights. Similarly, I'd defend the right of an 18-year-old Mormon girl to become the 4th wife of a 50-year-old man, if she chooses this freely. I can at the same time believe these are bad choices, that they are a result of broader "cultural coercion", of misogyny and the subjugation of women. Where freely-choosing individuals are concerned, their rights always trump any notion of "cultural coercion". But that doesn't preclude my belief that these bad choices arise from an unfortunate desire to conform with deplorably misogynistic practices under the guise of religious virtue; and that I hope these things can disappear in a better-educated and more civilized world where women will freely choose not to be willing participants in their own subjugation.

Last edited by Riemann; 05-30-2020 at 12:29 PM.
  #89  
Old 05-30-2020, 12:36 PM
Riemann's Avatar
Riemann is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Santa Fe, NM, USA
Posts: 8,471
ETA: I posted the above before seeing Muffin's post above detailing some of the CCMW's positions. That does seem very encouraging on the values they represent. But I'd still question how they reconcile...

Quote:
The idealization of Muslim law based on a patriarchal family model does not work for women..[etc.]
...with the niqab. I'm not talking about the right to wear it, but the cultural practice. And as for...

Quote:
We see no contradiction between the rights and responsibilities as expressed in the divine message and those articulated by the nations of the world.
Well, I do. But of course I realize that they have to start from a statement like this, and that progress will always be incremental.

Last edited by Riemann; 05-30-2020 at 12:40 PM.
  #90  
Old 05-30-2020, 12:41 PM
Unreconstructed Man is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 685
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riemann
What I have "some bone to pick" with is misogyny, homophobia, theocracy, restriction of free speech, etc. And these things are objectively correlated with religious belief. To the extent that the majority of modern Christians and some reformist Muslims reject these things, they are welcome allies. To some extent, being "Muslim" is as much a cultural identity as a belief system, so social progress must come from reform movements within Islam - people must have valid ways to reject the bad ideas without losing their community identity.
Muffin's "study" noted that homophobia was rife among niqab wearing women, which is to be expected. As such, I think it's fair to view niqabs, like MAGA hats, as signifiers of bigotry.
  #91  
Old 05-30-2020, 01:04 PM
Muffin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Great White North
Posts: 20,808
Riemann, if what you are getting at is extremists killing or demanding the killing of people in the name of god and demanding that all people must follow god’s law as they decree it to be or else be exterminated, or if all you are getting at is a patriarchy of Imans using appelum ad verecundiam to pressure people in to adhering to their extremist hate filled beliefs, you should read this article by Junaid Jahangir that was published by the Huffington Post and further disseminated by the Canadian Council of Muslim Women.

Quote:
Hateful Muslim Imams Do Not Speak For Islam
Posted March 10, 2017 by CCMW & filed under CCMW National.

Source: Huffington Post

Author: Junaid Jahangir

Hateful Muslim Imams Do Not Speak For Islam

A few weeks ago a video surfaced on YouTube about a Canadian imam who supported the death punishment for apostasy. Such videos, of which there is no dearth, capture the comments of Canadian imams who preach wife beating, condemn gays and support medieval punishments and the Caliphate.

These videos stoke Islamophobia, as evident from online comments that call for the exile or extermination of Muslims. This has dire consequences especially under the current climate where mosques have been burned, Muslim women have been assaulted, worshippers have been murdered and a Muslim MP has been threatened for her motion on condemning Islamophobia.

Muslims are tired of being constantly on the defence, having to answer for the crimes of radical groups like ISIS, and experiencing prejudice from bigots in Canada.

Those who circulate such videos paint all Muslims with the same hateful brush. The contribution of Muslim researchers, doctors, teachers, engineers, taxi drivers, janitors, et al. are ignored and Muslims are reduced to the viewpoints of rabid Shaykhs who confirm Orientalist tropes by selling Islam as a caricature of a medieval past.

Yet, this is no time to play hot potato in relinquishing responsibility for the vicious cycle of hate where religious supremacism and xenophobia feed off each other.

Islamophobia does not end by apprehending bigots just as terrorism does not end by bombing terrorists. They end when systems of oppression are dismantled. That happens when everyone plays their part — less foreign intervention and bombing on the one hand and less supremacist speakers and putrid ideologies on the other hand.

Critics of Islam cannot paint millions of diverse Muslims in Canada with the viewpoints of a few clerics while ignoring the voices of Muslims that do not fit their agenda. Likewise, Muslims cannot remain quiet when supremacist speakers speak on behalf of their religion.

The Canadian cleric whose video on death for apostasy was circulated last month, had the following to say on apostasy:
“When a person in an Islamic state apostasizes, leaves religion, let Allah be a witness that I am telling the truth that the punishment for apostasy is death. Anybody telling you on a minbar (pulpit) anything else, wallahil azeem (and Allah is great), they are lying to you, this is an Islamic law, if you apostasize, if you turn your back from Islam, according to the law it is death …

The viewpoints of this imam are completely at loggerheads with hundreds of other Muslim imams, scholars and academics, as follows.

1. Imam Mohamad Jebara
Ottawa based Imam Jebara clearly refers to those who reject critical thinking and isolate their devotees with threats of death for apostasy as those who follow a cult. He opines:
We are looked upon with suspicion by those on the outside, while being viewed as traitors and deviant apostates by extremists who claim to be Muslims. We stand between a rock and a hard place.

2. Dr. Shabir Ally
Toronto based Dr. Shabir Ally has many videos on apostasy. In one video he goes to explain how the texts attributed to the Prophet may not be authentic and should be confined by time and circumstance by the Qur’anic verse on there being no compulsion in religion. In another video he expresses:

“The apostasy law has been much misunderstood in Islam, it became a standard law that the apostate should be put to death, … quite the contrary the Qur’an speaks of people embracing Islam, leaving it, toying with it, going back and forth, and if the Prophet Muhammad himself were killing people for doing such thing, they wouldn’t dare to do it in Medina where Prophet Muhammad had risen to power, so it’s very clear from the Qur’anic evidence that there should have been no such law in Islam that the apostate should be killed.”

3. Dr. Khalid Zaheer and Al Mawrid Canada
Like Dr. Shabir Ally, Dr. Khalid Zaheer, who is affiliated with Al Mawrid Canada, has expressed that the popular Muslim understanding on apostasy goes against the Qur’an. He asserts that the Qur’an restricts capital punishment to only two cases, murder and creating disorder, and that apostasy does not fall in either category.

“Muslim community stakeholders need to send out a strong message that such speakers, some of whom are quite popular, do not speak for them.”

4. Alia Hogben
The Executive Director of the Canadian Council of Muslim Women (CCMW), Alia Hogben, has written in her blog that women groups experience hostility from conservative, traditional Muslims and that the awful punishments for apostasy and adultery prescribed by jurists are not mentioned in the Qur’an.

5. Dr. Mohammad Fadel and 100+ notable Islamic voices
The blog post on 100+ notable Islamic voices captures Muslim voices across time from the 8th century Caliph Umar ibn Abdul Aziz and from academics, scholars, imams, community leaders and students that indicate how the apostasy law is contrary to Islamic values and principles. The blog post mentions:

“The longstanding problem of the traditional position, as held by Classical jurists or scholars, can be explained and excused as not being able to see apostasy, an issue of pure freedom of faith and conscience, separate from treason against the community or the state.”

Among these voices is that of University of Toronto Law Professor Dr. Fadel, who mentions that the death punishment for apostasy was not a universal position. He reiterates that apostasy was viewed in the context of political and military treason and defection instead of freedom of conscience.

The above indicates how the viewpoints of the hateful Canadian cleric are in stark contrast to hundreds of Muslim academics and community leaders.
This means instead of milking hateful imams for political gains and stoking more hatred in Canada, critics of Islam should work with Muslim community stakeholders to isolate such hateful voices.

On their part Muslim community stakeholders need to send out a strong message that such speakers, some of whom are quite popular, do not speak for them. This necessitates nurturing the tradition of critical thinking and refusing the pulpit to hatemongers.
__________________
Hour after hour, day after day, we paddled and sang and slept under the hot sun on the northern ocean, wanting never to return.

Last edited by Muffin; 05-30-2020 at 01:05 PM.
  #92  
Old 05-30-2020, 07:42 PM
Muffin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Great White North
Posts: 20,808
Riemann, here’s a taste of what the CCMW has been up to.
http://ccmw.com/category/ccmw-resources/ccmw-projects/
Quote:
Over the past 30 years the Canadian Council of Muslim Women has successfully completed a number of projects and tools that help empower Muslim women and their families. This has been accomplished through its collaborations with Canadians of various religious and cultural backgrounds. Pushing the boundaries on traditional gender roles and cultural understandings, CCMW has never shied away from challenging the issues that affect Muslim communities. The organization has responded to global and national crises and mobilized initiatives and projects to tackle issues including Prayers in Public Schools, the Niqab, Polygamy, Muslim Family Laws, Femicide, Diversity among Muslims, Anti-Semitism and Religious Accommodation.

Collaborating with civil society groups, educational institutions, cultural community groups and government agencies, CCMW has sought to promote an Islam that is humane, egalitarian and equality-driven. At the community level CCMW has developed projects, events, grassroots workshops, and research publications in the areas of women’s leadership, Muslim youth identity, family dynamics, gender equality, racism and discrimination, anti-violence, unemployment, inter-faith work and civic engagement.
http://ccmw.com/what-we-do/projects/

Quote:
National
CCMW’s innovative projects and toolkits have been developed with leading experts, practitioners and activists in order to address the practical needs of Muslim communities and ensure lasting social change. To date all have yielded positive impacts. The CCMW marriage contract toolkit has been used in a number of social service workshops across the country. In 2012 we had the opportunity to extend our highly successful My Canada project to an inter-faith, inter-cultural cross-Canada initiative. Aptly called the Common Ground Project, the central tenet of this project is to find common ground across faiths and cultures. Our most recent projects include the Trillium funded project on Women in Niqab Speak, our Violence Against Women: Health and Justice for Canadian Muslim Women with the Status of Women Canada and the Mussawah Project.
. . . .
International
CCMW representatives have also presented policy briefs, consultations and testimonials at Federal and Governmental hearings and international conferences, some of which include the Beijing Conference on Women, the World Conference Against Racism (Durban, South Africa) consultation for Canada’s Anti-Terror Legislation (Bill C-36), the 4th Parliament of World Religions (Barcelona, Spain), the Public Hearing Committee for Religious Arbitration in Ontario, the Mussawah Global Meeting (Kuala Lampur, Malaysia), the Public Hearing Committee for Quebec’s Bill 94, the Inter-Parliamentary Coalition for Combating Anti-Semitism, an Affidavit for the BC government on Polygamy, The OSCE Conference on Combating Discrimination and Promoting Mutual Respect and Understanding (Bucharest, Romania), The OSCE Human Dimension Implementation Meeting (HDIM) (Warsaw, Poland), the Family Violence Conference and most recently the UN’s 57th session of the Commission on the Status of Women (New York, USA).
Local
This year, the CCMW has been holding two-day family law workshops across the country (covid-19 has delayed some of them, including the one that I am conducting), and has an online webinar “Introduction to family law & legal rights for Canadian Muslim Women”. https://ccmw.com/ccmw-national/webin...-muslim-women/ .

If you want to get into the meat of it, read through CCMW’s “MUSLIM AND CANADIAN FAMILY LAWS: A COMPARATIVE PRIMER” by L. Clarke and P. Cross. http://ccmw.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/PRIMER.pdf
__________________
Hour after hour, day after day, we paddled and sang and slept under the hot sun on the northern ocean, wanting never to return.
  #93  
Old 05-30-2020, 09:05 PM
Muffin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Great White North
Posts: 20,808
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
Muffin's "study" noted that homophobia was rife among niqab wearing women, which is to be expected. As such, I think it's fair to view niqabs, like MAGA hats, as signifiers of bigotry.
I agree.

Quote:
In terms of religious orientation, the majority of the respondents in the study adopted what can be viewed as a “conservative” approach to Islam. For instance, the majority of respondents did not agree with the practice of dating and did not believe that homosexuality was an acceptable practice. http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...4&postcount=80
The MAGA hat is an "in your face" "I'm coming for you" expression of identity and purpose, whereas the niqab is more along the lines of an expression of identity and/or religious obligation without the aggression. Either way, the headgear represent conservative religious ideologies that disparage LGBTQI2S people, with the former being an active threat to LGBTQI2S people in the USA, and the latter (conservative islam) having proven itself in many countries over many years to be strongly opposed to LGBTQI2S people. I would not expect to find any MAGA or niqab at the Toronto Unity Mosque.
__________________
Hour after hour, day after day, we paddled and sang and slept under the hot sun on the northern ocean, wanting never to return.

Last edited by Muffin; 05-30-2020 at 09:08 PM.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:30 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017