Another Niqab Controversy [Quebec "defense" of French too far?]

[matt_mcl]

@The_Flying_Dutchman

That despite some horrendous stories that come up now and then with regard to forcing immigrant children to go to French speaking schools and businesses forced to display themselves in French. That sort of thing does not happen in the ROC.

With no reference to anything else in this thread: these are not “horrendous” stories, and the reason why they don’t happen in the ROC is because English is not a minority language in North America and requires no reinforcement.

I am an Anglophone who enjoys living in a French-speaking place and I have no objections to the steps it takes to reinforce the use of French.

[Uzi]

@RickJay

What do you think a reasonable person would think?

What do you think a reasonable person would think if they knew the reasons and history behind the niqab?

[Inbred_Mm_domesticus]

@Kimstu

And for that reason, among others, teachers are entitled to require their students not to wear sunglasses in class. (Unless the student has some sort of medical requirement for them, of course.)

So the sunglasses analogy is of no merit whatsoever in arguing that a teacher shouldn’t be allowed to require students not to wear niqab.

I see, so if a blind person or somebody highly reactive to light wants to wear sunglasses it’s okay. I imagine you might justify those as biological. It would be cruel to attempt to change a fundamental part of that individual’s characteristics.

If an obnoxious semi-adult wants to wear sunglasses in class because they think it’s cool to do so, then that’s not okay. They are wrong because they are obviously ignoring the norms of their society. They know it and the teacher knows it.

If a person wants to wear a garment they’ve been trained to wear since they were born, that they view as a fundamental part of their identity, and has found never to be a hindrance in their learning or academic/social/vocational achievement, then that is wrong too, because…?

What I am getting at is: Of the two descriptions above, which is closer to wearing a niqab when you are from niqabistan?

[Inbred_Mm_domesticus]

@Uzi

So, if I show up in class in an full SS uniform?

Then, as a teacher, I would say: “Put a Niqab on please”.

[Magiver]

@Inbred_Mm_domesticus

Regardless, wearing a veil is not analogous to this Hindu example. She, judging from the articles, is quite able to talk and acquire an education. There is nobody in that class she could/would not talk with. She shows flexibility when it is necessary, and must have decided that she was not going to give in to a teacher’s arbitrary rules.

I disagree. Facial expression is an important aspect of communication.

[Inbred_Mm_domesticus]

@Magiver

I disagree. Facial expression is an important aspect of communication.

Prove it. Not only prove it, or find evidence that supports your statement, but also show its relative superiority compared to two communicators being fluent in the same language. Show to me and any Niqabist how learning French in Quebec is inferior to being able to see the face of a person speaking rhythmic gibberish.

[RickJay]

@Uzi

What do you think a reasonable person would think if they knew the reasons and history behind the niqab?

I’m still waiting for an answer to my question. Which would a reasonable person think is more disruptive, right here in the real world?

[Miller]

@Kimstu

No, it’s pretty trivial to draw a distinction there. How about if we were talking about ritual public nudity? If this woman’s religious principles required that instead of covering her face in the presence of men, she had to keep her body completely uncovered at all times in the presence of anybody, would you argue that our society would be obligated to respect her religious freedom by allowing her to do so?

Sure, why not?

This is the fundamental point of our disagreement. I think that in our society, it is disrespectful and discriminatory to refuse to allow members of a particular group of people to see your face when you’re voluntarily interacting with them in the public sphere.

No, I agree with you on that. What I disagree with you is that the state should come in on your side to punish people whom you feel are disrespecting you.

I think this is in fact harmful: harmful to the men who are being disrespected by this failure to show equal courtesy, and harmful to our public sphere in which the basic ethic of equal respect and acknowledgement for all classes of people is supposed to be upheld.

What is the nature of this harm? How are the men in this class reduced by knowing that there’s a woman in the room who thinks the sexes are inequal? How is society as a whole damaged by allowing this woman to take a French class. Or, more pertinently, how is society damaged by allowing this woman to take a French class, but not damaged by allowing this woman to live in the country? Because that’s the point that really makes no sense to me. I don’t see how you can argue that the state has a right to force her to remove her veil for this class, but not have the right to force her to remove her veil while she’s in the country.

You happen to disagree, because you feel that “harmful” should be construed only as meaning “direct harm or damage”, along the lines of cutting out somebody’s heart (or, presumably, stealing their money or any other form of obviously criminal malfeasance).

Yes, absolutely, and in terms of civil rights, that’s the only definition of harm we can use that doesn’t absolutely gut the very concept of civil rights itself. If you allow the definition of harm to stretch so far as to include, “Making other people feel bad,” then you have arrived at a definition that will always allow the majority to enforce any laws they please on the minority. Lots of people really don’t like being around gays. That’s at least as real a harm as is being suffered by the poor fellows who might have had to share a classroom with this woman. Why should we not ban homosexuals from interacting with the public, if it makes a sufficient number of “normal” citizens unhappy? What’s the difference between the two situations, other than you have a personal antipathy towards this particular religious expression, and none towards homosexuals? What standard are you applying, other than, “I don’t like it,” and how can we maintain a free and open society when “I don’t like it” is sufficient reason to restrict someone’s rights?

I don’t expect that continually repeating my previously-stated opinion on this matter will do anything to change your mind, and certainly your continually repeating your previously-stated opinion isn’t doing anything to change mine.

And yet, I somehow doubt that’s going to lead either of us to shutting up any time soon.

The difference between a niqab on the one hand and, for example, a hijab on the other is that the former involves a disrespectful distancing of the wearer from a particular group of people, while the latter does not.

It’s a pretty simple and clear-cut distinction.

So, the real issue here is that you don’t think people should be allowed certain kinds of speech in public?

I’m not sure that puts you on any more of a defensible footing.

Let me ask you this. When I was a student at San Francisco State University, one of the members of the faculty was Elana Dykewomon, a self-described lesbian separatist, who chose the spelling of her last name specifically to, “avoid etymological connection with men.”

Should this woman have been barred from campus due to her views on the differences between men and women?

Assuming you’ll go with the consistent answer and say “Yes,” my follow up is, if it can be shown that this university has students or faculty who have expressed similar opinions, and have not moved to remove them from their campus, do you think that this could be construed as anti-religious bias on the part of the university?

I’ve made it quite clear on several occasions that I don’t take such a broad view of the concept of freedom of religion. I think that a free secular society is at liberty to restrict even religious practices that don’t cause direct harm of an obviously criminal sort, if they conflict with other principles important to that society.

I assume, therefore, that you support Saudi Arabia’s treatment of Jews and homosexuals as a reasonable attempt to enforce the principles important to that society? If not, what is the difference between what they are doing, and what you are advocating, other than the extent of violence you’re willing to entertain to enforce your ideas?

I understand that you feel that the principle of religious freedom means “anybody can do anything in the name of religion as long as it doesn’t cause direct harm of an obviously criminal sort to somebody else”. And I understand that therefore, from your point of view, it’s unfair to prohibit a Muslim woman’s religious practice of wearing niqab, because that practice isn’t doing any directly and obviously criminal damage.

But what you need to try to understand is that I don’t interpret the principle of religious freedom as broadly as you do. Therefore, when I say that I think it’s okay to restrict a religious practice even if it isn’t doing directly and obviously criminal damage to somebody else, I am not unfairly denying a certain class of people the religious freedom that others enjoy.

Yes, I get that we have differing ideas about what freedom of religion means. I think it means, “freedom of religion.” You, on the other hand, are clearly defining it as “freedom of religions I approve of.”

What we’re down to now is trying to demonstrate which definition is superior, in terms of both individual liberty and internal consistency.

I think the problem here is a failure of logical thinking on your part rather than a philosophical contradiction on mine. And, as I said, at this point it’s clear that neither of us is going to convince the other.

I don’t generally approach GD threads as an attempt to convince the other person in the debate, although it’s nice on the rare occasions that it happens. I generally assume that the other person has thought through their ideas sufficiently that they are comfortable presenting them in an adversarial format, and are unlikely to have a Road to Damascus moment thanks to anything I say. Rather, I see the purpose of this forum as an opportunity for two sides of a debate to present their positions to readers who might be interested in the topic, but have yet to form solid opinions of it on their own. As such, your repeated mantra of, “You won’t convince me, and I won’t convince you,” isn’t really germane to the purpose of this thread.

But that’s really a different issue altogether.

[Hypnagogic_Jerk]

I know this thread is kind of dead now, but I do want to post a link to an article about the situation that is probably more complete than the one the OP posted.

Une musulmane expulsée d'un cours à cause du niqab

In summary, especially for those who don’t read French:
[ul]
[li]The student first registered in the class and met (without niqab) evaluators.[/li][li]When the class started, she refused to remove her niqab due to the presence of men, so the teacher agreed to let her do her diction exercises alone with her in a corner of the classroom, where she could remove her niqab.[/li][li]However, this caused problems given that the class favours exchanges between students and oral presentations. Nevertheless, the student was even allowed to give a talk from the back of the class, with her back to the other students.[/li][li]The student became more and more militant and eventually refused to removed her niqab even one-to-one with the teacher.[/li][li]Eventually this went all the way to the ministry of Immigration, and to the minister herself. It was decided that the student would have to remove her niqab or be expelled from the class. She was expelled, but can still follow the online course.[/li][/ul]

Sorry for not getting back here earlier and actually taking part in the discussion. I get cold feet when I discuss controversial subjects online and am afraid of getting back there to read the responses. That’s my problem. Plus, as people may have figured out from my earlier posts, this debate inevitably lead to insinuations about me and my people that quite obviously make me angry. So:

@The_Flying_Dutchman

Why don’t you start a new thread some time on what its like to be a non “Quebecois” in Quebec. If you do, please send me a private message to alert me.

There are quite a few English speaking Quebeckers on this board, and none that I’m aware of have complained about their situation in the province. That despite some horrendous stories that come up now and then with regard to forcing immigrant children to go to French speaking schools and businesses forced to display themselves in French. That sort of thing does not happen in the ROC.

Yeah, could you or suranyi or whoever else start this thread please? I’m not doubting his experience, but I also have a lot of things to say about what it is to be a “Quebecois” as you say (but I hate this word in English) in Canada. We’re all pretty wrapped up in our nationalistic rethoric, but maybe if we actually, you know, talk to each other we’ll figure out that they’re not actually evil, sometimes they have some pretty good points. I’ll be happy to participate if people are open-minded about it and discuss in good faith.

tomndebb, sorry for insulting TFD in this thread. Shouldn’t have done it. I will point out, though, that your changing the thread title was somewhat inaccurate. The only way in which what we’re debating is related to “defending French” is that, if the teacher is right, the student’s behaviour was disrupting the class and therefore making it harder for the other students to learn French. But, while I do believe the teacher is probably right, it’s sort of a stretch to interpret the modified thread title this way.

[The_Flying_Dutchman]

@Hypnagogic_Jerk

I know this thread is kind of dead now…

See you in the pit.