Slobs who wear pantyhose over their heads are not looked upon fondly in places of business.
Do you really want to go down the path of sexism and homophobia in the defense of Islamic culture? reaaaally? Besides the idea thathomosexuals as young as 16 are executedin countries like Iran there is nothing remotely comparable in Catholicism. Had the gay Catholic priests been treated with the same religious fervor the cover-up would have been done with a shovel and dirt. Moving beyond your misguided comparison I’d like a cite that the government condoned the behavior.
requiring someone be able to see a student’s face is a far cry from dictating dress. Muslims can wear whatever garment they wish as a public symbol of their devotion. However, as has already been mentioned, facial expression is a prominent part of human communication and interaction. It should not be restricted under the guise of religion.
I see plenty of examples that completely contradict your last sentence. But more importantly, who decided that being “normal” was a requirement? What is “normal” for you might be entirely impossible for me for any number of reasons.
And even more importantly, why does this woman’s agency and bodily autonomy not matter while everyone else’s desire with regard to her body does? Why does she owe anyone her face? Why is she bound to interact with people based upon your standards rather than her own, when the fundamental aspects of her interaction are intact whether she’s veiled or not? Being a niqabi is not *usual *in Western culture, but that doesn’t make it wrong.
This idea that women must comport themselves with men exactly as they do with other women and vice versa and anything else is an unacceptable abridging of the very foundation of society is so far removed from reality as to be laughable. Absolutely laughable.
If you’re saying this and then saying that niqab is a step too far, then no, Muslims cannot wear whatever garment they wish, in your argument. It’s ridiculous to try to speak out of both sides of your mouth on the issue. You wish to put limits on niqabis’ expression of their faith for your comfort. Just be honest about it.
Their style of dress is not under question. The face mask is. It is not a aimed at religion as has been suggested. It is function of basic communication.
The niqab is worn by people as a part of their interpretation of the instructions of their religion. You can say that it’s not about religion all you want. The people who actually wear it as a reflection of their religious have a higher authority on that matter than you do.
Religious doctrine is not a trump card to be used in all manners of social interaction. Facial expression has a clear purpose in the act of communication and should be part of the educational process.
So niqabi aren’t entitled to be educated because they hold their religion higher than someone else’s presumed right to see a part of their body that they’re unwilling to show?
Honestly, I don’t think you even bothered to read a thing I wrote. You demonstrate no comprehension of it at all.
Of course slobs aren’t welcome in places of business (well, some, anyway.) It’s also perfectly legal to set dress codes that ban slobbishness, because it’s not a protected class of person. Religion is. See the difference?
I’m not defending Islamic culture. I don’t like veils and the other sexist trappings of Islam, either. I don’t like RELIGION, in fact, I think it’s sheer stupidity and nothing good comes of it; I don’t like the sexist trappings of Catholicism, the exclusionary nature of Judaism, the caste heirarchy so many Hindus buy into, and all that nonsense. What I’m asking is why there’s so much aggression against Islam, but not against the various other bigoted religions.
I fully support your right to not wear a veil. Isn’t that enough?
You can do with your face as you please. Let other people do with theirs as they please. They aren’t hurting you.
The fact that you have to resort to such a silly strawman to find something to argue against indicates the weakness of your argument. Nobody’s demanding that “women must comport themselves with men exactly as they do with other women”. (How would one even determine whether anyone’s comportment was EXACTLY the same in both cases, anyway?)
All we’re saying is that the same basic courtesy and respect should be shown in interactions with both genders. And declaring that members of one gender can see your face while members of the other gender cannot is a pretty glaring violation of the principle of equal courtesy and respect.
If they are unwilling to comply with the basic norms of western society to even the minimal extent of exposing their faces when interacting with both men and women in the public spheres of western societies, then they are not entitled to the form of education that requires that type of interaction.
If they want to be strict about observing pardah, they have plenty of other educational options that won’t require them to interact with strangers in the public sphere.
As I noted above, I don’t object if women want to observe pardah, and I support them in their right to wear niqab as part of observing pardah when they can’t avoid being in public spaces. But if they want to be active participants in the public sphere, as opposed to just sliding “invisibly” through public spaces so they can pick up some groceries or get across town, then they incur the obligation recognized in our society to observe our fundamental principles of openness and equality in interactions with strangers.
The story of the Mennonites is actually a relevant one for this discussion - some more hardline Mennonites do not want formal education, but they were not given exceptions for their children to attend school. Mennonite children were expected to be educated just like all other Canadian children. Their choice was to accept the Canadian government stance on education or go somewhere else (and some of them did go to places like Mexico).
Some interesting commentary from Lysiane Gagnon in today’s Globe and Mail. (Link here.) Not sure if this is the part that was updated today, but it puts an interesting spin on the discussion, I think:
I was really frightened of coming back to this thread after my post, but it really doesn’t seem to have gone in the direction I was expecting, even after TFD poisoning and nuking the well in his OP. I didn’t read everything yet, but for now let’s just say that Kimstu has made extremely good points, and I believe she goes quite close to what “reasonable accommodation” means. It’s not a license to be xenophobic and refuse any deviation from lily-white, French-speaking, Catholic society. It’s a recognition that while in a modern society based on ever-increasing immigration, it is necessary to accept some cultural practices even when they conflict with the customs or even laws of the host society, still, compromise goes both ways, and some things that are acceptable in some societies just aren’t in others.
So for now let’s just fire a few quick responses.
Meh, I’m quite used to interact with anglophone Canadians on the Web and also in real life. I’m getting more and more familiar with their national blind spots. This is another discussion that would be really interesting and I’m sure you all know I’d love participating in it, but for now I’d be quite happy with being left alone instead of being the target of Canada’s national obsession. By the way, the “recent survey” I alluded to was a Léger Marketing poll done for the Association for Canadian Studies; you apparently need to be a member to download the actual document but here’s the Toronto Sun’s article on the subject, while here is Canoe’s (in French). The gist: English-speaking Canadians do not have a very good opinion of Quebec, while francophone Quebecers (surprisingly) do have a quite good opinion of English-speakers.
And yes, you did poison the well in your very first post. How else to describe this:
Would you have talked about “xenophobia” that is both “deep” and “subtle” if this had happened in Ontario or BC? Fuck no you wouldn’t have, and you bloody well know it and everybody knows it. You probably wouldn’t even have started this thread: we all know what you think about Muslims (especially traditional ones, but even modern ones like Angua), and you probably think anything that dissuades them from staying in Canada is a wonderful idea. It’s only acceptable to attribute contemptible motives to someone when that someone is a francophone in Quebec, although I will admit that Albertans get accused of some pretty out there stuff as well. I stand by that.
Rick, you know I really like you, you’re one of the posters whose posts I look forward the most, because you’re immune to so much of the bullshit that we hear over and over. Your post about the First Nations being used as “pets” during the Olympic opening ceremonies and being “carted back to their reservations as soon as our guilt is assuaged” was the most insightful analysis of how the Olympic organising committee managed Canadian culture I’ve seen; I’ve even quoted it on a blog I occasionally read. I think it’s sad that each and every one of our interactions here seems to have been me saying something perhaps a bit too hastily, and you taking offense at it. I’m quite sure I can’t read your mind other than through what you post here, and my comment was a generalisation, so I’ll take it back. I’ll still say: there is something about Quebec doing simply normal stuff that every other people or nation does every day that makes anglophone Canadians go batshit crazy.
That’s just it, they are hurting themselves and anyone who interacts with them. A great deal of communication is done through facial expression. This is social dogma under the guise of religion interfering with basic education. The Egyptians get it but you don’t.
The woman was not obliged to take that French class. If she wished to take it, she could take the classes offered at CEGEP or online-- or hire a private tutor of the right sex at her own expense.
Those francisation classes in CEGEP are offered free of charge but no one is obliged to take them. I get the feeling that she has an agenda and is trying to push the envelope. I’m reminded of attempts in Ontario to allow Sharia-based tribunals. Was the refusal to allow this a proof that McGuinty and Ontarians are racist and xenophobes? It was another attempt to test the limits of our freedoms.
I can assure you that I personally think all religions are idiotic and the sooner they are put on the garbage heap of history the better. Better not to enshrine such beliefs in constitutions as that makes it just so much harder for them to end up there.
Islam is just pushing the envelope of lunacy at the moment. I’m sure Christians will make a resurgence at some point.
Weirdest thing, though. I’m posting from the Dubai airport, waiting for my flight, and looking around to see if there is anyone wearing a nigab. Hundreds of people and not even an Arab.
Speak of the devil, someone just showed up at the cafe’ in full ninja regalia. I don’t care what anyone says, there is no way that is safe to wear when driving. From the number of people I’ve seen, they are constantly adjusting the view slot for vision. She just sat down and in the last 3 minutes she has adjusted her head dress at least 4 times. One proper shoulder check and they’d likely have to screw around with it to see properly forward again. She isn’t the first person I’ve seen wearing (5 times now) one of these things that (6 times) fiddles with it constantly. (And 7 times)
(While previewing my post - #8 adjustment: 10 minutes)
(Make that 10 in 10 minutes between the time I’ve posted, hit edit (#11)…12. Airports are great places to people watch!)
That’s your opinion of their cultural practice. In a free country, you’re entitled to your opinion, but you aren’t entitled to make other agree.
I think people are hurting themselves by being members of the Roman Catholic Church. I think people do themselves (and society as a whole) an immense disservice by refusing to marry outside religion. I think people hurt themselves by eating too many Big Macs. It’s not my place to get all up in someone’s business about it.
That’s her loss, then. But it’s her loss.
Oh, I get it just fine. You see, I don’t like this sort of thing, either. That’s the point you just can’t seem to grasp, elementary though it is; **freedom means the freedom to do things that some people might not like. ** I don’t like Islam at all - it’s absurd to believe an imaginary man in the sky tells us what to do, and virtually all practices that stem from it, or other religions, are a waste of time at best and often personally damaging. A lot ofo shit’s done in the name of religion far, far worse than niqabs that you would never in a million years suggest the government get involved in. But it’s a free country, and if people think their God wants them to wear veils or funny little hats or not use electricity at home or eat human flesh made from bread by wizards, well, that’s their call.
Communication is a 2 way interaction.
Oh, I get it just fine. You see, I don’t like this sort of thing, either. That’s the point you just can’t seem to grasp, elementary though it is; **freedom means the freedom to do things that some people might not like.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, and the state isn’t required to bend to social customs under the guise of religion. Freedom means the freedom to do things that some people might not like. Schools shouldn’t have to discard basic communication skills because of religion.