Here’s an idea - you don’t want random unknown males thinking lascivious thoughts about you? Go and live in a women-only commune and keep your medieval mindset out of the lives of folk with more progressive ideas.
Do anything but bang on and on about how your rights are being whittled away.
In the countries where your culture/fads developed, camels and goats were more highly valued, so don’t come to places where we try to practice treating genders equally and start moaning that you are being picked on.
Another interesting point-of-view from the English Canada side by Clifford Orwin in today’s Globe and Mail. It mentions the laïcité that Hypnagogic Jerk spoke of earlier in this thread:
I’ve just learned that I’m out of touch with the rest of Canada. Apparently, over a week ago, Angus Reid polled us and 85 % of us concur with your government with regard to the Niqab banning. Given the overwhelmoing endorsement, I see no reasonable benefit in continuing to put your feet to the fire.
I’m not sure about how I feel about the law applying to schools, but in the context of getting other types of government services, I think it makes a lot of sense. Things like driver’s licenses, health care cards, health care services, dealing with government departments dealing with rent and taxes, etc. These are services provided to individuals who qualify for them (residents and citizens, generally) and so being able to ensure that the person using the service is who they say they are makes sense. It’s a matter of identification - anyone could cover their face and claim to be anyone else, and that could potentially be a problem (though admittedly, I’m not sure it’s something that really happens all that often, if at all). It’s easier to say “everyone must show their face” than it is to always arrange to have a woman on staff available to handle whatever it is the person needs, even if such a request for accommodation is a rare occurrence.
So while I agree with you in general about being able to wear what we want and talk to who we want to; in practice, it doesn’t work that way. You have to talk to the person at the desk at the SAAQ or the RAMQ, you have to talk to your doctor to get treatment (and probably expose whatever body part is ailing you!). You have to interact with the government to receive their services, and so it is perfectly reasonable for the government to expect to be able to confirm who you are during these transactions.
On the street, in her car (as long as she can see well enough to drive safely; it seems the niqab can be a hindrance in that respect), in the grocery store, at the mall - let people wear what they want and talk to who they want to.
I’m a little on the fence about the necessity of banning the niqab in schools, although in the case of the lady that recently made the news, she was there on the government’s dime, so I can see her position. Certainly I’d expect her to show her face or otherwise allow the school to identify her during exams, to prevent cheating (having someone else write the exam for her - is it even possible to hide legible cheat sheets in a niqab?). I’m not sure how necessary it is to have her face exposed during lectures, but during group work/interaction/conversation…well, I can see why people feel the law should apply in this case too, even if I’m not sure how I feel about it.
I think it’s a pendulum swing. It might be going a little too far at the moment, but IMHO it’s at least on the correct side of the issue.
I could give a shit what she does on her own time even though I think she has a perfect opportunity to ditch such bullshit if she lives in Canada. But if I’m going to school to learn, I expect every other person in that class to have a minimum level of interaction if that is what the class calls for. So, if you are a KKK member by night doesn’t mean you don’t get to talk to black people in that classroom the same as any other person. You don’t get to put on a white hood every time you do so and then take it off when you talk to a white person.
You don’t want to sit on the back of bus? Go back to Africa, where you can be amongst your own kind. And leave us enlightened white people alone.
Do anything but whine about being oppressed.
In the country where you are from, you were sold for shiny trinkets. So please don’t come to places where we try to give you an equal place and complain about the accommodations.
Better to force one group of people to do what you think is right than to force another.
It all boils down to thinking that one culture is superior, and another is inferior. This doesn’t bother me, except when it is supported by the government.
The whole thing starts with superiority: the reason she’s taking the class is because she’s required to learn your language. And then, when she doesn’t want to learn it the way you want, you make up some shit excuse about needing to read someone’s lips to know if they are pronouncing a word correctly.
It’s funny how I used to be on the other side until I realized how bigoted you guys are. Your way is better than everyone else’s, and if you don’t like it, get the fuck out of our country. How enlightened.
You really are an idiot. She won’t speak to men without the fucking veil on. What the hell do you think we’ve been talking about?
The government can say you must wear a helmet when you are riding a motorcycle. It can say that some practices are deemed unacceptable to society as the Quebec government seems to be doing in this case. People are not allowed to do everything they want to do. The question is if this particular practice deserves government action, or not. I’m arguing that the practice itself if harmful to women in general even if not in this particular woman’s case. Wearing a veil in itself is not harmful. Wearing one that has the history of the niqab is. Why condone it?
How does a stupid divisive ruling on where blacks could sit - made by whites, obviously - equate to a self-imposed ruling on how you go about interacting with the people whose country you have chosen to live in?
You mentioned something about minimal interaction in class. I never noticed that minimal interaction while talking to somebody is being able to see their chin and cheekbones. Now I completely understand where you are coming from. I, on the other hand, usually look people in the eye when I talk to them. So that is where I am coming from. I find eye slits on Niqab far less annoying than talking to somebody with sunglasses on.
See? I keep responding to you like you are a serious person and you call me an idiot.
Excellent job on the KKK to Niqab analogy. Can you come up with another analogy that makes absolutely no sense but gives you the chance to sound all hard-nosed on those troublesome immigrants?
Just taking one minute to correct this: the woman in the class wasn’t required to learn the language; she took advantage of free classes offered by the government.
The KKK wear hoods to frighten people, essentially to keep them in their place (in this case blacks who were property, although its use has expanded to cover other undesirables like jews, etc.). The niqab is used as a tool to keep women in their place as property or second class citizens. See the similarity?
Okay. I want to be able to wear arseless trousers and an exaggerated cod-piece, and walk around Muslim neighborhoods without receiving any insults or threats.
