That is probably one of the secondary reasons for the veil. Primary being to ensure ownership of the ‘bitch’ in question. Glad to see Canadians are so supportive of the practice.
Hey, how else is a poor guy like me going to get a blow job?
Here is Le Devoir’s article on this bill. What it says is that people receiving services from the State, as well as State employees, must have their face uncovered. The bill actually does not claim to do so for reasons of religion, but for purposes of “safety, communication and identification”.
To be honest I’m not entirely sure it was a necessary step. I’m not against requiring someone to have their face uncovered when it is actually necessary for purposes of identification. But this bill looks a bit like a streamroller: it doesn’t seem to leave much latitude to figure out what is necessary in individual cases. Still, I believe that in the end it will be the public servants who will allow some latitude. But they’ll have a leg to stand on if someone refuses to show their face in cases where it would be necessary.
Interesting article, though the picture they’ve put on top is quite misleading. I’ll also point out this article in Le Devoir. Some interesting points made in this article:
[ul]
[li]English Canada (actually rather some English Canadian elites, because it seems that the common man doesn’t necessarily agree with them) tends to see the issue in terms of numbers: something like 10 Quebec women have required to be accommodated in their want to wear a full face veil, so it doesn’t really have any meaningful impact on society. Quebecers see these demands as coming from a group, which can definitely have an impact on society. And when Ontario was thinking of allowing sharia-based arbitration tribunals, Ontarians as well saw the impact this could have on their institutions and showed their discontent.[/li][li]Quebec has a tradition of holding painful debates in the public square, while the rest of Canada tends to be shyer for fear of looking bad, and to hush these debates until things are untenable. Prof. Linda Cardinal of the University of Ottawa mentions the polygamous Mormon splitter community of Bountiful, BC, which is still allowed to exist, as an example of this fear of facing tough societal/cultural challenges. This is also what Marie McAndrew in Spoons’s article means about “marshmallow multiculturalism” and what the Angry French Guy in the blog I linked to much earlier in the thread means about “lack of maturity”. And it is one thing I find particularly annoying about Canada, to be honest, this insistence on lofty principles without much debate about what they even actually mean. (Once again this may be more a complaint about the elites, but they are the ones who should lead the debate.)[/li][li]The Quiet Revolution is the founding moment of the modern Quebec nation, when religion was evacuated from the public square. This has already been said, but it can’t be mentioned too often. Many Quebecers see issues like public servants wearing ostentatous religious symbols, or the cross in the National Assembly, or the prayer still being held before some city council meetings, similarly to how Americans see, for example, the Ten Commandments in schools or courthouses. My own opinion is that the crucifix in the National Assembly should be removed and prayers should be banned before meetings, but I don’t feel public servants wearing religious symbols, even ostentatous ones, really muddles the line between religion and state. I see it as an issue of private expression. I’d be alright, for example, with a member of the National Assembly (even the Speaker) wearing a cross during debates; I just don’t want it on the walls. It’s a minor issue though. And I’d be okay with a moment of silence for people to pray (or not) privately before town meetings. Many pro-laïcité activists are not okay with what I just proposed; to them it’s already too much public religion.[/li][li]Quebec being a minority nation, people tend to be culturally insecure and the relations with newly arrived people tend to be heavily mediatised. Well, yeah, this point is made in the article and I must admit it is true. Let TFD latch on this admission and offer us pearls of wisdom from Papa Canada. ;)[/li][li]English Canadians judge the Quebec approach through their values, which they tend to consider morally superior. Prof. Cardinal claims that language has something to do with it; English being the international language of communication English Canadians can set themselves up as “neutral” while Quebec is “the other”, partial, cultural, ethnic. I’m not sure I entirely agree with her here, but it’s worth thinking about, and I think my “pearls of wisdom from Papa Canada” comment is related to this.[/li][li]Finally, the article points out that maybe the difference between Protestant societies (which had to emphasize tolerance and laissez-faire to allow good relations between different sects) and communautarian Catholic societies also has a role to play.[/li][/ul]
So as far as I can tell, those are the main points made in the article, and my thoughts on them. It certainly is a very interesting subject of which we could debate for long.
Just out of curiosity, Hypnagogic Jerk, when you talk about the Rest of Canada, do you mean Ontario? Cause you know Ontario in no way speaks for the prairies, right?
While I’m at it, “English Canadians” is really sloppy, too - I speak English, but I am Canadian, not English. English-speaking Canadians would be acceptable.
I’m not an Engish-Canadian either. I’m a Dutch-Canadian, an immigrant, who suffered discrimination in his youth under the United Empire Loyalist descendants, the other founding people of this country who fortunately, eventually, let go of any hope of preserving their distinct culture and accepted the idea of getting along with others.
And then I realized that English Canadian is a parallel form to French Canadian - maybe I should be less sloppy myself and refer to Quebecois as French-speaking Canadians. 
But not all Quebecois are French speaking and not all French speaking Canadians are Quebecois.
Jebus, I’m not french, Quebecois, Metis, or any other french derivative, but apparently am a redneck from Alberta, and yet I’m defending Quebec’s stance on this. I have no idea what HJ is going on about.
Frankly, I see both sides of the issue. I don’t like saying that we should dictate what people wear, but the reasons behind the hijab and niqab are odious and the practice doesn’t belong in our society, French or English.
It really is just beyond your imagination that people wear veils because it’s what they are used to and feel as uncomfortable as you would be naked to not wear one when around men. Your caricature is probably true of a tiny minority of those who wear them.
If it helps any, you’re all the same to me
I feel comfortable wearing my SS uniform. If I don’t wear it around Jews, I feel very insecure. Who knows what they’ll do to me if I don’t have it on.
Caricature?
The day my status in society is dependent on my attire, take me out back and whack me upside the fucking head with a great, big clue-stick.
So you can’t imagine it then, got it.
That’s why I talked about elites. Canada’s elites are traditionally based in Ontario, although their influence is felt all over the country. There is a populist movement in Western Canada that’s ideologically at odds with these traditional elites, and I believe we can see its effects in Uzi’s and Rumor_Watkins’s posts, where they condemn the niqab as anathema to Canadian values.
Perhaps, but it is the usual terminology. It doesn’t imply anything about English ancestry or English nationality. In today’s Canada the main fracture lines are over language, not over ethnicity.
Note that I include anglophone Canada’s minority groups (and even the French speakers) as part of English Canadian society.
You may have been bullied as a kid, but that doesn’t put you outside of English Canadian society.
Are you saying we cannot see remnants of the Loyalists’ culture in Canada today? Because that’s clearly wrong. The Loyalists influenced Canada and this influence is still seen today.
You’re an Albertan, that’s for sure. Are you a redneck? Perhaps, but we’d have to define redneck first.
Yes, I briefly described the clash between English Canada’s traditional liberal elites and the populist current in modern-day Western Canada earlier in this post. Note that you may defend Quebec’s decision, but not necessarily on the same philosophical basis as Quebecers. That’s what I was “going on about” in my post: summarizing an article describing the philosophical differences between Quebec and the rest of Canada. I admit that it didn’t say much about the philosophical underpinnings of Western Canadian populism.
If we talk about hijab in general, it can mean a whole lot of things for the individual person wearing hijab and I don’t want to claim to know whey they specifically are doing it. But full-face veils like niqabs and burkas are probably incompatible with our society’s values.
It is hard to imagine when I don’t know what you are referring to. Maybe an explanation would help as to what you are talking about. Usually, if one person asks there are at least a few others who are as confused, so for their benefit, if not mine, please elaborate.
Who let the Southerner in?
Considering that, in the previous thread on this subject, you argued against the very concept of freedom of religion, I don’t really think that you do see both sides of the argument.
Ever since the Canadian Red Ensign was dumped for the Maple Leaf, a move to placate Quebec, the influence of UELs was finished.
If you see remnants today, I’d be happy to hear of it.
I argued that religion shouldn’t be enshrined in the charter or be a protected right. You can believe in the tooth fairy, afaic. I should be able to laugh at you at work or other places for doing so, though.
I see it every time I look at a coin.