I’ve seen other versions of the cartoon. It’s a great one.
Me, I don’t really care what other people are wearing, as long as it’s their choice. The only restrictions should be situational, such as sanitary or safety. We go from burqa to hot pants and haltertop on this campus right here, and those are just examples I saw today. I see nothing offensive about a hijab.
Now, if some organization seemed to be promoting one religion or philosohpy over others, that might be different. I sort of understand where the French rigidity towards laïcité comes from, though I would only support banning religious symbolism if ALL religious symbolism was banned. Even so, that kind of banning leaves too many possibilities of bugs in the system (what if a religion appeared that mandated wearing NO headgear?).
I prefer a system where you can wear whatever, and it is made clear that, to a first approximation, getting offended by what others are wearing is your problem to deal with, not theirs. (The second approximation: “don’t be a jerk”, applies to what people choose to wear as well.)
Great if they are both doing so of their own volition and not because they are forced to. Which one is more likely to be forced to wear their respective outfits?
Okay, I’ve given this some thought - an adult who decided to become a nun and is aware that one of the requirements is to dress a certain way is not the same as women who are forced to wear things like hijabs and burkas (or indoctrinated from birth so they think that they’re the ones choosing to cover themselves, and that there are good reasons for it).
I’m also not keen on how misogynistic the Roman Catholic church still is, but that’s probably a debate for another time.
A hijab is not as oppressive as a full burka with nothing but a mesh slit for the eyes, but they’re on the same continuum for the same reasons.
On a completely different topic, I don’t care about Justin Trudeau’s pot smoking. That’s like admitting that he’s had a few beers, in my opinion. Indeed, legalize that shit already.
How about we just legalize it. Period. The last thing I want is the government controlling marijuana. Before you know it, it will be filled with more toxic chemicals than smokes, and then twenty years later they will be saying " See, we told you it was bad for you.".
I’m in favour of some form of marijuana decriminalization, but realistically, I doubt it’s going to happen on a proper scale anytime before a roadside test which police may administer in order to legally determine whether or not a driver is under the influence becomes available.
To my mind, it is problematic to assume that any individual woman is being coerced into wearing religious gear.
Certainly, some may be (as for that matter some men - no doubt some social pressure is put on the sons of Ultra-Orthodox Jews to wear the full outfit that marks them as Ultra-Orthodox Jews, or the sons of Sikhs to wear turbans).
For most people within a minority, wearing of distinctive clothing is a result both of social pressure from one’s fellows on the one hand, and self-pride in one’s identity with the group on the other - in varying mixtures depending on the individual of course.
Wearing religious gear is associated with more traditional societies, which in turn are more likely to have extreme gender power imbalances … so you will see more extreme forms of coercion directed against women in such societies, whether to wear the outfit or to conform to other norms of behaviour. That is a fact, and women who face such pressures should have the protection of the law against illegal forms of coercion: as a society we should not tolerate any of that.
However, we should not mistake the symbol for the substance, or assume that the symbol means to the women involved what it means to us. When we non-Muslims look at a woman wearing the traditional headgear, we tend to think of the oppression of women, and the social coersion used against women who refuse to wear it. That may not be how the women who are wearing the headgear see the matter. They may be wearing it out of pride in their identity. To them, being forced not to wear it may well be seen as an onerous imposition - an oppression by the non-Muslim majority, who are attempting to dictate to them what sort of clothes are ‘acceptable’, to get them to assimilate.
As for (1), yes, adult Christian women in Canada have probably had a lot more freedom in their choices (religious and otherwise) from birth.
As for (2), I think your question is not the right one to be asking. The entire religion of Islam posits that men are superior to women, and men should be directing what women do. How do you separate that from a Muslim woman choosing to cover her head and body for religious reasons?
I get what you’re saying; if I’m against Muslim men forcing their women to wear clothing that is symbolic of oppression, who am I to tell them that they can’t wear that clothing (which, I see on doing more research, is a key to them getting into heaven according to their beliefs)?
I dunno; I think Islam is a very messed-up religion, with its tenets that women are inferior to men, and men interpreting that as a kind of carte blanche to oppress women however they see fit. I don’t support that at all, but I do support religious freedom in Canada. This is a very complex topic, and probably should have its own thread.
Maybe the key is, as you say, Malthus, ensuring that Muslim people moving to Canada understand with complete clarity that some of the laws from their previous country really, really aren’t going to fly here. You can’t oppress your women, you can’t oppress other women, you can’t force your beliefs on anyone else, including the women in your own family. That’s really my concern; that Muslim Canadians are going to try to reduce the freedoms of all Canadian women in the name of their religion.
I’ve had the distinct pleasure of meeting Mr. Beckwith at least three different musicological conferences. He is the crankiest old sumbitch I ever did meet. Pleasant around me, but I’m sure that he’s beyond pissed that Alan Thicke’s boy stole his piece’s name!
I shook hands with Gilles Duceppe on Thursday at an Alouettes game. If that doesn’t make me a patriotic Canadian, I don’t know what will!
Some years ago, my ex-wife (who was still an American citizen at the time, though she had lived in Canada for ten years), was in Ottawa. As she walked by the National War Memorial, she saw a limo pull up. Out got Jean Chretien, who was PM at the time.
She was close enough, so she figured, “why not?” She walked up to Mr. Chretien, extended her hand, and said, “Mr. Chretien, good morning.”
He took her hand and wished her a good morning. Then she, and he, went about their business. (Mr. Chretien was laying a wreath; my ex was on her way to a business appointment.)
That was one of the incidents that convinced her to take out Canadian citizenship. As she later said, “I couldn’t do that with the US president; I liked the idea that a passerby on an Ottawa street could greet the leader of the country when he got out of his car.”
