You racist fucks. You thought covering a portion of your face was blah, blah, anti, blah blah, in public, blah blah.
And now you have no issue with the general public wearing face masks for viral protection.
Moderator Action
Yeah, that’s a rant.
Moving thread from MPSIMS to the BBQ Pit.
Speaking as somebody who’s always supported the right of individuals to wear niqab but also the right of decision makers in certain specific societal contexts to prohibit face-coverings including niqab, I don’t see how the emergency practice of universal mask wearing as a public-health measure in response to a dangerous pandemic changes the merits of my position at all.
Yes, if anybody in the current situation is objecting to niqab but not to other kinds of face-coverings, that’s hypocritical and bigoted. If this pandemic ends up fundamentally changing social customs in western societies so that public use of face-coverings becomes an acceptable societal norm, then objecting specifically to niqab will also be hypocritical and bigoted.
But if we return to a non-emergency situation where the wearing of face coverings in ordinary social/professional contexts is once again not considered an acceptable societal norm, then I’ll resume my position of supporting the right of individuals to wear niqab but also the right of decision makers in certain specific societal contexts to prohibit face-coverings including niqab. I don’t see anything bigoted or hypocritical about that.
OK, what?
One = a religious statement, the other = a practical measure to reduce exposure to a deadly virus.
I think you’ll find that the Venn diagram of “people who are opposed to niqabs” and “people who think having to wear a mask to the store is an attack on their FREEDOM” is a circle.
Here’s what I opined on the subject, minus the pandemic-mask issue, about ten years ago:
None of the above is changed by the fact that nowadays we’re all covering our faces in public in what is hopefully a temporary measure to ameliorate a serious public-health crisis.
Why? The religious justification for niqabs is explicitly patriarchal; it’s a “good” woman’s moral duty, apparently, to go to such lengths to avoid inciting lustful thoughts in men and tempting them to sin. If I wear a face covering to protect myself from germs, and you wear a face covering because you’ve been conditioned by men since childhood to believe that negating your own individuality is an expression of piety and moral virtue, why should we be treated the same? Why can’t I object to this ugly manifestation of medieval sexism, even while wearing a mask to keep from getting sick?
Sorry, shoulda been more clear. If in the current circumstances somebody objects to the wearing of niqab specifically on the grounds that it violates our societal norms against covering the face in social/professional situations, while they don’t object to anti-virus face masks on the same grounds, then they are being hypocritical and bigoted. If covering the face in public is now socially acceptable, then covering the face for religious as well as medical reasons shouldn’t be singled out as unacceptable.
Of course, you are still perfectly free to have a personal preference about the intrinsic merits of those different reasons. But you don’t get to apply the “tut-tut, musn’t cover your face because it’s socially incorrect in our society to do that when interacting with other people” smackdown to one of those reasons but not the other.
I requested this move BTW.
I wish ECG could have made that clearer.
Carry on.
As someone who works with the public I have to agree with this statement.
It’s not a contradiction to be morally opposed to religious face coverings as being oppressive* and supporting wearing face coverings out of medical necessity. That’s my stance, but it’s a small enough issue that it isn’t worth it to make laws against it except in cases where it’s necessary to be uncovered such as for identification purposes.
- even if some wearers don’t consider it to be oppressive. For instance, FGM is largely enforced by women but that doesn’t make it non-oppressive.
Quebec Suddenly Fine With People Covering Their Faces
The contradiction is with those claiming that there are policy reasons we MUST be able to see people’s faces, as we must be able to identify people upon sight to avoid crime and such. This is one of the most common supposedly “religion neutral” and excuses for banning the niqab–even when, say, the president of France explicitly said the goal was to stop Muslims from wearing it.
The same governments saying that allowing wearing a mask is too difficult a burden to allow for freedom of religion are perfectly okay saying it’s not burdensome here. That is a contradiction. If it’s too much of a burden, then it would be under all circumstances.
The whole niqab ban has always been about religion, despite people claiming otherwise. And the OP, living in Canada, is likely in one of those places that pushes the niqab ban. The US assholes who refuse to wear masks aren’t really who he’s talking about.
At least, that was my presumption when I read the OP, and why I came in here planning to support him.
That’s my point. If it really was necessary for identification purposes, then they’d still be necessary during the pandemic.
So far, I’ve seen absolutely no one argue that as a reason people even need to take off their mask temporarily. Suddenly that supposed concern disappeared.
If something is a necessity, it remains so at all times, even in emergency situations like a pandemic. So they were lying.
I am generally opposed to bans on on wearing niqabs, and I generally think the reasons typically given are specious.
But.
There is nothing contradictory or hypocritical about banning niqabs on the grounds of public safety when there is no pandemic and then later requiring face coverings on the grounds of public safety when there is a pandemic. It is entirely possible, logically, for there to be simultaneously a public safety threat from people concealing their faces in public and from people not covering their mouths and noses in public.
It is also entirely consistent with a genuine concern for public safety for officials to weigh the threat of each, and decide that in pre-pandemic times, the threat to public safety of individuals concealing their faces outweighs concerns for religious/cultural/personal liberty, while in a time of a global pandemic, the public safety threat of spreading COVID-19 outweighs the public safety threat of individuals concealing their faces.
Again, I personally think the “public safety” rationale for banning niqabs is specious, but if you grant the premises of that rationale, there’s no contradiction with requiring face coverings in different circumstances.
Leaffan, for my own clarification:
･ do you believe that religion = race?
･ have you read the Quran?
･ have you spent any time in an Islamic country?
･ do you believe that religion is a choice?
･ do you know any Muslims?
People with iPhones set up for face recognition to unlock their phones do, in fact, have to uncover their faces to pay for anything with their phones, or basically use their phones at all.
Oh, and mugshots of local bad guys in my local paper all show folks with orange jumpsuits and a surgical-type mask hanging around their necks, but bare faces.
But other than that… apparently it’s not necessary to bare your face in public at this time.
Yep. A lot of the anti-mask laws in the US are old anti-KKK laws. But the immediate public health threat today vs the KKK is different from what it used to be.
I’m assuming I’ll need to drop mask for TSA, but I don’t know anyone who has flown recently. And TSA is in flux now anyway. Sounds like the current hubbub is about measuring temperatures.
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
That is a breach of protection at the moment cashiers are most vulnerable. The stores I see have plexiglass directly in front of cashiers, but not in front of the card scanner. If people are removing their masks that close to cashiers for face recognition, they should be told to use a different method to open their phone. Cashiers are at great enough risk as it is, they don’t need additional risk.