The threat about niqabs

It seems dubious to call the Canadian Council of Muslim Women a “leading feminist organization”. I know nothing more about the other values it espouses than what’s stated in the introduction to the study, but that makes clear that it is first and foremost a Muslim organization. And this is not a “study”, which implies at least some attempt at scientific methodology to obtain a representative sample. It’s is a collection of anecdotes (N=38), and here’s the method by which the anecdotes were gathered:

So this is barely more meaningful as evidence than citing the murderer upthread. How hard would it have been at any time in history in any society, however patriarchal and misogynistic, to find 38 women who enthusiastically endorse the structure of their society, adopting their roles “of their own free will”?

^ You could always check out what they have to say about themselves:

What is clear is that they are first and foremost a Canadian Muslim women’s organization. Just because you have some bone to pick with Islam does not negate what this group is nor who they are, nor even what they do.

And you could check out what I wrote in my post.

This is exactly what I did read, as I stated, and my opinion was based upon that. It is disingenuous to refer to them as “one of Canada’s leading feminist organizations” when the Quran is the first item in their mission statement.

What is their record/position on apostate (ex-Muslim) women? That’s a genuine question, not a rhetorical one - I don’t know, and if you have some evidence on that I’m open to being convinced that their primary mission is really to support women’s rights.

Good Lord, you’re fucking stupid. Goodbye.

Monty-The poster you insulted has posted thoughtfully and intelligently, and asked some pertinent questions. You, on the other hand, have contributed zilch to this thread. No loss. Now you have more time to post your “sack of dung” on a loop tirades.

Riemann, Apostacy is a subset of sharia. When it comes to bringing sharia into Canadian law (e.g. applying sharia through binding arbitration, which was a hot issue here a few years ago):

Agreed.

It’s especially bad/hypocritical here in the province of Quebec. When the current Quebec government got elected, they worked hard to quickly put limitations on religious clothing and symbols. Which is not only racist/prejudiced, but also diverted attention and resources from more important things, like healthcare.

As for this, it just seems to be a lazy virtue-signaling insinuation of racism, and a failure to engage with difficult issues.

What I have “some bone to pick” with is misogyny, homophobia, theocracy, restriction of free speech, etc. And these things are objectively correlated with religious belief. To the extent that the majority of modern Christians and some reformist Muslims reject these things, they are welcome allies. To some extent, being “Muslim” is as much a cultural identity as a belief system, so social progress must come from reform movements within Islam - people must have valid ways to reject the bad ideas without losing their community identity.

If the Canadian Council of Muslim Women is one such progressive movement, they have my wholehearted support. But if you’re prepared to assume that without evidence, it’s not me who’s fucking stupid. And a pro-niqab propaganda piece is not a favorable sign on their views of the role of women. You reproduce their mention of many admirable documents on human rights. Neither you nor they have any substantive comment on their position on specific issues where traditional Muslim values (and interpretations of the Quran) have often been in conflict these values.

I think there’s a qualitative difference between modesty and subjugation. As mentioned upthread, there is obviously no difference between choosing a scarf-like head covering and choosing a hairstyle. But there’s a qualitative difference in covering large parts the face and what that represents. I would strongly defend any individual Muslim woman’s right to wear whatever she chooses, I think banning the niqab or burqa is an outrageous violation of human rights. Similarly, I’d defend the right of an 18-year-old Mormon girl to become the 4th wife of a 50-year-old man, if she chooses this freely. I can at the same time believe these are bad choices, that they are a result of broader “cultural coercion”, of misogyny and the subjugation of women. Where freely-choosing individuals are concerned, their rights always trump any notion of “cultural coercion”. But that doesn’t preclude my belief that these bad choices arise from an unfortunate desire to conform with deplorably misogynistic practices under the guise of religious virtue; and that I hope these things can disappear in a better-educated and more civilized world where women will freely choose not to be willing participants in their own subjugation.

ETA: I posted the above before seeing Muffin’s post above detailing some of the CCMW’s positions. That does seem very encouraging on the values they represent. But I’d still question how they reconcile…

…with the niqab. I’m not talking about the right to wear it, but the cultural practice. And as for…

Well, I do. But of course I realize that they have to start from a statement like this, and that progress will always be incremental.

Muffin’s “study” noted that homophobia was rife among niqab wearing women, which is to be expected. As such, I think it’s fair to view niqabs, like MAGA hats, as signifiers of bigotry.

Riemann, if what you are getting at is extremists killing or demanding the killing of people in the name of god and demanding that all people must follow god’s law as they decree it to be or else be exterminated, or if all you are getting at is a patriarchy of Imans using appelum ad verecundiam to pressure people in to adhering to their extremist hate filled beliefs, you should read this article by Junaid Jahangir that was published by the Huffington Post and further disseminated by the Canadian Council of Muslim Women.

Riemann, here’s a taste of what the CCMW has been up to.
http://ccmw.com/category/ccmw-resources/ccmw-projects/

http://ccmw.com/what-we-do/projects/

Local
This year, the CCMW has been holding two-day family law workshops across the country (covid-19 has delayed some of them, including the one that I am conducting), and has an online webinar “Introduction to family law & legal rights for Canadian Muslim Women”. https://ccmw.com/ccmw-national/webinar-introduction-to-family-law-legal-rights-for-canadian-muslim-women/ .

If you want to get into the meat of it, read through CCMW’s “MUSLIM AND CANADIAN FAMILY LAWS: A COMPARATIVE PRIMER” by L. Clarke and P. Cross. http://ccmw.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/PRIMER.pdf

I agree.

The MAGA hat is an “in your face” “I’m coming for you” expression of identity and purpose, whereas the niqab is more along the lines of an expression of identity and/or religious obligation without the aggression. Either way, the headgear represent conservative religious ideologies that disparage LGBTQI2S people, with the former being an active threat to LGBTQI2S people in the USA, and the latter (conservative islam) having proven itself in many countries over many years to be strongly opposed to LGBTQI2S people. I would not expect to find any MAGA or niqab at the Toronto Unity Mosque.