PDA

View Full Version : Banning the niqab pt. 2 (REALLY LONG RANT)


pochercoaster
12-25-2010, 12:10 PM
Right, so I already made a thread about this awhile ago. What the hell, no I didn't, Seil did, but for some reason I thought I made that thread. Totally not tired >_< However the topic continues to show up in the newspapers as of late, and I've given this a little more in depth thought and felt the need to rant.

Here's the article that prompted me to rant. (http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/article/909157--niqab-debate-what-should-canada-do)

The emphasis is mine.


...The debate about Muslim head coverings — the niqab is a garment that covers all but the eyes, while the burqa goes further and covers the face and eyes — is escalating at home and abroad. In early October, constitutional authorities in France ruled that banning the burqa and other Islamic face coverings in public places is legal, clearing the final hurdle before the ban becomes law. French people back the ban by a margin of more than four to one, the Pew Global Attitudes Project found in a survey earlier this year.

Three weeks later in Canada, Quebec's Orthodox Jewish community said it opposed a proposed government bill that would ban women from wearing the burqa while receiving government services. The group worried that “hard and fast rules” adopted by government would exacerbate social tensions and alienate religious minorities.

In Quebec last March, Jean Charest initiated legislation that would ban the niqab in public. Ontario's Court of Appeal, meanwhile, said that the niqab must be removed in a court of law if the accused's right to a fair trial requires it.

...

Farzana Hassan is a scholar and activist from Pakistan... She advocates a ban on the burqa and niqab, both of which obscure all of a woman's face and head except her eyes. Hassan says the Qur'an does not demand adherence to these garments, and that even though some women say they “choose” to wear them, both represent a form of intolerable subjugation.

...

In the case of the burqa, and even , the hijab, I'm on the side of Lebanese-born French novelist Amin Maalouf. Maalouf writes: “Traditions deserve to be respected only insofar as they are respectable — that is, exactly insofar as they themselves respect the fundamental rights of men and women.” Or, as Canadian Irshad Manji writes in The Trouble with Islam, “We shouldn't let multicultural bromides anesthetize our brains any further.”

So that's clear to me. The burqa and niqab represent a tradition that views women as sexual objects, temptresses who, with the flash of an ankle, can bring men (weak creatures incapable of resisting this temptation) to their knees. It's a repugnant value system and I reject it. So should all Canadians who embrace secular feminism. So let's ban the burqa, the niqab, and while we're at it, the hijab.


Right, well I don't know where to start. I apologize in advance if the following paragraphs seem rather fragmented as it's Christmas morning and I'm still waiting for my coffee to kick in.

First of all, I'm an atheist; second of all, my knowledge of various religions is actually quite minimal, so I don't feel qualified to comment on whether or not the niqab is truly a symbol of oppression in Western countries. Thirdly, I am going to be discussing the niqab in North America and Europe, as comparing a woman voluntarily wearing a niqab in the West is totally different from a woman being forced to wear a burka in Kandahar, where there is no question that there is widespread oppression against women.

I'm mainly interested in the legal aspects of this, especially in regards to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This topic should interest ALL women, regardless of their religious beliefs, because it has to do with limiting your freedoms.


Fundamental freedoms

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association

Life, liberty and security of person
7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

Your right to wear what you want, regardless of whether or not it's for religious reasons, regardless of whether or not a third party thinks it's oppressive to women, is protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. You may even argue that if a woman is uncomfortable being uncovered it's violating her right to security of person.

What immediately struck me about this topic is that it just seems so incredibly off the wall for a nation like Canada to tell you that you don't have the right to wear whatever the hell you want (as long as your genitals are covered.)* I am pretty much convinced that the only reason the media is paying attention to this is because of the muslim phobia that ensued after the US invaded Afghanistan and 9/11.

So:

1. The niqab-wearing population in Canada is incredibly tiny. I live in a city with a large muslim population and I've only seen a niqab once. Most muslim women I've interacted with either wear the hijab (a headscarf that just covers the hair- the face is visible) or nothing at all. They are virtually indistinguishable from other women except for the fact that some of them cover up a little more! They go to post secondary school and get careers, although the prevailing muslim phobia would have you believe that their husbands wouldn't allow this! Muslim =/= fundamentalist

So remember that when we're dealing with banning this particular garment, the media is stirring up a lot of frenzy over a very very small percentage of the population. I highly doubt it's because that occasionally providing a private room for a women to uncover a niqab is such a huge inconvenience that they want to ban it outright. It's not that. It's just Canada jumping on the xenophobic bandwagon along with the US.

2. How exactly does banning the niqab in public help women be less oppressed? Man, why don't we just disallow nuns from wearing their habits and monks their robes? (Yeah, I've seen monks walking around in Toronto too.) The Christian bible isn't any kinder to women than the Qu'ran so if you want to ban the niqab based on the fact that it stems from an oppressive religion then you have to ban ALL religious clothing. If you take any texts of any religion seriously they're going to be oppressive.

However I think we generally recognize that those who practice religion seriously realize that there are lots of outdated notions in the texts they follow yet continue to practice their religion anyways because they are individuals capable of distinguishing between what's applicable to modern society and what isn't.

3. And WHO is actually offended when they see a niqab? Who is harmed? I'm not. Now if you're standing in line at the airport or something I believe they have a right to request you to uncover your face in a private room so they can match it to your passport photo. But really, in public? Are we so small minded that we get a little scared or offended when a women is covered in material?

Again, who is harmed by this? I don't believe we should restrict freedoms as long as they don't harm anyone else. If you want to harm yourself I'm okay with that, just don't hurt my kids. You could argue that the women is harming herself (that's a very shaky argument) but it still doesn't contradict her right to practice whatever lifestyle she wishes. And you could argue that it's not the women who are at fault, it's their husbands/families who are forcing them, in which case it's no longer a matter pertaining to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms but rather an issue that should be dealt with as domestic abuse. And I doubt it's so widespread in Canada that they have grounds to make legislation against it in order to deal with the voluminous backlog of domestic abuse cases involving muslim families who force their wives to wear burkas.

Also, how is limiting their right to government services liberating women at all? As already mentioned in the article, all it does is simply alienate them. If we really want to "liberate" these women we do it by allowing them to integrate into society, but in their own way. You don't do it by erasing their identity.

4. This isn't really a valid argument, but I seriously LOL when people talk about women totally free from oppression in the West. Don't take this the wrong way- I would take Canada over MANY other countries where genital mutilation is routine and women don't go to school and if you get raped you're considered untouchable etc. etc., but approaching the topic from the mindset that the West has everything right and people should just be more open minded to OUR ideas and we can freely dismiss theirs because we're uncomfortable with a woman covering herself up is not the way. Women are paraded around like sex objects and while I think this is for many reasons, most of which don't bother me, I can't shake the feeling that it's at least partly due to deep rooted societal oppression. Hey, abortion isn't even readily available to many women in the West- are we really all that enlightened? There's dozens of examples of female oppression in the West, but that's another rant.

TL;DR Banning the niqab is a waste of time that will produce no noticeable improvements in the status of women. Allowing this legislation to go forward is a blow not to Muslim women, but to all women- because we are not intelligent enough to wear our clothes and understand the messages we carry with them. Thinking that our work liberating women in the west is finished and that all we have to do is get the rest of the world to follow in our footsteps is naive and colonialist.

*Okay, I'm not really surprised, I just wish all the "we love multiculturalism and that's what makes us Canada and not a certain neighbour to the south" bullshit was actually true.

Professor Smarmiarty
12-25-2010, 03:52 PM
The reason people hink banning it will help stop women being oppressed is tha the niqab seperates these women off from the rest of society, makes it difficult for them to seek help if their husband is oppressing hem and by giving those women who are forced to wear it more power- they have government helping them.
Not thatt I'm decided.

pochercoaster
12-25-2010, 06:52 PM
But what if they actually aren't oppressed? What if for whatever idiosyncratic reason they want to cover up? What if they're not even married?

Like I stated earlier it's a no brainer if you go to Afghanistan and women have virtually no rights that the burka is a symbol of oppression. The difference is in Canada they have a choice and there is a sizable muslim population, especially in the Greater Toronto Area, and most chose simply to wear the hijab or nothing at all.

I don't know any niqab wearers personally and while I believe that some of them may be expected to dress accordingly by their families, I also believe that some of them have simply chosen to wear it of their own volition. They're a minority within the muslim population but just because their choice of dress is more extreme doesn't necessarily mean that they're oppressed or powerless. I haven't seen any evidence supporting a direct correlation to this in Western countries so I don't believe we should set a precedent for something that's kind of ridiculous and reactionary unless there's a very very good reason.

I'm aware that some immigrants bring rather strict beliefs with them- I've worked with a muslim girl who had very strict traditional parents who didn't want her to get her driver's license or have a boyfriend even though she's 19 and a bunch of other stuff- but you can't generalize a whole population that adheres to one religion. Certainly not based on their clothes- and the aforementioned co-worker didn't even wear a hijab, so how can you pick out who's oppressed just based on what they're wearing? The one who doesn't wear any religious clothing may be more oppressed than the one who wears the niqab.

Nikose Tyris
12-25-2010, 06:57 PM
While I agree entirely with Pocheros' post and I'm of the opinion the ban shouldn't be instituted, one arguement I've heard in favor of it (which makes sense) is that the scarves that do cover the face (I live in Etobicoke of the GTA; a much larger portion of the population in this zone wears the full scarf) cover any bruises or marks of abuse, which makes it harder for evidence to be seen and support be given for victims of abuse.

it's not a significant enough arguement to justify the banning of a religious garment.

pochercoaster
12-25-2010, 07:03 PM
I was actually about to edit my post to mention that- while that's true, it's also common for abusers to specifically chose parts of the body (like the back) where bruises are easily concealed by clothing.

I guess my point isn't even that niqabs are or aren't symbols of oppression, it's that you don't solve anything by banning them. Also it's just a little coincidental that it's become a rather hot topic only after 9/11. I thought we were pretty cool with religious clothing. Like I don't hear anyone complaining about nun's habits or monk's robes or sikh's turbans. Admittedly those don't conceal you as much as a niqab but the idea behind wearing such clothes is kind of the same.

Azisien
12-25-2010, 08:09 PM
As an atheist I am not allowed - not even considered - for job opportunities within Catholic school boards.

Weird, I thought the Charter protected my rights to religious freedom, and I could have sworn teachers were government employees. You'd think the public sector of all sectors would be subject to the Charter.

Religious oppression ain't no new thang.

pochercoaster
12-25-2010, 08:24 PM
Of course it's not new but that doesn't mean it should exist or we shouldn't work towards minimizing it.

Also your analogy isn't really valid. Obviously a Catholic school board can expect its teachers to also be Catholic- it's a bona fide occupational qualification. How you wish to express yourself in public is completely different as there are no requirements other than your naughty bits be covered.

Nikose Tyris
12-25-2010, 08:27 PM
The entire basis for the seperate school system existing is religious discrimination, but we've known that since 1890. The rules that permit it existing are specific; Islamic faith, Hebrew faith, mormon and hindu faiths aren't permitted to establish a seperate school system.

As I understand it, they're supposed to be primarily publically funded, which, while it doesn't give them a 'right' to discriminate, the rule permitting their existence does provide a handy loophole. [It's in the constitution act, but I can't be buggered to fill out my research at the moment.]

And it has been called out on it's bullshit, according to 1999 and the UNHRC. [this was brought up again back in 2005].

Edit; Ninja'd due to excessive editting.

Bard The 5th LW
12-25-2010, 08:38 PM
Just throwing it out there that I went to a catholic school and had some non-catholic teachers. What religion they were is really unknown though. Pretty sure my Biology teacher was an atheist, although he kept it to himself.

Azisien
12-25-2010, 08:51 PM
Of course it's not new but that doesn't mean it should exist or we shouldn't work towards minimizing it.

Also your analogy isn't really valid. Obviously a Catholic school board can expect its teachers to also be Catholic- it's a bona fide occupational qualification. How you wish to express yourself in public is completely different as there are no requirements other than your naughty bits be covered.

Actually, I think we would be having this exact same conversation if I were a business owner and I refused to hire women who wore niqab, because um...it doesn't jive with corporate appearance. I consider the analogy totally relevant, and as much as I'd love to discuss it more in depth, that will certainly derail things. (Indeed, I am avoiding replying to the posts above me for the most part on purpose).

Neither forms of oppression should exist, perhaps.

Hanuman
12-25-2010, 09:02 PM
America is the land of the free.

pochercoaster
12-25-2010, 09:04 PM
Actually, I think we would be having this exact same conversation if I were a business owner and I refused to hire women who wore niqab, because um...it doesn't jive with corporate appearance. I consider the analogy totally relevant, and as much as I'd love to discuss it more in depth, that will certainly derail things. (Indeed, I am avoiding replying to the posts above me for the most part on purpose).

Neither forms of oppression should exist, perhaps.

Well, businesses have to follow a process before their bona fide occupational requirements are made valid. That doesn't mean there aren't businesses that have done that and abused it, but if an employer hires someone and then fires them because they wore a niqab and they don't have such qualifications or provisions instituted beforehand then that employee could conceivably sue them.

Moreover I'm more concerned about dictating what you're allowed to wear in public because that's one place where you're supposedly allowed to express yourself (mostly) freely.

Eltargrim
12-25-2010, 11:34 PM
Azi, I think the bigger question is: why is the government running a catholic school?

Bard The 5th LW
12-26-2010, 01:45 AM
Azi, I think the bigger question is: why is the government running a catholic school?

I'm pretty much sure that the government does not run Catholic Schools.

Sorta independently owned by this little organization known as the Catholic Church.

Professor Smarmiarty
12-26-2010, 05:01 AM
But what if they actually aren't oppressed? What if for whatever idiosyncratic reason they want to cover up? What if they're not even married?

Like I stated earlier it's a no brainer if you go to Afghanistan and women have virtually no rights that the burka is a symbol of oppression. The difference is in Canada they have a choice and there is a sizable muslim population, especially in the Greater Toronto Area, and most chose simply to wear the hijab or nothing at all.

I don't know any niqab wearers personally and while I believe that some of them may be expected to dress accordingly by their families, I also believe that some of them have simply chosen to wear it of their own volition. They're a minority within the muslim population but just because their choice of dress is more extreme doesn't necessarily mean that they're oppressed or powerless. I haven't seen any evidence supporting a direct correlation to this in Western countries so I don't believe we should set a precedent for something that's kind of ridiculous and reactionary unless there's a very very good reason.

I'm aware that some immigrants bring rather strict beliefs with them- I've worked with a muslim girl who had very strict traditional parents who didn't want her to get her driver's license or have a boyfriend even though she's 19 and a bunch of other stuff- but you can't generalize a whole population that adheres to one religion. Certainly not based on their clothes- and the aforementioned co-worker didn't even wear a hijab, so how can you pick out who's oppressed just based on what they're wearing? The one who doesn't wear any religious clothing may be more oppressed than the one who wears the niqab.

That's the problem- while some people will wear hem without being oppressed, some people are.So like all public laws you have to weigh up how much the law curtails freedom/how much the law protects. Pretty much all laws curtails freedom in some respec but hte protection aspect is felt to be greaer.
You can't just throw out the plight of he oppressed willy nilly. I don't know which side should win out here but it's not dsomehing o be done on a whim. Some people choosing to do it doesn' make it ok, i depends how many choose to do it agains hose who are forced to as part of a campaign of oppression.

DFM
12-26-2010, 06:34 AM
I think they're oppressive but that banning them won't solve anything and is probably racist. Now that I've thrown down the law I never intend to look at or post in this thread again thank you for your time.

Eltargrim
12-26-2010, 06:55 AM
I'm pretty much sure that the government does not run Catholic Schools.

Sorta independently owned by this little organization known as the Catholic Church.

Catholic schools in my province receive significant sums of public money. Independent my ass.

Magus
01-02-2011, 08:35 PM
Freedom of religion AND speech would both protect this, have no idea on how they plan to enforce it. I too must ask why nuns are exempt from the rule, since they are quite similar and obviously religious garb.

Obviously the U.S. takes freedom of religion and speech to a higher level but I was under the impression all the other first-world countries, even if they don't have a constitution, were pretty much as free (except for the laws against hate speech, I mean, which don't make any sense if you're going to have freedom of speech, but I dunno).

Will women who wear the hajib cover up in a different way? The main goal seems to be that they are totally covered except their faces. It just seems impossible to enforce. And the French rule on headscarves is quite ridiculous to enforce--what if a person isn't a Muslim but wears a head scarf? What if a man wore a headscarf in protest? Will they be fined? What if the women walk around wearing ski masks and robes? They aren't wearing a hajib, so they can't be arrested or fined...basically it's quite impossible really, besides being wrong.

EDIT: Man we had this whole topic before and Smarty was all for it back then too, 'cause making it so these "oppressed" French and Canadian women can't even leave the house is really going to make their lives better. I don't understand how he argues for it--I think all the things he says are totally dangerous to public order, he should be tossed in prison, right? Oh, freedom of speech trumps our concerns over the dangers of it? Carry on then, Smarty.

Professor Smarmiarty
01-03-2011, 05:30 AM
Obviously the U.S. takes freedom of religion and speech to a higher level

Man you said some other shit but this is the most hilarious thing going around. Unless by "higher level" you mean sayig it all the time to distract people from the hilarious non-coherence to it.
Even discounting imprisonments without charge, torture, spying on the public, institutional racism (which includes religious racism) all that shit, just looking at media who aren't that discriminated against, the last freedom of the press survey had the US at 20, with Canada at 21. They pretty much dead equal on that front. So that doesn'tr eally work. The US ain't some supergod human rights dispenser on high, taking only firs world countries into account, they are average to low (depending on what we're counting as first world and wha we're counting as free speech).
Also I don't know where the "tossed in prison" parody of me comes in- I don't even think murderers should go to prison, I'm prety sure I'm not supporting imprisoning niqab wearers.

Archbio
01-03-2011, 06:53 AM
What if the women walk around wearing ski masks and robes?

I've never actually tested this out, but I suspect that there are actual limits to how much people walking around with regular ski masks would be tolerated in both France and Canada in public situations.

So while I think in theory we both would agree that the legal status of these religious garments should match the legal status of non-religious equivalents, I think it's relevant this isn't always (or even often) the basis on which the right to wear these garments is defended. It's not quite the same when it's argued that a ban of these garments motivated by their religious/culture significance is unacceptable than when it's argued that any restriction of these garments would be unacceptable because of their religious significance.

Restrictions should apply across the board, one way or the other. While I don't think that the state should crack down on religious symbolism, it should stay the hell distanced away from it, especially this sort of thing.

Man we had this whole topic before and Smarty was all for it back then too, 'cause making it so these "oppressed" French and Canadian women can't even leave the house is really going to make their lives better.

I don't understand how the same sentence can include the word oppressed in scare quotes and yet acknowledge the potential situation of women not being able to leave the house. Well, no, that's a lie: I strongly suspect that it's through ignoring the major part that cultural/religious norms would play in keeping these women trapped in their houses ( by the belief of the immorality of every part of their body,) and focusing solely on the part of the ban itself.

Professor Smarmiarty
01-03-2011, 02:48 PM
I'm totally going to celebrate my new found freedom by walking round with a balclava and some toy guns.. oh wait... that's illegal. WTF?

Also it's not oppression if you can't see the bruises!

Magus
01-03-2011, 06:54 PM
I was more talking about the impression that the niqab is used to oppress women in Canadian and French societies to the same extent that it is used to oppress women in say, Yemen or Iran, when it is literally against the law in Canada and France to abuse women whereas in Yemen and Iran it seems literally against the law NOT to abuse women.

Also when I said the U.S. is stronger on freedom of religion and freedom of speech I was referring to the Supreme Court's ability to overturn laws instantaneously if it finds them unconstitutional, whereas with Canadian and French laws there is no such mechanism for instantaneous overturning or blocking. There is no mechanism to judge the validity of a law in relation to the Canadian Charter of Freedoms or whatever France has that is similar, not to mention the outlawing of "dangerous" speech in France such as hate speech. I'm not saying that the U.S. has not gone through vast eras of discrimination and punishment of free speech (in fact I am not sure there is a single era where there has not been some minority being discriminated against or some free speech censored, from slavery to the Chinese exclusion acts, war in the Phillipines, internment of Japanese citizens, 1950's Red scare, etc.), but in recent years the U.S. has been better on freedom of speech and religion than much of Europe, or at least several key countries (France, Germany, etc.).

Of course, I am probably judging France too harshly. From what I understand Sarkozy is actually deeply unpopular but apparently the opposition parties can't field candidates who can win an election against him. But the fact remains that these countries have instituted federal laws discriminating against religious garb, something I can't see passing in the U.S. currently (on the federal level, anyway, who knows what they will do in the states, they're afraid of Sharia law out in the midwest is how zany people are here...)

Professor Smarmiarty
01-03-2011, 07:41 PM
I was more talking about the impression that the niqab is used to oppress women in Canadian and French societies to the same extent that it is used to oppress women in say, Yemen or Iran, when it is literally against the law in Canada and France to abuse women whereas in Yemen and Iran it seems literally against the law NOT to abuse women.
My position is, and always has been, that before any ban was contemplated full studies need to be done as to the balance of women being oppressed and whether the niqab contributes to that. I am still completely baffled why we are opposed to this in favour of kneejerk responses of "They aren't being oppressed because the police protect them despite pretty much every study on this subjec tin existence showing minority isolation from the police, particularly in the case of oppressed wifes of husbands". The law ain't doing shit to protect these women if they are being abused.

Also when I said the U.S. is stronger on freedom of religion and freedom of speech I was referring to the Supreme Court's ability to overturn laws instantaneously if it finds them unconstitutional, whereas with Canadian and French laws there is no such mechanism for instantaneous overturning or blocking.
You do realise how the US consitution suppresses human rights, free speech and all that blather right? And that the lack of such all powerful constitution is a massive advantage in the favour of say france or canada.
There is no mechanism to judge the validity of a law in relation to the Canadian Charter of Freedoms or whatever France has that is similar, not to mention the outlawing of "dangerous" speech in France such as hate speech. I'm not saying that the U.S. has not gone through vast eras of discrimination and punishment of free speech (in fact I am not sure there is a single era where there has not been some minority being discriminated against or some free speech censored, from slavery to the Chinese exclusion acts, war in the Phillipines, internment of Japanese citizens, 1950's Red scare, etc.), but in recent years the U.S. has been better on freedom of speech and religion than much of Europe, or at least several key countries (France, Germany, etc.).
What is this based on? I would say that the complete disregard for legal due process (imprisionment without charge, forced confessionals ) and the rights of privacy (wiretaps) of US citizens is the biggest kick in the face of free speech going around. I can see wha you are getting at with France, with the massive corruption of the press and the troubles between protestors/police lately, and their draconian laws (this one is arguable) but not with Germany which I don't remember have any major cases.
As for freedom of religion I don't know of anybody who actually monitors this statisically but its pretty much the same all over the place, state discrimination happens everywhere.
A lot of big countries in Europe have had issues with human rights recentely but the US has had just as many issues and really is in no position to talk to anyone about them. And if we throw in human rights for people who aren't your citizens they lose hands down.

Of course, I am probably judging France too harshly. From what I understand Sarkozy is actually deeply unpopular but apparently the opposition parties can't field candidates who can win an election against him. But the fact remains that these countries have instituted federal laws discriminating against religious garb, something I can't see passing in the U.S. currently (on the federal level, anyway, who knows what they will do in the states, they're afraid of Sharia law out in the midwest is how zany people are here...)
Yeah Sarkozy is a crazy despot and yes France banned various forms of Islamic dress despite the number of burqa waearers in France being low enough to be uncountable.
As everything done in politics, it was a political strategy. Sarkozy has a crap load of problems at the mo, with corruption scandals rampant and tried to distract people by using a card that has often been used in France- the immigrant fear card. France is still deeply divided, with its colonial immigrants living in seperate communites often and not living very "French" and there has always been fear/backlash against them, it's very parallel to africans in America. He was trying to win votes and if someone though it would win them votes in America without losing them he would try it. The US constitution won't protect shit.
And I don't even have to speculate here, George Bush did exactly this with his "war on terror" his demonisation of Arabs, his detention of people without cause because they were arab. He used it for political capital, Sarkozy did the same.

Also you do realise the French have a constitution which is very similar to the US constitution? The french courts could legally throw out the ban on burqas if they wanted. They don't, however, because then they would be betraying the true purpose of the the French (and the US) constituion- to protect the rights of old fat white men and prevent the dirty poor from having any.

Seil
01-03-2011, 10:22 PM
So I found this really informative, especially that first article there where it says that not all Islamic women wear the veil:

THIS! (http://www.cracked.com/article_18911_5-ridiculous-things-you-probably-believe-about-islam.html?wa_user1=4&wa_user2=Weird+World&wa_user3=article&wa_user4=recommended)

http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/article/3/9/9/38399.jpg?v=1

The truth is, if you could suddenly gather all of the Muslim women on the planet into one giant room and had to throw a football to someone wearing a burqa, it'd be next to impossible to complete that pass.

But the whole hide-them-under-a-veil thing must be pretty big among Muslim communities, otherwise Europe wouldn't be all in in a dither over the things, pushing for bans and whatnot. Right?

On a second read through, that's a burqa, not the niqab. Carry on.

Magus
01-03-2011, 10:33 PM
Tons of Islamic women don't wear the veil, but head scarves or head coverings are pretty standard, I believe (or believed, as soon as someone tells me this is not true). So if those are banned it's going to affect a lot of women.

Also, Smarty, when I said something about Germany, I was talking both about their banning of hate speech as an infringement on free speech (I mean it's kind of understandable in the wake of Nazi Germany but it's still an infringement on free speech), and Merkel's latest statement that "multiculturalism has failed, foreigners should learn German and become Christians" I may be paraphrasing a bit but that was the basic thought behind the statement.

But anyway, all of this seems pointless in the face of that Cracked article's statistic:

"So for instance, in France they have about 3 million Muslim women. French police decided to figure out how many of them wore burqas and/or niqabs and found the number to be ... 367."

I mean...just...it's just like banning Sharia law in Nebraska, basically. Really I think the only reason they could infringe on these 367's rights is the fact that there are only 367. So unless France is going to start arguing that head scarves are used to oppress women...

So the question is, how many women in Canada wear the niqab, anyway?

Archbio
01-03-2011, 11:45 PM
I'm not saying that the U.S. has not gone through vast eras of discrimination and punishment of free speech (in fact I am not sure there is a single era where there has not been some minority being discriminated against or some free speech censored, from slavery to the Chinese exclusion acts, war in the Phillipines, internment of Japanese citizens, 1950's Red scare, etc.)

I just think it's odd how the bits I've bolded here barely seem to belong in this sentence. Except for maybe the Red Scare, all of these examples don't seem primarily to have been free speech issues at all.

Is this heavy stress on "restricting any form of expression in any way for any reason is a fatal offense" thing part of the Libertarian shtick or not, anyway?

Professor Smarmiarty
01-04-2011, 09:02 AM
Also, Smarty, when I said something about Germany, I was talking both about their banning of hate speech as an infringement on free speech (I mean it's kind of understandable in the wake of Nazi Germany but it's still an infringement on free speech), and Merkel's latest statement that "multiculturalism has failed, foreigners should learn German and become Christians" I may be paraphrasing a bit but that was the basic thought behind the statement.
Hahaha yeah, the Germans antinazi laws have been around so long I just didn't even think about them. My friend who is studying there with a government scholarship has it in his contract that he can't vote for "extremist" parties in any elections. We're pretty sure he can only vote for the CDU.
So yeahat the moment US is probably better than France and Germany, defineatly better than Italy but the USSR was probably better about free speech than Italy at the moment.

But anyway, all of this seems pointless in the face of that Cracked article's statistic:

"So for instance, in France they have about 3 million Muslim women. French police decided to figure out how many of them wore burqas and/or niqabs and found the number to be ... 367."

I mean...just...it's just like banning Sharia law in Nebraska, basically. Really I think the only reason they could infringe on these 367's rights is the fact that there are only 367. So unless France is going to start arguing that head scarves are used to oppress women...

So the question is, how many women in Canada wear the niqab, anyway?

Yeah the France law was ridiculous but this is my point, everyone just seems to be debating this without any real statisitics or studies. I'm probably going to be against any ban but the whole thing at the moment seems lke a media beatup with no real information behind it.
Also if we take away their robes they can't hide their bombs!

Magus
01-04-2011, 10:18 AM
I just think it's odd how the bits I've bolded here barely seem to belong in this sentence. Except for maybe the Red Scare, all of these examples don't seem primarily to have been free speech issues at all.

Is this heavy stress on "restricting any form of expression in any way for any reason is a fatal offense" thing part of the Libertarian shtick or not, anyway?

I'll probably drop my pseudo-Libertarian guise pretty soon since despite my efforts sometimes when I am being completely facetious and sarcastic people think I am being serious and then when I am being serious people think I am being sarcastic.

And no, I had a hard time thinking of another one outside the Red Scare of the 1950s off the top of my head, although I'm pretty sure they hated communists/union workers before then, just now that I'm thinking about it, which would be a free speech issue. I mean they literally used to shut down union strikes through military action and firing on protestors. Here is an interesting article on the subject detailing several instances of people being arrested or killed for attempts to unionize or protesting for higher wages:

http://www.lutins.org/labor.html

Professor Smarmiarty
01-04-2011, 10:25 AM
The striking paucity of unionisation across the states is pretty indicative of the success that past regimes have had in quelling free speech.
As for free speech at its most basic, let's make a timeline of suppressed protests/government shut downs- Unionisation/economic protests (19th century-30s) Communist protests/red scare (40s-50s), civil rights protests and Vietnam protests (50s-70s), anti-nuclear protests (80s)- by the 90s protests pretty well suppressed so they just took to wiretapping everyone.

Odjn
01-25-2011, 10:32 AM
My sole thing on this entire subject is this.

If the government requires you to reveal your face for identification purposes, you gots ta do it.

Everything else regarding your dumb obscuring garment is your choice!