DonLever Posted March 10, 2015 Author Share Posted March 10, 2015 Every niqabi I know (and I know more than a dozen living here), has their face fully visible in their government IDs. They have no qualms lifting the veil to be identified for security reasons. It's the assumption by everyone else that this step isn't taken that drives all this needless fear and paranoia. It's clear in this thread alone. If they can take it off for government ID , why can't they take it off the citiizenship oath? It has nothing to do with needless fear but common sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FramingDragon Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 If they can take it off for government ID , why can't they take it off the citiizenship oath? It has nothing to do with needless fear but common sense. Why is it necessary for citizenship oath aside from the verification that the person is there, which is done any way upon entry? I have yet to hear a good reason, which is strange if its common sense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFirstLine Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 That's their choice and frankly no one has the right to say otherwise.. Should we ban turbans too? I doubt most that choice to wear the niqab or burqa are forced to do so in Canada or any non-islamic place.. Now having said that.. if they're forced then that's a problem. I often see Muslim women that wear that garb all the time at University when they could easily not wear at all. Just walking behind people like that and I can see the dirty looks others give them in public. So long story short I have deep respect for people who choose to wear that garb as it takes a lot of balls so to speak. Good analogy lol.. Yupp it takes a whole lot for a woman in this day and age with all the peer pressure from friends, family etc to go outside fully covered up. People base all their value in their appearence nowadays forgetting what true beauty really is. Same can be said for the Sikhs, Nuns, and any other religious person. A lot of non Muslims believe that every woman wearing a hijab today is under immense pressure to make her family or husband happy, and if she doesn't comply she will be exiled and forced onto the streets or something. Quite funny tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFirstLine Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Most Muslim countries expect women to cover up though, even if they aren't Muslim. I'm not arguing against religious rights or traditions here. Certainly not white washing anything, it's just that the root of why Muslim women cover their faces because of some sexist garbage that's been around for centuries. We should be promoting equal rights, and Muslim women covering up in a free country is a step back in my opinion. I'm not going to stop them from wearing it but I'm not afraid to call it what it is. Dude no one forces a person who is not muslim anywhere in the world to fully cover up. The most they will nicely as is for you to cover your hair infront of men if you are attending a religious ceremony or are out alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockout Casualty Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 If they can take it off for government ID , why can't they take it off the citiizenship oath? It has nothing to do with needless fear but common sense. I can call the government and conduct all manner of business without verifying my face. A citizenship doesn't serve the same purpose as a driver's license. The issue of forcing a woman to unveil herself for the oath is entirely unnecessary, can be easily accommodated, and serves as little more than fodder to the Harperites xenophobes. Why is it necessary for citizenship oath aside from the verification that the person is there, which is done any way upon entry? I have yet to hear a good reason, which is strange if its common sense That's sadly unnecessary when you're playing up to people's fears or ignorance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
etsen3 Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Every niqabi I know (and I know more than a dozen living here), has their face fully visible in their government IDs. They have no qualms lifting the veil to be identified for security reasons. It's the assumption by everyone else that this step isn't taken that drives all this needless fear and paranoia. It's clear in this thread alone. Some use it as an excuse to bash Muslims. They create a straw man so they can have a "legitimate reason" to hate on Muslims without appearing racist. Now I think people saying it's a sexist practice have a legitimate argument and I agree, if the woman is forced to do it against her will. If she chooses to wear it there's nothing wrong with that. Besides, our own culture is far from perfect when it comes to "covering up". A woman wearing revealing clothing is judged much more harshly than a dude walking around with his shirt off. I say free the boobs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockout Casualty Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Some use it as an excuse to bash Muslims. They create a straw man so they can have a "legitimate reason" to hate on Muslims without appearing racist. Now I think people saying it's a sexist practice have a legitimate argument and I agree, if the woman is forced to do it against her will. If she chooses to wear it there's nothing wrong with that. Besides, our own culture is far from perfect when it comes to "covering up". A woman wearing revealing clothing is judged much more harshly than a dude walking around with his shirt off. I say free the boobs. While I agree with your larger point, I am not sure about the bolded part. While it is perfectly acceptable for a woman to veil herself by choice, it is due to the paternalistic nature of Abrahimic religions that covering one's self is a practice for women in the first place. Then again, I guess paternalism in culture is an issue in not just Islam, as evidenced by your example of immodesty in the west. I agree, free the boobs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthNinja Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 ??? If you lack the ability understanding the meaning and analogy of that response then you may want to avoid attempting to add any so-called insight to the topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeefcakeBo Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 The problem is if you ban the Hijab where does it end? Gotta ban Turbans and Yamakas too then. So much for First Nations headdresses. If its part of religious practice its guranteed under the charter and rightfully so. And im saying this as a woman. I think its brutal that they have to wear it, but its not my religion and I dont think I have a right to decide that for others. Again never said to ban it. Apparently you didn't read either of my posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 so... Mulcair, anyone? As much as I hate to go against the Conservatives, they seem to have been...overstepping their bounds, recently. RECENTLY?!?!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electro Rock Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 So Harper is responsible for anti Muslim feelings all over the world? Whatever substitute drama teacher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dedalus Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 This is such a tricky subject. I definitely do not like Harper and will not vote for him. I think this incident is actually a display of what an awful leader he is, but we've had very few good leaders in recent history. And I'm on the fence on what to think of Trudeau just yet. With regard to the niqab, my personal opinion is that it's a cultural thing. And I will extend that to say religion is a cultural thing. I guess some religious people will not agree that it is a cultural thing, but I think if Westerners understand the niqab as a cultural thing, they would understand it a little better. As such, cultural things many times make very little sense. As Canadians, we want to impose a certain part of Canadian culture that is mainstream and mostly the majority abode by. So, I see this as a culture clash. Because of this, I never criticise countries that have banned the niqab. Banning it is a little silly and kind of funny, because it's as if Britain decided to ban a Canadian symbol (such as the beaver or something). As an agnostic, I can't help but view this from an anthropological view. Some Muslims don't even agree with the niqab and some Arabic countries have banned it, as well. The dynamic in these countries is surely different, though, so I won't comment on that. But what I want to get at is that if the majority of Canadians do not agree with the niqab, then the answer is not to ban it. The answer is to educate Canadians on the reasons why they wear it and offer constructive criticism on why some Canadians do not agree with it on a social value level (from a sociological perspective). The truth is a Moslem who already wants to establish themselves permanently in a Western country and still wants to wear a niqab has already a weakened sense of what it means to wear a niqab, because they are already straying from the traditional reasons for wearing it in their home country. It turns their religion into a Personal Religion, as many religions have turned into, including Catholicism. And this is a major criticism of all religions. It is the creation of a Personal Jesus; a Personal God; where they cherry-pick things and create their own belief system based on whatever cultural and traditional trait they think is 'right' (there is no truth-value in religion, of course). The only way I would support a ban on it would be if we see Canada as fertile ground for recruiting Muslim extremists, which is a hard thing to prove anyway, so I don't think this would ever be the case, even though Harper is trying his best, and executing it very poorly. As far as my list of why I don't agree with women wearing a niqab, it's because it naturally feels antisocial from a Canadian perspective. This is the most subjective criticism, I think. Then there is the symbolic meaning I don't agree with, which is haya. I believe the face is not a private area. I don't agree with how it forces women to focus so much on superficial matters. There is no need to be reminded constantly about being humble or, in a distorted religious manner, be reminded that only the 'inner self' matters through wearing a piece of cloth (taqwa I believe it's called). This especially creates an environment of hypocrisy which I actually really dislike. When someone shows something to such an extreme in order to express how "non-materialistic" or "non-hypocritical" they are, it magnifies the times when they *are* materialistic and hypocritical, which is, to me, silly and funny. But I view religion as a funny thing. A niqab is very much an extreme practice, in my view. It kind of makes me want to say, "Relax. Do good in the world. That is enough". Because usually this is the purpose of religions, to be a good person. I don't need to see that you want to be a good person, but I also don't want to see that you want to be a bad person. My other criticism is, of course, a much wider criticism on all religions, and it's that you don't need to worship symbols, such as Allah, God or any other symbol that represents your belief system, to be a good person and to do good. Especially not in such an extreme way as to cover yourself when sometimes I can't understand everything you say because you're covering your mouth. But this is a cultural thing. I'm a much more relaxed person, but I also have ethics and morals (that were not engendered by religion, so to speak). And we don't need to get into why some scholars believe the niqab comes from unlearned imams, because, to get back to a broader point I make about religion, there is just no way anyone can argue that "my version of my religion is more true than yours". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockout Casualty Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 So Harper is responsible for anti Muslim feelings all over the world? Whatever substitute drama teacher. Mail room staffers aren't exactly known for making better PMs than substitute drama teachers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 So Harper is responsible for anti Muslim feelings all over the world? Whatever substitute drama teacher. Judging by your cute quote we can easily tell that most sensible arguments will not get through to you. When we factor in such a broad sweeping generalization such as your post we have enough concrete evidence to just avoid responding to you all together. But heads up, I don't see anyone here speaking of this issue truly outside of canada let alone blaming harper for issues outside of our country. Just you. But in other news. harper's highest ranking officials are yet again embroiled in pork barrelling favoritism in a staunchly conservative riding where Baird, Finley, Nigel Wright and 3 other very high ranking Conservatives gave away almost $1.2 MILLION to a rabbinical church without once following parliamentary or Canadian laws. Ironically ALL of them forget the emails as well as in eprson and phone meetings that lead to them signing off on the payment. So while I am going far afield from the original topic of the thread. If you're going to assume everyone is going to blame harper for issues outside of canada i will just raise yet another issue with the cons inside of our own borders. And if you're keeping track that's the 3rd ethics and morality as well as legal issue with the Cons this week. And fancy that, only tuesday Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Also back to the matter at hand. Lecce in this report made a very ugly generalization that it offends all Canadians. I am a Canadian. I don't at all feel offended. This country is founded on freedoms and multi-culturalism. If you want to swear your oath wearing a Hijab/Niqab that's fine. In your underwear so be it. That's the kind of freedom this country is founded on. Making statements like it "offends all good canadians" is in fact offensive to me. The only thing more offensive is how this government purports to want freedoms in the middle east and freedoms at home yet sells weapons to and props up oppressive regimes in the Middle East. The only thing more offensive than that is how they can claim to just want to save all of these women and children from brutality rape and mutilation. Yet here in canada will not lift a hand to assist in the safety of aboriginal women or the nearly 1500 dead missing or brutally beaten ones since 1990. Nor lift a hand to end child poverty and child abuse issues here at home. let alone get tough on those who commit these heinous acts against both groups as evidenced by the absolutely appalling lack of justice in cases regarding abuse to women and children. Tough on crime, honest open transparent. Please....I am offended Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electro Rock Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Mail room staffers aren't exactly known for making better PMs than substitute drama teachers. At least he had to work his way up through the ranks, gaining political experience in the process, rather than being appointed leader of the party based on his last name... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 At least he had to work his way up through the ranks, gaining political experience in the process, rather than being appointed leader of the party based on his last name... No argument there. But Golden Boy was born and raised on canadian Politics. not just back room politicking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockout Casualty Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 At least he had to work his way up through the ranks, gaining political experience in the process, rather than being appointed leader of the party based on his last name... There's a world of difference between political experience and ability to govern effectively. Considering Harper's lack of the latter and excess of the former, it's little wonder fear is being played up right in time for an election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beastmode33 Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Trudeau just fear mongered all of you by calling harper a fear monger whos going to take away all your freedoms. Now youve been fear mongered twice. If the internet is any indication of how our country really feels, may the flying spaghetti monster help us all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxi Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Dude no one forces a person who is not muslim anywhere in the world to fully cover up. The most they will nicely as is for you to cover your hair infront of men if you are attending a religious ceremony or are out alone. Well., not true. In various areas of the world controlled by groups like the Taliban or ISIS all women are forced to cover up under threat of violence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.