Harper's 'anti-women' niqab comment

[Heretic]

Oh and just to put this issue in perspective. What's the difference between this?

And this?

Oh wait nevermind, I see the difference. You can actually see the guy's chin and forehead in the first photo. Am I right guys?

If you can't see the difference than oh boy.....

For starters, I can tell if the officer is smiling or not.

Those women, they could be sticking their tongues out at me for all I know.

It's a huge difference.

[Tortorella's Rant]

If you can't see the difference than oh boy.....

For starters, I can tell if the officer is smiling or not.

Those women, they could be sticking their tongues out at me for all I know.

It's a huge difference.

Maybe they're MEN

[Heretic]

Wrong. I'm anti-religion but I respect everyone's right to believe what they want.

Wrong. I said some.

Also, I don't believe you that you respect anyone's right when it come to religion - that is, your comments say otherwise.

[Hugor Hill]

Why does religion have to have anything to do with Canadian identity? If these women want to wear it, then so be it. I don't see it as making them any less Canadian.

Though I understand not having the face covered for security reasons. I could also see having security photos taken without the headdress.

Now, if they refused to learn English, Canadian non-religious culture etc. And wanted to make it fit their old countries views, then that would be a problem.

yeah I do want to see immigrants adapting to local customs , but the State has no business forcing it to happen.

[Hugor Hill]

Wrong. I said some.

Also, I don't believe you that you respect anyone's right when it come to religion - that is, your comments say otherwise.

You should revisit my posts in the Charlie Hebdo attack thread.

[elvis15]

I think he is perfectly in touch with reality on this issue, and the majority of Canadians would agree with him. The niqab is a cultural thing that's completely sexist. By wearing it you aren't embracing the freedom of Canadian citizenship. Sure freedom means you have a right to wear what you want, but wanting to wear something so sexist is not appropriate.

If a white American male goes to a citizenship ceremony here in a KKK outfit, would it be restricting his freedom to disallow it? Or is it his freedom to wear whatever he wants? Maybe the last 3 generations of his family wore it too, still wouldn't make it right would it? I'd expect the same conclusion for a niqab, it's a cultural thing that some Muslim women have been wearing for a long time.

It basically comes down to the same thing, we socially don't accept racism so we disallow it, but sexism is ok so we allow women to wear a niqab. It's not the same as a man wearing a turban or woman wearing a sari.

People always want to use the most emotionally engaging example no matter how incorrect it may be.

Correct me if I'm wrong (and I may be) but the KKK isn't a organized religion - certainly in the public sense - and nor is it a group where a small percentage makes the larger population look bad. Muslims are a part of an accepted religion throughout the world that does have a small percentage that performs extremist acts that are as bad if not worse than the KKK, yet have a significant population that are upstanding individuals that don't promote racism, sexism, or any other negative beliefs.

So, dressing in a Klan ceremonial outfit to a citizenship ceremony is not comparable to wearing a niqab. They aren't allowed to do so based on religious freedoms, and even if they were they'd also have to take their face coverings off to take the citizen test (never mind that would 'out' them to the world as a KKK member, which is something they more or less keep within their social circle).

Religious freedom doesn't excuse someone wearing a niqab from having to show their face prior to the test, but Harper is ignoring this essential piece of information to grandstand on his 'security' platform. He wants to make it sound like he has the best interest of the majority of Canadians at heart when the majority is likely just fine with the security check we already have in place.

It's the quintessential "people who support showing of faces stand on the left and people who support pedophiles stand on the right" argument (much like Warhippy's point).

Most Western people that live in Saudi Arabia live in special communities or compounds..

For US citizien working there is a special residential compound called Aramco..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Aramco_Residential_Camp_in_Dhahran

Here's a photo of a carnaval there.. See the mini skirts.

...

But then if any of those people wanted to go into any regular part of Saudi Arabia, say to take a citizenship test, then they'd have to abide by the laws in place.

But then we're here with a number of posters looking down on someone wearing who's also already met security concerns just because of what they're wearing. Hopefully a democratic country proud of the freedom we offer could be a little more progressive than that.

[TheFirstLine]

Oh and just to put this issue in perspective. What's the difference between this?

And this?

Oh wait nevermind, I see the difference. You can actually see the guy's chin and forehead in the first photo. Am I right guys?

There's a difference between a niqab and a hijab. The woman pictured above are wearing a niqab which is the most that can be covered for a woman in Islam. This is in no way mandatory but is a personal choice. The hijab on the other hand is the covering of the hair and the face is fully visible meaning their should be no problem whatsoever.

[Gross-Misconduct]

Why would any woman who isn't a slave to men want to wear this?

[TheFirstLine]

Most religions are anti-women. Hell, they're anti-people. In this case, many Muslim women are forced to wear giant garbage bags because they're seen as inferior. They're property. They have few to no rights such as showing skin, or hair. Hence why they drape themselves to look like Darth Vader. Your notion should not be accepted here.

HA! Giant garbage bags ? id rather have a 40 year old mother wear a "garbage bag" to cover her body then a lady like your mother/sister be half naked everywhere she goes for a little attention.

[TheFirstLine]

Why would any woman who isn't a slave to men want to wear this?

More western converts nowadays take this approach to covering up rather then wear a basic head veil such as a hijab.

[Hugor Hill]

Why would any woman who isn't a slave to men want to wear this?

You should ask them and find out.

Some women dress provocatively just to get men's attention. Who is the slave?

[DonLever]

There is no such thing as ethnic vote.

Maybe not, but the politicians are trying the hardest to get their vote through language specific ads and other methods. Don't you remember the BC Liberal attempt to woo ethnic votes by using taxpayer money for advertising in ethnic media?

Or political parties that want to raise immigration levels. All political parties do it.

[nucklehead]

This is Canada.

Last I checked, it's not an Islamic country.

Neither is it a Sikh country. Or Jewish.

etc

[TheFirstLine]

You should ask them and find out.

Some women dress provocatively just to get men's attention. Who is the slave?

Half naked woman on billboards promoting things such as a facial cream or even a car. In attempts to bait men into taking a peak at the woman in order to advertise their product. Who is the one being treated like an object ?

[DonLever]

Why does religion have to have anything to do with Canadian identity? If these women want to wear it, then so be it. I don't see it as making them any less Canadian.

Though I understand not having the face covered for security reasons. I could also see having security photos taken without the headdress.

Now, if they refused to learn English, Canadian non-religious culture etc. And wanted to make it fit their old countries views, then that would be a problem.

Women in Canada are allowed to wear any religious attire. Unlike France where the Niqab and Burka are banned in public.

We are talking about the Canadain oath of Citizenship. Something that take one minute. If they can take off their niqab for one minute for taking a drivers licence photo, is one minute of their life when taking off their niqab to show their face for becoming a citizen of Canada such a hardship?

[Hugor Hill]

Maybe not, but the politicians are trying the hardest to get their vote through language specific ads and other methods. Don't you remember the BC Liberal attempt to woo ethnic votes by using taxpayer money for advertising in ethnic media?

Or political parties that want to raise immigration levels. All political parties do it.

Whenever the governing party puts an ad (except campaign ads, but the lines blur) on any media it is paid for by tax payer's money.

[Tortorella's Rant]

HA! Giant garbage bags ? id rather have a 40 year old mother wear a "garbage bag" to cover her body then a lady like your mother/sister be half naked everywhere she goes for a little attention.

Except those are all assumptions. And wrong ones at that

[Lockout Casualty]

There are too many posts to pick at individually, but it seems fair to sum up the pro-Harper side as having two issues:

1. No attire that can be seen as misogynistic while giving oath

2. No hiding one's face while giving oath.

With the second point, if it's an issue of verification, I'm sure the same verification as used over the phone can be used here. If not, I'd like to hear why. What is the tangible difference between taking the oath while covered vs. uncovered?

For those comparing this to the DL, this is entirely different. A DL is a permit to operate a vehicle, and the operator must be identified on demand only at time of operating a vehicle. I went through the oath process a few years back, we came in, did a test, then listened to the judge speak and said the oath. At no time after the initial verification was my identity an issue, unlike with operating a vehicle.

By law, this isn't a cultural matter, but a religious one, and it is quite the overreach of government power to infringe on a religious freedom, especially in order to perform a symbolic gesture such as an oath. At the very least, this is simply unnecessarily bullying Muslim women into revealing their face in spite of their religious beliefs. At worst, it's politically singling out a minority religion, which simultaneously happens to be the dominant religion and presumed major motivation of our enemy abroad, and the supposed biggest domestic threat, while continuing an arguably xenophobic narrative in the build up to an election, in which economy noticeably has taken a back seat and fear is being played up on all fronts. I'm rather cynical, so you know which way I lean.

As for the first point, that it is misogynistic to women, it may be rooted in that culturally, but why does it matter? Many women choose to wear the veil, for whatever reason. Forcing women to unveil won't get rid of the misogyny and only affect the said women. And if misogyny is the issue, why aren't we forcing women to take the head covering off entirely? And extending that to all religions? Married Jewish women are required to wear a head covering, like a sheitel. Christian women shouldn't even cut their hair short , can we extend this anti-misogynistic movement to all Christian women who have long hair? More seriously, some denominations also wear head coverings. It's beyond the scope of government to fix culture, all it should be able to do is protect women if they choose to seek it.

As an aside, I wonder how many people okay with this then turn around and complain about excessive government power when it does something they disagree with.

[TheFirstLine]

There are too many posts to pick at individually, but it seems fair to sum up the pro-Harper side as having two issues:

1. No attire that can be seen as misogynistic while giving oath

2. No hiding one's face while giving oath.

With the second point, if it's an issue of verification, I'm sure the same verification as used over the phone can be used here. If not, I'd like to hear why. What is the tangible difference between taking the oath while covered vs. uncovered?

For those comparing this to the DL, this is entirely different. A DL is a permit to operate a vehicle, and the operator must be identified on demand only at time of operating a vehicle. I went through the oath process a few years back, we came in, did a test, then listened to the judge speak and said the oath. At no time after the initial verification was my identity an issue, unlike with operating a vehicle.

By law, this isn't a cultural matter, but a religious one, and it is quite the overreach of government power to infringe on a religious freedom, especially in order to perform a symbolic gesture such as an oath. At the very least, this is simply unnecessarily bullying Muslim women into revealing their face in spite of their religious beliefs. At worst, it's politically singling out a minority religion, which simultaneously happens to be the dominant religion and presumed major motivation of our enemy abroad, and the supposed biggest domestic threat, while continuing an arguably xenophobic narrative in the build up to an election, in which economy noticeably has taken a back seat and fear is being played up on all fronts. I'm rather cynical, so you know which way I lean.

As for the first point, that it is misogynistic to women, it may be rooted in that culturally, but why does it matter? Many women choose to wear the veil, for whatever reason. Forcing women to unveil won't get rid of the misogyny and only affect the said women. And if misogyny is the issue, why aren't we forcing women to take the head covering off entirely? And extending that to all religions? Married Jewish women are required to wear a head covering, like a sheitel. Christian women shouldn't even cut their hair short , can we extend this anti-misogynistic movement to all Christian women who have long hair? More seriously, some denominations also wear head coverings. It's beyond the scope of government to fix culture, all it should be able to do is protect women if they choose to seek it.

As an aside, I wonder how many people okay with this then turn around and complain about excessive government power when it does something they disagree with.

This

[otherwise]

Women in Canada are allowed to wear any religious attire. Unlike France where the Niqab and Burka are banned in public.

We are talking about the Canadain oath of Citizenship. Something that take one minute. If they can take off their niqab for one minute for taking a drivers licence photo, is one minute of their life when taking off their niqab to show their face for becoming a citizen of Canada such a hardship?

I could be wrong but I think it has to do with men being present in the room that aren't family or like family. Taking that pic could be done in a private area.