Hugor Hill Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 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 ? Exactly... more over, I feel patronized for being think of as gullible. 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? As long as security is done, what do you care if they cover themselves when they swear? Here they think they are being welcomed to a democratic country that allows them to wear what they want, and you want to dictate to them what to wear for this special occasion. If you feel that this is such a symbolic event you should also think of it from their perspective. Seriously, what do you care what they wear? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockout Casualty Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 People are slamming Harper over this issue because they hate him and not because they agree with women wearing a Niqab for swearing the citizenship oath. I am certain the majority of people in Canada agree with Harper that women should not cover their faces when swearing the citizen oath. If this is a non-issue like some say here, would they agree to the mutilation of women's genitals because it is "religious freedom"? And what are the boundaries when it comes to religious accommodation? So should principles of Sharia law be acceptable in Canada? Absolutely I disagree that women should not cover their faces when swearing the oath. How do you make the jump to genital mutilation? Since on the subject, I bet you're okay with male genital mutilation for the same reason. Maybe instead of arbitrary boundaries, we should base them on something tangible. How about we use the same concept our entire society is based on (well, to an extent anyway): if you're not hurting anyone, you can do whatever you want. Show me some evidence of harm, please. And while I'm at it, I'm gonna have to ask you to go ahead and cut back on the hyperbole. That'd be great. Thaaaanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 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? 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? Having already cleared a security check of showing their face before taking the citizenship test, is it that necessary for them to show it again at a ceremonial event? The religious implications prevent them from showing their faces in a public forum at the most basic level, so standing in a room full of other people receiving their citizenship would be an issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilduce39 Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 People can wear what they want. But don't kid yourself, ladies... You could wear a niqab made out of 3 inches of lead and it wouldn't protect you from the Regime's raw sexual magnetism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockout Casualty Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 I wonder if I looked hard enough, how many quotes I'd find from people on this board saying Islam is sexist, misogynist, disrespectful and basically anti-woman (wonder if i could even find a couple by the OP....) I don't like Harper either, but come on, he says something and it doesn't matter if people agree with it or not it's always "get this idiot out of government!".... sigh I think Islam is a sexist, misoginist, disrespectful, and basically anti-women religion. Just to save you from looking too hard, friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugor Hill Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 Having already cleared a security check of showing their face before taking the citizenship test, is it that necessary for them to show it again at a ceremonial event? The religious implications prevent them from showing their faces in a public forum at the most basic level, so standing in a room full of other people receiving their citizenship would be an issue. Elvis, this comic is hilarious. Where did you source that from?? NVM I found it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugor Hill Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 I think Islam is a sexist, misoginist, disrespectful, and basically anti-women religion. Just to save you from looking too hard, friend. And still, people have the right to wear what they want. We can exercise our freedom of speech by saying how oppressive it is(from our point of view), but the State has no right to force the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockout Casualty Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 And still, people have the right to wear what they want. We can exercise our freedom of speech by saying how oppressive it is(from our point of view), but the State has no right to force the issue. I didn't think that needed saying, but abso-fking-lutely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugor Hill Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 I didn't think that needed saying, but abso-fking-lutely. Sorry I was just finishing your thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drummer4now Posted March 12, 2015 Author Share Posted March 12, 2015 Aside from letting people express themselves freely... I still think it shouldn't negatively affect someone or society as a whole. As of right now I don't know of such case unless of course someone is being forced. Also I am surprised how terrorists haven't taken advantage of the niqab in disguising themselves in public.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockout Casualty Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 Aside from letting people express themselves freely... I still think it shouldn't negatively affect someone or society as a whole. As of right now I don't know of such case unless of course someone is being forced. Also I am surprised how terrorists haven't taken advantage of the niqab in disguising themselves in public.. Maybe terrorists aren't as big of a threat as we're led to believe? Sorry I was just finishing your thought. And I'm sorry if my post came off harsh, seems so in hindsight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugor Hill Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 Aside from letting people express themselves freely... I still think it shouldn't negatively affect someone or society as a whole. As of right now I don't know of such case unless of course someone is being forced. Also I am surprised how terrorists haven't taken advantage of the niqab in disguising themselves in public.. Some people want the government to be on 'their' side. People like us and Lookout and Elvis etc just want the government to be neutral and let the people choose what to wear. Maybe terrorists aren't as big of a threat as we're led to believe? In Toronto, the most shocking and damaging crimes committed over the last decade plus, for as long as I have been in this province, were all gangs related, not terrorism. Having said all this, I do very much appreciate all the anti-terror successes the RCMP has been having, such as this: http://www.ottawasun.com/2015/02/03/rcmp-to-announce-terror-arrest-in-ottawa They work hard to keep us safe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeefcakeBo Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 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 big difference. In the first picture you have a man wearing a religious item that he's chosen to wear based on his beliefs. Whether you agree with those beliefs or not he still has that right. In the second photo you have women choosing to wear a religious item based on her beliefs. The difference is that she is wearing it because some men a couple thousand years ago decided that women were inferior and made up a bunch of dumb sh!t and forced it onto women for centuries. Now when someone actually stands up to that wrongdoing we all do nothing and criticize the guy with common sense. We call it freedom of choice, and enable a bunch of dickwads to continue forcing it on women. Let women wear the damn thing if their really that brainwashed, but not at a citizenship ceremony. If they don't like it then they can go back to wherever they came here from, and maybe they can take the backasswards men that think they should be wearing it with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockout Casualty Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 There's a big difference. In the first picture you have a man wearing a religious item that he's chosen to wear based on his beliefs. Whether you agree with those beliefs or not he still has that right. In the second photo you have women choosing to wear a religious item based on her beliefs. The difference is that she is wearing it because some men a couple thousand years ago decided that women were inferior and made up a bunch of dumb sh!t and forced it onto women for centuries. Now when someone actually stands up to that wrongdoing we all do nothing and criticize the guy with common sense. We call it freedom of choice, and enable a bunch of dickwads to continue forcing it on women. Let women wear the damn thing if their really that brainwashed, but not at a citizenship ceremony. If they don't like it then they can go back to wherever they came here from. Can you actually explain why not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drummer4now Posted March 12, 2015 Author Share Posted March 12, 2015 There's a big difference. In the first picture you have a man wearing a religious item that he's chosen to wear based on his beliefs. Whether you agree with those beliefs or not he still has that right. In the second photo you have women choosing to wear a religious item based on her beliefs. The difference is that she is wearing it because some men a couple thousand years ago decided that women were inferior and made up a bunch of dumb sh!t and forced it onto women for centuries. Now when someone actually stands up to that wrongdoing we all do nothing and criticize the guy with common sense. We call it freedom of choice, and enable a bunch of dickwads to continue forcing it on women. Let women wear the damn thing if their really that brainwashed, but not at a citizenship ceremony. If they don't like it then they can go back to wherever they came here from, and maybe they can take the backasswards men that think they should be wearing it with them. You really are ignorant lol and know nothing about religious garb or cultural traditions... First of all the Turban or any sort of headcovering is technically forced upon Sikhs since it's mandatory, but since the people practicing the religion have become more westernized and whitewashed so to speak not very many people wear turbans anymore. If you go to Punjab India you will rarely find someone with a turban and full beard nowadays as most have cut hair. Also Sikhs arent even supposed to cut their hair ever in their lives. Now on the topic of Niqab... it actually is a cultural tradition (tribal) not a religious one as Islam has no rule for wearing a Niqab. Sheikh Muhammad Sayyid Tantawy, previous dean of Cairo's Al-Azhar University, called full-face veiling a custom that has nothing to do with the Islamic faith. "The niqab is a cultural tradition and has nothing to do with Islam."[36] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niq%C4%81b In the Quran it only mentions men and women to dress modestly.. so in other words it's not mandatory. However, there are many different interpretations of what "modesty" requires. The Quran admonishes Muslim women to dress modestly and cover their breasts and genitals.[5] TheQuran explicitly states that "O wives of the Prophet, you are not like anyone among women" (Quran 33: 32) and as such has separate rules specifically for the wives of the Prophet. However, many people often mistake it for rules for all Muslim women. The Quran has no requirement that women cover their faces with a veil, or cover their bodies with the full-body burqua or chador.[6] The Qur'an does not mandate or mention Hijab[7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_clothing You're basically forming an opinion or viewpoint because of misconceptions and ignorance. No one is denying it is backward and controversial at best, but you can't say that all muslim women living non-islamic countries are forced upon or doing so without any alternatives because truth be told there many educated one that wear it for cultural/personal reasons. Also who the hell are you to tell someone to go back where they came from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drummer4now Posted March 12, 2015 Author Share Posted March 12, 2015 I added some more supporting info to the post above.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockout Casualty Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 You really are ignorant lol and know nothing about religious garb or religious traditions in general... First of all the Turban or any sort of headcovering is technically forced upon Sikhs since it's mandatory, but since the people practicing the religion have become more westernized and whitewashed so to speak not very many people wear turbans anymore. If you go to Punjab India you will rarely find someone with a turban and full beard nowadays as most have cut hair. Also Sikhs arent even supposed to cut their hair ever in their lives. Now on the topic of Niqab... it actually is a cultural tradition (tribal) not a religious one as Islam has no rule for wearing a Niqab. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niq%C4%81b In the Quran it only mentions men and women to dress modestly.. so in other words it's not mandatory. You're basically forming an opinion or viewpoint because of misconceptions and ignorance. No one is denying it is backward and controversial at best, but you can't say that all muslim women living non-islamic countries are forced upon or doing so without any alternatives because truth be told there many educated one that wear it for cultural/personal reasons. Also who the hell are you to tell someone to go back where they came from? It's pretty common for religious traditions to incorporate cultural aspects that predate it. Same is the case with face coverings in the Arab world. Google niqab and read the different opinions of Muslims scholars. It's obviously not a simple matter as you make it out to be. Also, it is enough for these women to believe it to be part of their religion for it to fall in that domain in Canada. Sections 2(a) and 15 of the Charter lay out the right to freedom of religion and equal treatment in Canada. In the Supreme Court of Canada’s seminal decision on freedom of religion, R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd.,8 Dickson J. said that: The essence of the concept of freedom of religion is the right to entertain such religious beliefs as a person chooses, the right to declare religious beliefs openly and without fear of hindrance or reprisal, and the right to manifest religious belief by worship and practice or by teaching and dissemination. But the concept means more than that. … Freedom in a broad sense embraces both the absence of coercion and constraint, and the right to manifest beliefs and practices. Freedom means that, subject to such limitations as are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others, no one is to be forced to act in a way contrary to his beliefs or his conscience.9 http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/lop/researchpublications/2011-60-e.htm While I'm not a lawyer, and I'm sure proving one's beliefs has a certain threshold in law, I am certain Muslim women would easily meet it. Gee drummer, why don't you quote the other parts of the wiki page? "Oh, I don't know LC, maybe it's because I'm only picking the parts that support my argument?" Oh, yeah. Shafi'i: The Shafi'i school has had two well-known positions on this issue. The first view is that covering the face is obligatory at all times when in presence of non-mahram men.[15] The second view is that covering the face is preferred in general, but obligatory only in a time of fitnah (where men do not lower their gaze; or when a woman is very attractive).[16]Hanbali: According to the Hanbali school, there are two differing views on whether a woman's whole body is awrah or not. Mālik, Awzāʿī, and Shafiʿī suggest that the awrah of a woman is her entire body excluding her face and her hands. Hence, covering the face would not be obligatory (fard) in this madhhab.[17]According to scholars like Tirmidhī and Ḥārith b. Hishām, however, all of a woman's body is awra, including her face, hands, and even fingernails. There is a dispensation though that allows a woman to expose her face and hands, e.g. when asking for her hand in marriage, because it is the centre of beauty.[18] The claimed rationale of the niqab comes from the Qur'an and Hadith. It was known that the wives of the Prophet Muhammad covered themselves around non-mahram men. However the Quran explicitly states that the wives of the Prophet are held to a different standard.[27] It is claimed that under Islam the niqab is a requirement for all women, since womanhood is mentioned along with the wives of Muhammad in the Qur'anic dictat to cover.[28] The following verse from the Qur'an is cited as support for this:[29] This verse was in response to harassment on the part of the "hypocrites",[30] although it does not clearly refer to covering the face itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeefcakeBo Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 Can you actually explain why not? At a citizenship ceremony you become a Canadian, and it's a celebration and recognition of you professing Canadian values. You take the oath of citizenship. When you study the oath of citizenship, a big part of that is dedicated to rights and freedoms, one of those is equality for men and women. The niqab is directly opposite to that, the entire basis of the niqab is that women are inferior and can't sexually control themselves in front of men that aren't their husbands. Of course Muslim men would never have the same problem so they are only required to wear at least shorts... lol. If you are swearing an oath that you believe in equality for men and women but also insist on wearing a niqab then your not taking the whole citizenship oath seriously. If you want to let people pick and choose what parts of Canadian citizenship they like and what parts they don't sooner or later we have no shared values. We end up in some kind of chaos where anything goes and no one's does anything about it because it's not politically correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drummer4now Posted March 12, 2015 Author Share Posted March 12, 2015 It's pretty common for religious traditions to incorporate cultural aspects that predate it. Same is the case with face coverings in the Arab world. Google niqab and read the different opinions of Muslims scholars. It's obviously not a simple matter as you make it out to be. Also, it is enough for these women to believe it to be part of their religion for it to fall in that domain in Canada. http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/lop/researchpublications/2011-60-e.htm While I'm not a lawyer, and I'm sure proving one's beliefs has a certain threshold in law, I am certain Muslim women would easily meet it. http://middleeast.about.com/od/religionsectarianism/f/me080209.htm Answer: The quick answer is no: the Quran has no requirement that women cover their faces with a veil, or cover their bodies with the full-body burqua or chador, as in Iran and Afghanistan. But the Quran does address the matter of veiling in such a way that it has been interpreted historically, if not necessarily correctly, by Muslim clerics as applying to women. However, there are many different interpretations of what "modesty" requires. The Quran admonishes Muslim women to dress modestly and cover their breasts and genitals.[5] TheQuran explicitly states that "O wives of the Prophet, you are not like anyone among women" (Quran 33: 32) and as such has separate rules specifically for the wives of the Prophet. However, many people often mistake it for rules for all Muslim women. The Quran has no requirement that women cover their faces with a veil, or cover their bodies with the full-body burqua or chador.[6] The Qur'an does not mandate or mention Hijab[7] The veiling of women was not an Islamic innovation but a Persian and Byzantine-Christian custom that Islam adopted. For most of Islam’s history, the veil in its various forms was seen as a sign of distinction and protection for upper-class women. Since the 19th century, the veil has come to represent a more assertive, self-consciously Islamic expression, sometimes in reaction to Western currents--colonialism, modernism, feminism. Interesting.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeefcakeBo Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 You really are ignorant lol and know nothing about religious garb or cultural traditions... First of all the Turban or any sort of headcovering is technically forced upon Sikhs since it's mandatory, but since the people practicing the religion have become more westernized and whitewashed so to speak not very many people wear turbans anymore. If you go to Punjab India you will rarely find someone with a turban and full beard nowadays as most have cut hair. Also Sikhs arent even supposed to cut their hair ever in their lives. Now on the topic of Niqab... it actually is a cultural tradition (tribal) not a religious one as Islam has no rule for wearing a Niqab.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niq%C4%81b In the Quran it only mentions men and women to dress modestly.. so in other words it's not mandatory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_clothing You're basically forming an opinion or viewpoint because of misconceptions and ignorance. No one is denying it is backward and controversial at best, but you can't say that all muslim women living non-islamic countries are forced upon or doing so without any alternatives because truth be told there many educated one that wear it for cultural/personal reasons. Also who the hell are you to tell someone to go back where they came from? First of all, I completely understand the difference between cultural and religious garb. A turban is religious and if you don't want to be religious you don't have to wear it. If you do want to be religious then wear it. No one is stopping you either way. A niqab is also religious. You're calling me ignorant and then claiming it's only cultural and not religious? How ignorant are you? It's referenced in the Quran and various Muslim groups require it, though not all do. Just like some Christian denominations have varying opinion or views on certain topics. Lastly I'm a Canadian Citizen. Canada is my country, if someone isn't a Canadian and wants citizenship without respecting those values then I have every right to tell them to go back to wherever they came from. Stone age women's rights don't belong here. If they want things that way they are welcome to do whatever they like somewhere else. Just in case your wondering, or it wasn't clear enough, by somewhere else I mean not in Canada. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.