Lockout Casualty Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 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. Okay. So I ask again, do we ban every article of clothing that can be viewed through a misogyny lens? Let's get rid of head scarves, long hair on Methodist women, and hell, let's put turbans on Sikh women. It's hardly fair only men get to wear cool colored turbans. I may be getting carried away. Isn't another part of our rights and freedoms is Freedom of Religion? And isn't banning religious clothing directly opposite to that? Our oath procedure should probably take our charter more seriously, huh? And you and your ilk should probably respect other people's values before you try to infringe on them. Tell me, what parts of citizenship do these people leave out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drummer4now Posted March 12, 2015 Author Share Posted March 12, 2015 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. Hmm.. what about someone born in Canada and choices to dress like that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drummer4now Posted March 12, 2015 Author Share Posted March 12, 2015 Okay. So I ask again, do we ban every article of clothing that can be viewed through a misogyny lens? Let's get rid of head scarves, long hair on Methodist women, and hell, let's put turbans on Sikh women. It's hardly fair only men get to wear cool colored turbans. I may be getting carried away. Isn't another part of our rights and freedoms is Freedom of Religion? And isn't banning religious clothing directly opposite to that? Our oath procedure should probably take our charter more seriously, huh? And you and your ilk should probably respect other people's values before you try to infringe on them. Tell me, what parts of citizenship do these people leave out? Women can wear them too.. and some do if they're ultra religious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockout Casualty Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 http://middleeast.about.com/od/religionsectarianism/f/me080209.htm 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] Interesting.. I don't know what point you're trying to make. It's not in the Koran, I get it. Islam isn't synonymous to Koran. Religious tradition isn't synonymous to holy book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockout Casualty Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 Women can wear them too.. and some do if they're ultra religious. I don't actually know if it's in any way misogynistic in the first place. Knew I was getting carried away and I did. I mean was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drummer4now Posted March 12, 2015 Author Share Posted March 12, 2015 I don't know what point you're trying to make. It's not in the Koran, I get it. Islam isn't synonymous to Koran. Religious tradition isn't synonymous to holy book. My point being is their should be a separation between "culture" and "religion" especially in the case of clothing.. But I do agree it's controversial at best.. Either way as of right now banning them would be unconstitutional.. I there should be a referendum or poll between all Canadians and than Muslim Canadians.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockout Casualty Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 My point being is their should be a separation between "culture" and "religion" especially in the case of clothing.. But I do agree it's controversial at best.. Either way as of right now banning them would be unconstitutional.. I there should be a referendum or poll between all Canadians and than Muslim Canadians.. Why? Should we change other laws based on nothing more than our offended sensibilities? Or have referendums on them? All of them? I think we should allow these people to preserve their culture, practice it, breed, have their children mix with other children, grow up less traditional like most immigrant kids, and slowly weed out the tradition that represents a tiny minority of people as is. I like this non-intrusive, non-marginalizing method much more than government's moral crusader approach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeefcakeBo Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 Okay. So I ask again, do we ban every article of clothing that can be viewed through a misogyny lens? Let's get rid of head scarves, long hair on Methodist women, and hell, let's put turbans on Sikh women. It's hardly fair only men get to wear cool colored turbans. I may be getting carried away. Isn't another part of our rights and freedoms is Freedom of Religion? And isn't banning religious clothing directly opposite to that? Our oath procedure should probably take our charter more seriously, huh? And you and your ilk should probably respect other people's values before you try to infringe on them. Tell me, what parts of citizenship do these people leave out? Religious clothing is no longer religious when it infringes on rights of equality. Then its just wrong. Putting religious labels on things that are wrong doesn't make them any more right. My point is that trying to call sexism religious freedom is just hiding something wrong in a place that people are afraid to go. Let's all be so politically correct that we can't call a stone a stone and idiocy for what it is. A niqab is sexist. Let's not get carried away trying to make it something else, like a fashionable clothing choice. Your analogy is a bit off too, no one is forcing a woman to not wear a turban, anyone can put one on if he/she wanted to wear it too. A niqab though is being forced on women because of centuries old sexism that's being labeled religious. Even if a woman chooses to wear a niqab on her own free will for religious purposes, she indirectly is submitting to the sexism that created it in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drummer4now Posted March 12, 2015 Author Share Posted March 12, 2015 Religious clothing is no longer religious when it infringes on rights of equality. Then its just wrong. Putting religious labels on things that are wrong doesn't make them any more right. My point is that trying to call sexism religious freedom is just hiding something wrong in a place that people are afraid to go. Let's all be so politically correct that we can't call a stone a stone and idiocy for what it is. A niqab is sexist. Let's not get carried away trying to make it something else, like a fashionable clothing choice. Your analogy is a bit off too, no one is forcing a woman to not wear a turban, anyone can put one on if he/she wanted to wear it too. A niqab though is being forced on women because of centuries old sexism that's being labeled religious. Even if a woman chooses to wear a niqab on her own free will for religious purposes, she indirectly is submitting to the sexism that created it in the first place. Sexism exists everywhere and it isn't just reserved for religious clothing.. How about those scantily clad women wearing bikinis? or girls working at Hooters. At the end of the day it's all the same.. Let others live. Why? Should we change other laws based on nothing more than our offended sensibilities? Or have referendums on them? All of them? I think we should allow these people to preserve their culture, practice it, breed, have their children mix with other children, grow up less traditional like most immigrant kids, and slowly weed out the tradition that represents a tiny minority of people as is. I like this non-intrusive, non-marginalizing method much more than government's moral crusader approach. If only it was that simple.. Aside from Asian Canadians and Afro-Canadians.. mixing is very low in Middle Eastern/Indian families. But that's a whole other story.. We tend to keep to our own. Only way to weed out it is through education and like you mentioned 1st, 2nd, 3rd.. etc generations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilduce39 Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 Aside from Asian Canadians and Afro-Canadians.. mixing is very low in Middle Eastern/Indian families. But that's a whole other story.. We tend to keep to our own. Only way to weed out it is through education and like you mentioned 1st, 2nd, 3rd.. etc generations. Not sure if that's entirely true. Sure, in populations like Newton where there is a very large Indian population that happens.. but if you go to a more mixed population you see a lot of people dating everyone. In the schools, at least. ...and, uh, the Mirage circa 2006. Also, on-topic(?) and to play a bit of devil's advocate... this is the Harper Conservative government we're talking about.. elected to a majority in Canada. This move is right in their wheelhouse and no shock to their supporters. Is it not, then, a "Canadian" value? Are they not in their right to make this call? (As much as we may disagree?) It was also mentioned that the niqab is not mandatory to the religion.. does that not make this request less egregious? (correct me if I'm wrong on that.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VICanucksfan5551 Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 The number of people who seem to be favour of the government policing what clothes people are allowed to wear is disturbingly high. Not sure if that's entirely true. Sure, in populations like Newton where there is a very large Indian population that happens.. but if you go to a more mixed population you see a lot of people dating everyone. In the schools, at least. ...and, uh, the Mirage circa 2006. Also, on-topic(?) and to play a bit of devil's advocate... this is the Harper Conservative government we're talking about.. elected to a majority in Canada. This move is right in their wheelhouse and no shock to their supporters. Is it not, then, a "Canadian" value? Are they not in their right to make this call? (As much as we may disagree?) It was also mentioned that the niqab is not mandatory to the religion.. does that not make this request less egregious? (correct me if I'm wrong on that.) Well, it kind of comes down to interpretation. Some Muslims do view it as mandatory, although most don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drummer4now Posted March 12, 2015 Author Share Posted March 12, 2015 The number of people who seem to be favour of the government policing what clothes people are allowed to wear is disturbingly high. Well, it kind of comes down to interpretation. Some Muslims do view it as mandatory, although most don't. Is FD coming back? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilduce39 Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 The number of people who seem to be favour of the government policing what clothes people are allowed to wear is disturbingly high. Well, it kind of comes down to interpretation. Some Muslims do view it as mandatory, although most don't. I actually read the article and now it makes more sense... these comments being made to support an appeal of the Courts striking down this ruling. I thought it sounded unconstitutional but wasn't sure about the technical classification of the niqab and its significance to the religion. As for it being "anti-women" that's an ignorant comment. I attended a human trafficking conference recently and one comment rung true - victims are given the choice of whether or not to press charges. Why? Because it's the first step in regaining their power, dignity and sense of self-worth. Not saying the niqab does that at all, BUT even operating under the worst-case assumption that is a device of control, etc. women must be given the right to choose, lest they be trading one subversive force for another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Sikes Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugor Hill Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 So by that same logic any privately run business should be allowed to refuse service until they show their face, fair is fair. It's not a very good analogy but I'll play along. They have the right to refuse business to anyone. Most restaurants require customers to be fully clothed. A lot of night clubs have dress codes. But if I run a grocery store and I refuse somebody's business because they are all covered up, that's pretty stupid of me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugor Hill Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 Also, on-topic(?) and to play a bit of devil's advocate... this is the Harper Conservative government we're talking about.. elected to a majority in Canada. This move is right in their wheelhouse and no shock to their supporters. Is it not, then, a "Canadian" value? Are they not in their right to make this call? (As much as we may disagree?) Well... the Germans voted Hitler in. Nationalism was their wheelhouse and few opposed them for prosecuting Jews and going to war. Is massacring millions of Jews and starting the most devastating war in the history of our specie a "German" value? They voted wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heretic Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 It's not a very good analogy but I'll play along. They have the right to refuse business to anyone. Most restaurants require customers to be fully clothed. A lot of night clubs have dress codes. But if I run a grocery store and I refuse somebody's business because they are all covered up, that's pretty stupid of me. Though I agree people should be "free" to wear what they want, being almost completely covered up has bad connotations... Depending where you are, the clothing (or lack thereof) may not be appropriate for the situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dittohead Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 muslim countries are anti women. truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugor Hill Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 Though I agree people should be "free" to wear what they want, being almost completely covered up has bad connotations... Depending where you are, the clothing (or lack thereof) may not be appropriate for the situation. LOL! I can't tell if he is a cop or a bank robber. Seriously, a few weeks ago when it was -20 here in Toronto. The bouncers standing outside the clubs were all covered up like him. They were big and tall and seriously looked like Special Ops guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heretic Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 LOL! I can't tell if he is a cop or a bank robber. Seriously, a few weeks ago when it was -20 here in Toronto. The bouncers standing outside the clubs were all covered up like him. They were big and tall and seriously looked like Special Ops guys. Exactly! When someone is covered up like that - you can't tell if they are good or bad. I hate winter - glad it's been over for a few weeks here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.