Discussions

We've all heard about Bill 62 in Quebec and the backlash the provincial government is getting from the far left popuation accusing the government of spreading Islamophobia. I question if Canadians defending the right to wear a burqua or niqab actually understand it's origins and purpose? It's clear where the PM stands on this, but does his stand ensure young women's freedom or slavery? It's easy to say that we can't tell people what to wear and it's their choice. True enough most of the time, but sometimes dressing the way you want may bring dishonour to the family and consequences to follow for those that disobey. The real question I think is should we in Canada defend the right to equality for those that canot speak for themselves?

Trouble is the charter of rights and freedoms grants everyone to a freedom of religion, and if it doesn't violate our criminal code there is not much we can do as Canadians, Supreme Court gets final say.

bond1111 said "Trouble is the charter of rights and freedoms grants everyone to a freedom of religion, and if it doesn't violate our criminal code there is not much we can do as Canadians, Supreme Court gets final say. "

The Charter! I should have another read, but I don't think that the charter puts a lit of weight behind equality between men and women. I think it mentions it, but softly wheras "Freedom of Religion" is first and foremost. Somewhere in the charter it shoukd indicate that equality trumps Freedom of Religion. Maybe it's time to look at an ammendment? In this case however, Religion is not in play as neither the burqa or niqab are religious dress.

Freedom of religion is fine you wear your religious atire in your religious surrounding but you wear what the rest of the country wears when you are out in the public. Our government should have made that rule years ago

If u want to live in Canada dress codes applys to everyone "ever heard no shirt no shoes no service",maybe its against my religion "atheist" to not wear shirts or shoes ,to bad I have to if I want service.so I don't think burkas ect should be worn if they want the same services I want.Wear them at home ,in your church or whatever

What problem is the Bill trying to solve?  
Equality? Well it does not do that, you cannot assume that every woman wearing a veil is being oppressed. There are already rules in place for the women that are oppressed.  
 
Safety? If and when a person wearing a veil has to be identified, they will be asked to remove their veil by the concerned authorities. There is no need for an outright ban.

cdog said "If u want to live in Canada dress codes applys to everyone "ever heard no shirt no shoes no service",maybe its against my religion "atheist" to not wear shirts or shoes ,to bad I have to if I want service.so I don't think burkas ect should be worn if they want the same services I want.Wear them at home ,in your church or whatever "

I think that "no shirt, no shoes, no service" has more to do with hygiene than anything else.  
 
It strikes me as odd that people can say in one instant that women shouldn't be forced to wear certain dress, but in the next instant, they want to tell women what they can and can't wear. How does that make you any different from those you criticize?

I have no problem covering your face in public if you want to. I do think you need to remove it when needed to identify yourself, for security and safety reasons.

I agree with you all the way what would happen if we tried to do the things we do in our country in theirs

RonWiltshire said "I agree with you all the way what would happen if we tried to do the things we do in our country in theirs "

We openly allow it through religious freedoms. There are rules in other countries, if it isn't allowed it isn't allowed. Dubai for instance....dancing in public places is not allowed, swearing, holding hands, etc. I can't tell them to go F themselves cause it is allowed in our country as freedom of speech. If women here want to cover their faces so be it. I don't care. But...If you need to have your ID verified such as going to a bar, airport, etc I do agree they are to be taken in private and garment removed to verify ID. My issue with religion is if you want to play the religion card then practice the whole part. Example was at Timmies one morning. Sikh truck driver was in line with his Kirpan on his side. No problems with him carrying a dagger as it is part of his religion. But. Simple google search is there are 5 pieces of religious items that are to go with the dagger. But it seems appropriate to have his dagger with flip flops, sweats, and short cut hair. For me at that point it isn't for religion but more a weapon.

Fishin Guy said "    RonWiltshire said "I agree with you all the way what would happen if we tried to do the things we do in our country in theirs " We openly allow it through religious freedoms. There are rules in other countries, if it isn't allowed it isn't allowed. Dubai for instance....dancing in public places is not allowed, swearing, holding hands, etc. I can't tell them to go F themselves cause it is allowed in our country as freedom of speech. If women here want to cover their faces so be it. I don't care. But...If you need to have your ID verified such as going to a bar, airport, etc I do agree they are to be taken in private and garment removed to verify ID. My issue with religion is if you want to play the religion card then practice the whole part. Example was at Timmies one morning. Sikh truck driver was in line with his Kirpan on his side. No problems with him carrying a dagger as it is part of his religion. But. Simple google search is there are 5 pieces of religious items that are to go with the dagger. But it seems appropriate to have his dagger with flip flops, sweats, and short cut hair. For me at that point it isn't for religion but more a weapon. "

I agree with this.  
 
Personally I think they should have to show their face when entering a store or using public services (like bus) though as well. For security reasons. I can't wear a balaclava into a store and and expect them to serve me. Odds are they will be calling the police. Even on Halloween most businesses ask that you not wear masks into their stores/restaurants. Pretty soon the robbers are just going to wear a Niqab in to rob places, as they are supposed to be allowed. When religious beliefs violate security/safety I think safety should take priority.  
 
Edited by Cheezies, 2017-10-26 18:03:09

As time goes by and tech expands, facial recognition software will be more widely used..so it makes sense that they will not allow facial covering in government facilities. Like it or not, that is where we may be headed.

walking down the street wearing a bandana covering his face.... asked the police.... it's allowed.....nothing the cops can do about it....  
so people should feel free to walk around with their face covered!  
 
Not that I agree with it tho! I seen that kid with his face covered and wanted to cross to the other side of the street.

Maybe while we're at it we should demand that all men be clean shaven, regardless of what religion they are. I've always sported a moustache, but had to shave it off for surgery, and many people didn't recognize me without it. So if we are really concerned about facial recognition, then off with all facial hair as well, let's even throw in sun glasses, since the shape and color of people's eyes do help make them distinguishable, or are we just concerned about "certain people".

If you where a business owner would you hire someone with a full face cover

getting the impression from most posters i. this thread to live and let live. I'm all for that, except when something stands for inequality. Many posters refer to this as religious attire, but it is not, it's cultural. It's intent is to make all women appear as similar objects with no skin or hair showing so as to not excite males. When I see a woman wearing a "niqab" by herself I see a strong person making a political statement of his or her choice. When I see a young girl as young as 12 or older woman wearing a burka or niqab in the company of males then I see a woman enslaved and not by choice. Should we allow a piece of clothing to be worn that represents oppression against women? Should we in Canada speak up for those that can't speak for themselves? I think so and I think this is what Quebec would like this Bill to do, protect those that don't have a voice from bullies thst are their male family counterparts. Our charter of rights doesn't go far enough imo to protect females in particular from oppressive cultural practices.

RonWiltshire said "If you where a business owner would you hire someone with a full face cover "

Wouldn't hire one that is forced to wear the niqab by her husband because she's not allowed outside the house without an escort and definately not allowed to work. You may however hire a strong minded individual who of her own free will decides to come to work with her niqab. At that point good luck in letting that employee go as you will be called out as racist no matter your reason.

don brown said "Maybe while we're at it we should demand that all men be clean shaven, regardless of what religion they are. I've always sported a moustache, but had to shave it off for surgery, and many people didn't recognize me without it. So if we are really concerned about facial recognition, then off with all facial hair as well, let's even throw in sun glasses, since the shape and color of people's eyes do help make them distinguishable, or are we just concerned about "certain people". "

 
 
Edited by 70`s guy, 2017-10-26 22:40:48

don brown said "Maybe while we're at it we should demand that all men be clean shaven, regardless of what religion they are. I've always sported a moustache, but had to shave it off for surgery, and many people didn't recognize me without it. So if we are really concerned about facial recognition, then off with all facial hair as well, let's even throw in sun glasses, since the shape and color of people's eyes do help make them distinguishable, or are we just concerned about "certain people". "

not about facial recognition so no need to shave at all, unless you want to. Just imagine though a civilization where females rule and you belong to a culture where your wife which in your culture rules the roost totaly. In your culture it's custom for males to cover all skin so you must wear a robe no matter how hot it is and your not allowed to show your face and must wear a mask so you don't excite any females you may encouter outside of your house. Would you like this culture where your wife dictactes when she will accompany you out and about? Would you like to live as a prisoner in your own house and be at your wife's beck and call? This type of livelyhood is all too common in Canada and if you don't think so, I'd suggest you read up on Arab culture in particular and woman's rights. Like I said it's not about facial recognition. It's really a matter of being free or enslaved and it appears that many posters here don't grasp what the burqa and niqab stand for. IMO it's not about a choice, but rather giving all young girls a chance to enjoy Canada's freedoms and equality that most of us enjoy no matter your culture.

pinkflamingos said "    70`s guy said "getting the impression from most posters i. this thread to live and let live. I'm all for that, except when something stands for inequality. Many posters refer to this as religious attire, but it is not, it's cultural. It's intent is to make all women appear as similar objects with no skin or hair showing so as to not excite males. When I see a woman wearing a "niqab" by herself I see a strong person making a political statement of his or her choice. When I see a young girl as young as 12 or older woman wearing a burka or niqab in the company of males then I see a woman enslaved and not by choice. Should we allow a piece of clothing to be worn that represents oppression against women? Should we in Canada speak up for those that can't speak for themselves? I think so and I think this is what Quebec would like this Bill to do, protect those that don't have a voice from bullies thst are their male family counterparts. Our charter of rights doesn't go far enough imo to protect females in particular from oppressive cultural practices. " I respectfully disagree that it is not religious, but it is partly cultural too. The niqab is one way of expressing modesty as mandated by their religious text, the Quran. The book itself states that women should cover themselves from the eyes of men, and whether they should wear hijab or niqab or even a burka is up to their interpretation. It does become a cultural issue too though, since in some Islamic countries, it is simply against the law for a woman to be without certain coverings in public, and sometimes familial pressure may play a role. So it's kind of both.     I agree with where you're coming from. I don't like the oppressive connotations of the garment but I also don't think it's right to take away their right to wear it if they so choose. "

We as a people have to stand for what is right. Some may wear it out of choice, but they are (willingly or unwillingly) promoting oppression. As a society, it's important that we caution on the side of equal rights and when a cultural practice infringes on equality then that's where a country like Canada should step in. Unfortunately IMO our Charter of Rights does not give enough weight to equality and too much to religious practices which some would say this is which I disagree as niqabs and burqas are just practiced in the most radical areas of Islam where religion and politics are one and the same. Canada and Canadians should know better and be able to distinguish in 2017 when a religious or cultural practice enslaves people and we should be able to have the courage and denounce discriminatory practices so alm Canadians have a chance to thrive.

Im wondering if anyone posting has tried to see if from the other side. the women who wear these coverings side. for the women who freely wear them and choose to wear them this bill is taking away their right to choose. for the ones that are oppressed and controlled by their husbands to wear these coverings this bill is making their life so much more difficult. I would imagine that getting out of the house even wearing the coverings is probably the only social aspect they get. by making it so they cant wear this on the bus or when receiving public services do people think their husbands will just let them out in jeans in a tshirt? probably not. these women being oppressed are in a abusive relationship in my opinion and this bill makes it much harder for them to connect with society and realize it.

I really don't care enough about any of this to pay attention or investigate for myself...but when it comes up I always ask whoever is standing closest "If a cop pulls them over do they refuse to take it off? or is this just one of those stupid things people get all worked up about like RCMP officers wearing turbans and carrying those religious letter openers"

MLA said "Im wondering if anyone posting has tried to see if from the other side. the women who wear these coverings side. for the women who freely wear them and choose to wear them this bill is taking away their right to choose. for the ones that are oppressed and controlled by their husbands to wear these coverings this bill is making their life so much more difficult. I would imagine that getting out of the house even wearing the coverings is probably the only social aspect they get. by making it so they cant wear this on the bus or when receiving public services do people think their husbands will just let them out in jeans in a tshirt? probably not. these women being oppressed are in a abusive relationship in my opinion and this bill makes it much harder for them to connect with society and realize it. "

I'm not saying they need to be dressed in jeans or anything if that nature. I'm personally comfortable with them wearing the hijab, which covers everything but their face. It's the niqab and burka I have problems with, as it could literally be anybody under there. With one all you see is eyes and the other you see nothing. I think the face should have to be exposed to use public services. It's for safety for everyone. If a crime is committed how do you describe them? You can't, other than they were completely covered or had brown/blue eyes. If one group gets to continue to cover their face, other people may choose to do this as well and then the lines blur. In the high schools here, kids can't wear hats, bandanas, etc, but they allow these students to have their head coverings. How is that fair? Just because of religion/culture, which religion is not a part of public school in Canada.  
Once again this is just my opinion.

Cheezies said "    MLA said "Im wondering if anyone posting has tried to see if from the other side. the women who wear these coverings side. for the women who freely wear them and choose to wear them this bill is taking away their right to choose. for the ones that are oppressed and controlled by their husbands to wear these coverings this bill is making their life so much more difficult. I would imagine that getting out of the house even wearing the coverings is probably the only social aspect they get. by making it so they cant wear this on the bus or when receiving public services do people think their husbands will just let them out in jeans in a tshirt? probably not. these women being oppressed are in a abusive relationship in my opinion and this bill makes it much harder for them to connect with society and realize it. " I'm not saying they need to be dressed in jeans or anything if that nature. I'm personally comfortable with them wearing the hijab, which covers everything but their face. It's the niqab and burka I have problems with, as it could literally be anybody under there. With one all you see is eyes and the other you see nothing. I think the face should have to be exposed to use public services. It's for safety for everyone. If a crime is committed how do you describe them? You can't, other than they were completely covered or had brown/blue eyes. If one group gets to continue to cover their face, other people may choose to do this as well and then the lines blur. In the high schools here, kids can't wear hats, bandanas, etc, but they allow these students to have their head coverings. How is that fair? Just because of religion/culture, which religion is not a part of public school in Canada.   Once again this is just my opinion. "

Do you this law would really prevent people from committing crimes without their faces covered? the majority of people wearing these face coverings aren't hurting anyone. just like the majority of people wearing a scarf covering their face in the winter aren't hurting anyone. when did people start allowing fear of others differences rule? when it comes to your question about schools its not fair but why take away the option to wear a face covering why not allow them to wear hats and bandanas? why is it that in schools girls have to cover up more to prevent the boys from getting "distracted" why not teach the boys to have respect for a girls body instead? its simple its easier to say don't wear that.

List of Countries that have full or partial bans of face coverings. Mostly "Progressive" European countries that have larger Muslim Populations than Canada. These countries are experiencing issues and have enacted laws accordingly.  
 
Germany, Switzerland, Netherlands, France, Italy, Belgium, Austria, Norway, China, Egypt, Turkey, Syria, Chad, Kosovo.

don brown said "Maybe while we're at it we should demand that all men be clean shaven, regardless of what religion they are. I've always sported a moustache, but had to shave it off for surgery, and many people didn't recognize me without it. So if we are really concerned about facial recognition, then off with all facial hair as well, let's even throw in sun glasses, since the shape and color of people's eyes do help make them distinguishable, or are we just concerned about "certain people". "

FYI, you can not cross the border, talk to a cop or enter a service building without being asked to remove your sun glasses  
 
its a hard subject and i dont agree with what these garments stand for but do agree with freedom of religion but that can be taken out of context easily. there is also an identification issue and i can understand that too, everyone has valid points but our country is founded on freedom and no one should take that away, we should however increase the rest of societies if what we have is not the same, like hats and different dress codes for girls ect in schools

That racism doesn't stop at the US border and is alive and well in small town MB!

I totally agree that when using/needing a public or government service, you should be easily identifiable. Remove all caps, scarves, face masks etc. It’s not racist, it’s not a fear of anything, it’s common sense.  
 
If you disagree, go send in a photo for government ID such as a passport or PAL covering your entire face, so no skin only your eyes are showing. See if they accept it.

can't even smile for your driver's license or passport photo why should someone be allowed to have their face totally covered?

TribTown said "That racism doesn't stop at the US border and is alive and well in small town MB! "

Explain why someone wishing to elimate "blatant" oppression against females as young as 12 that the niqab and burka stand for is "racism" in your opinion.