Canada to join Talebans in enforcing dress code on women

[viper37]

Okay - Marty. Not sure how you can equate allowing people to dress in different ways with extortion...

there's been a few cases where it was argued - unsuccessfully - that it was part of their culture.
I remember a judge giving a lighter sentence to a muslim because he annally raped a child and thus preserved her virginity, wich was important in their culture.
Recently, we have a muslim family killing their children and the man's former wife because she was dating a Pakistani.  He's a self-described liberal, and according to his lawyer, he's 8.5/10 on the liberal scale - for an Afghan.
If people come here and judge themselves by their old set of values, we have a problem.

This is where it leads when you let extremists get a beachhead.

Again that is different. There is a compelling reason as to why you need to have your face uncovered for a license photo.   Anyway, I'm sorry that you had to deal with such oppression - I could have worn a cap during an exam, although it is true that some professors would have been annoyed as it is against cultural custom. Anyway, I don't think we deny ourselves the ability to wear veils.

An head cover is an head cover.  Be it for religious, cultural or pleasure reasons, it's the same.

I like women with the less possible clothes

This seems like a mish-mosh of things other than veil wearing. You seem to think that immigrants can't be allowed to espouse any parts of their native cultures because it necessarily threatens "ours". I'm not sure what that has to be the case.

Any part??  Are you reading yourself?
We're talking about covering women from head to toe, here, to hide them from society, to make them invisible, to make them inferior to men who walk in open light.

I believe in equality between men&women, and when you have such extremists here trying to bend the rules in their favour, even requiring the right to teach creationism, it's got to stop.

Freedom of expression: i have the right to wear what I want.
Freedom of dressing how I choose.
Freddom of religion: i have the right to show my religious sign, the veil being akin to a cross.  The fact that you can't see clearly the face of the person is irrelevant, if we're talking about religion.  You are essentially placing religious rights below other rights.  But now, you say it's ok to do it.

Not really sure what you are trying to say here. I'm not saying that at all.

You can't engage with someone if they are wearing a veil?

It's annoying to speak with someone completely covered, you never know what they really think, you can't observe their reaction.

Anyway, I'm now confused as to what you are supporting. You think no religious signs should be visible but it makes sense to support saying Merry Christmas and keeping public Christmas trees? Sounds more like you are okay with religious symbols as long as they are ones that you support.

I'm atheist, I don't support any religion.  I recognize however that my cultural background comes from catholicism, the way it was practices in northern France and later in Quebec.  And I'm very attached to my culture.  Just as the Americans will freak out if someone suggests removing the "under God" from the pledge of Allegiance even if it's been there for only a few decades and is clearly offensive to non believers, I will freak out when muslims extremists set the agenda here.  That is why I don't want the niqab in public places.  That is why I don't want the Niqab while a woman recite her oath of citizenship.  We have to be clear about who we are, what we accept, what we don't.

Even the Federal government had to include a section about gay rights & women rights in it's new citizenship guide for new immigrants.
Clearly, we face a problem here.

Not all muslims wear the veil, only the most extremists of them, and they bring a whole set of undesirable values with them.  We should not tolerate extremism, the veil is the symbol of that, and it shouldn'be allowed in any government building under any circumstances.  You need to set the bar pretty low, otherwise, they come and they pile on their demands, one after another as soon as they win.

[garbon]

there's been a few cases where it was argued - unsuccessfully - that it was part of their culture.
I remember a judge giving a lighter sentence to a muslim because he annally raped a child and thus preserved her virginity, wich was important in their culture.
Recently, we have a muslim family killing their children and the man's former wife because she was dating a Pakistani.  He's a self-described liberal, and according to his lawyer, he's 8.5/10 on the liberal scale - for an Afghan.
If people come here and judge themselves by their old set of values, we have a problem.

This is where it leads when you let extremists get a beachhead.

A few cases that went in a bad direction = cultural crisis?

An head cover is an head cover.  Be it for religious, cultural or pleasure reasons, it's the same.

I don't think a head cover is just a head cover. In the US, we do allow exceptions/protections for religions. I might necessarily be the biggest fan of that but I recognize that there is a difference.

Any part??  Are you reading yourself?
We're talking about covering women from head to toe, here, to hide them from society, to make them invisible, to make them inferior to men who walk in open light.

I believe in equality between men&women, and when you have such extremists here trying to bend the rules in their favour, even requiring the right to teach creationism, it's got to stop.

Except that you haven't established that these women are being forced to do so against their will. Instead, you just claim to speak for them with apparently little concern to how they actually feel. That's rather patronizing.

It's annoying to speak with someone completely covered, you never know what they really think, you can't observe their reaction.

There are lots of things that are annoying. I don't think annoyance should play a factor in determining when we create laws that cut down on individual freedoms.

I'm atheist, I don't support any religion.  I recognize however that my cultural background comes from catholicism, the way it was practices in northern France and later in Quebec.  And I'm very attached to my culture.  Just as the Americans will freak out if someone suggests removing the "under God" from the pledge of Allegiance even if it's been there for only a few decades and is clearly offensive to non believers, I will freak out when muslims extremists set the agenda here.  That is why I don't want the niqab in public places.  That is why I don't want the Niqab while a woman recite her oath of citizenship.  We have to be clear about who we are, what we accept, what we don't.

I don't understand why it is so important to continue with a cultural tradition that enshrines God - if we aren't actually believing in him. You're going to promote one version of the Moon God over another simply because it has traditionally been part of your culture? Anyway, like I said, I've seen many fully veiled women here in New York and I think one would be hard pressed to suggest that liberalism is dying in NYC.  I'm not sure why we need to put such an emphasis on "who we are, what we accept, what we don't." We're multi-faceted thing and we should recognize that as long as individual rights aren't being removed.

Even the Federal government had to include a section about gay rights & women rights in it's new citizenship guide for new immigrants.
Clearly, we face a problem here.

Sounds like a nice attempt at a preventative.

Not all muslims wear the veil, only the most extremists of them, and they bring a whole set of undesirable values with them.  We should not tolerate extremism, the veil is the symbol of that, and it shouldn'be allowed in any government building under any circumstances.  You need to set the bar pretty low, otherwise, they come and they pile on their demands, one after another as soon as they win.

Does the veil always mean extremism?

Also, I wonder (and don't attack me for wondering this) but if part of how you perceive the threat of extremism, so magnified, stems from some of the victimhood that you feel as a French speaker in a largely English speaking nation/world.  While muslim extremism is certainly an issue - I don't see red when I see someone in a full veil. A little sad perhaps but that's that.

[Malthus]

Even the Federal government had to include a section about gay rights & women rights in it's new citizenship guide for new immigrants.
Clearly, we face a problem here.

Not all muslims wear the veil, only the most extremists of them, and they bring a whole set of undesirable values with them.  We should not tolerate extremism, the veil is the symbol of that, and it shouldn'be allowed in any government building under any circumstances.  You need to set the bar pretty low, otherwise, they come and they pile on their demands, one after another as soon as they win.

I don't see any slippery slope here.

Here's a bright-line difference:

(1) Living one's own life in accordance with one's own dictates on personal matters such as dress, deportment, sexuality etc. = okay.

(2) Forcing others to obey one's own individual dictates on personal matters of dress, deportment, sexuality etc. = not okay.

Goes for Muslims and non-Muslims alike. So the deal is: you come to this country, you buy into this concept - meaning you obtain the right to wear what the hell you want (subject to limited, functional exceptions, like having to expose your face for ID); OTOH, you have to accept that everyone else has these rights, too - so if it pisses you off that women run around in tank tops, or gays are flaunting their gayness in public, too damn bad.

Also, if the women in your family prefer to wear tank tops rather than burkahs, or the men in your family decide they are gay and want to go out clubbing with the boys, and you can't persuade them otherwise, again too damn bad - use force to compel them and the cops haul your ass off, where you have to face the likes of BB in court. 

Seems that's where the line ought to be held.

[Razgovory]

This is what annoys me most about Viper and Grallon.  They demand recognition of their culture and even special rights for it, but they have zero interest in extending anything like that for anyone else.

[mongers]

Even the Federal government had to include a section about gay rights & women rights in it's new citizenship guide for new immigrants.
Clearly, we face a problem here.

Not all muslims wear the veil, only the most extremists of them, and they bring a whole set of undesirable values with them.  We should not tolerate extremism, the veil is the symbol of that, and it shouldn'be allowed in any government building under any circumstances.  You need to set the bar pretty low, otherwise, they come and they pile on their demands, one after another as soon as they win.

I don't see any slippery slope here.

Here's a bright-line difference:

(1) Living one's own life in accordance with one's own dictates on personal matters such as dress, deportment, sexuality etc. = okay.

(2) Forcing others to obey one's own individual dictates on personal matters of dress, deportment, sexuality etc. = not okay.

Goes for Muslims and non-Muslims alike. So the deal is: you come to this country, you buy into this concept - meaning you obtain the right to wear what the hell you want (subject to limited, functional exceptions, like having to expose your face for ID); OTOH, you have to accept that everyone else has these rights, too - so if it pisses you off that women run around in tank tops, or gays are flaunting their gayness in public, too damn bad.

Also, if the women in your family prefer to wear tank tops rather than burkahs, or the men in your family decide they are gay and want to go out clubbing with the boys, and you can't persuade them otherwise, again too damn bad - use force to compel them and the cops haul your ass off, where you have to face the likes of BB in court. 

Seems that's where the line ought to be held.

Get out of here, you and your reasonableness,  next you you'll be talking about golden something or others. 

[Zoupa]

Even the Federal government had to include a section about gay rights & women rights in it's new citizenship guide for new immigrants.
Clearly, we face a problem here.

Not all muslims wear the veil, only the most extremists of them, and they bring a whole set of undesirable values with them.  We should not tolerate extremism, the veil is the symbol of that, and it shouldn'be allowed in any government building under any circumstances.  You need to set the bar pretty low, otherwise, they come and they pile on their demands, one after another as soon as they win.

I don't see any slippery slope here.

Here's a bright-line difference:

(1) Living one's own life in accordance with one's own dictates on personal matters such as dress, deportment, sexuality etc. = okay.

(2) Forcing others to obey one's own individual dictates on personal matters of dress, deportment, sexuality etc. = not okay.

Goes for Muslims and non-Muslims alike. So the deal is: you come to this country, you buy into this concept - meaning you obtain the right to wear what the hell you want (subject to limited, functional exceptions, like having to expose your face for ID); OTOH, you have to accept that everyone else has these rights, too - so if it pisses you off that women run around in tank tops, or gays are flaunting their gayness in public, too damn bad.

Also, if the women in your family prefer to wear tank tops rather than burkahs, or the men in your family decide they are gay and want to go out clubbing with the boys, and you can't persuade them otherwise, again too damn bad - use force to compel them and the cops haul your ass off, where you have to face the likes of BB in court. 

Seems that's where the line ought to be held.

Sounds good to me.

[Ideologue]

I said it before Malthus did.

[Grallon]

Also, if the women in your family prefer to wear tank tops rather than burkahs, or the men in your family decide they are gay and want to go out clubbing with the boys, and you can't persuade them otherwise, again too damn bad - use force to compel them and the cops haul your ass off, where you have to face the likes of BB in court. 

Seems that's where the line ought to be held.

You should go explain that to the corpses of the Shafia girls murdered by their Muslim father and brother heh?




G.

[Razgovory]

Right after he explains some things to the parents of all those crying young boys, Sandusky.

[Grallon]

Right after he explains some things to the parents of all those crying young boys, Sandusky.

Sandusky's boys weren't consenting - mine were  

And the Shafia girls certainly weren't consenting to their own drowning for the sake of the madman's honor.




G.

[Razgovory]

You don't know the details of the Sandusky case. 

[garbon]

Also, if the women in your family prefer to wear tank tops rather than burkahs, or the men in your family decide they are gay and want to go out clubbing with the boys, and you can't persuade them otherwise, again too damn bad - use force to compel them and the cops haul your ass off, where you have to face the likes of BB in court. 

Seems that's where the line ought to be held.

You should go explain that to the corpses of the Shafia girls murdered by their Muslim father and brother heh?




G.

Why would he explain that to the corpses? Clearly it was the males who didn't learn the lesson.

[Jacob]

I don't see any slippery slope here.

Here's a bright-line difference:

(1) Living one's own life in accordance with one's own dictates on personal matters such as dress, deportment, sexuality etc. = okay.

(2) Forcing others to obey one's own individual dictates on personal matters of dress, deportment, sexuality etc. = not okay.

Goes for Muslims and non-Muslims alike. So the deal is: you come to this country, you buy into this concept - meaning you obtain the right to wear what the hell you want (subject to limited, functional exceptions, like having to expose your face for ID); OTOH, you have to accept that everyone else has these rights, too - so if it pisses you off that women run around in tank tops, or gays are flaunting their gayness in public, too damn bad.

Also, if the women in your family prefer to wear tank tops rather than burkahs, or the men in your family decide they are gay and want to go out clubbing with the boys, and you can't persuade them otherwise, again too damn bad - use force to compel them and the cops haul your ass off, where you have to face the likes of BB in court. 

Seems that's where the line ought to be held.

I'm down with that.

[The Brain]

This is what annoys me most about Viper and Grallon.  They demand recognition of their culture and even special rights for it, but they have zero interest in extending anything like that for anyone else.

Gay isn't a culture.

[Valmy]

This is what annoys me most about Viper and Grallon.  They demand recognition of their culture and even special rights for it, but they have zero interest in extending anything like that for anyone else.

Only in their turf.  I know Grallon at least is content to let the French Speakers outside of Quebec rot.