[Tewder]

I'm not sure how we can judge what is common sense, never mind legislate for it?

As far as face coverings go, I find it difficult to comprehend how anyone can fully and openly participate in society with one on. In a private home, business, religious institution, or community centre, however, well it's a 'free' country right? Cover up whatever you want!

 

[toraerach]

Agreed. Niqabs are also banned from Mecca - regarded as the most holy place is Islam. It's pretty simply - show your face. The Niqab is more of a cultural interpretation than actual religious expression. They probably should have done a 'common sense' legislation - show your face, or stay home.

I thought we, as a society, already decided a long time ago that keeping women locked up at home was a bad thing. I can't really see the difference between a niqab and a veil of brick and mortar, except that the latter blends in nicely in the neighbourhood and prevents any and all social interaction.

Alternatively, Immigration Canada should be more prejudice as to who we let in. We already judge an individual based on a whole lot of factors (including language and criminal background, education background, etc). Why is common sense no different? A Niqab is simply a extreme expression of a religion, extremism is something we should keep out. Period. (this includes the husbands/children of the women with a Niqab)

Disregarding the slippery slope you're creating and the absolute lack of nuance to your "prejudice," do you believe (for example) that Canada should turn away a whole family of desperate refugees if a woman in that family wears a niqab?

And as one of the supreme judges backing this legislation pointed out- not all charter of rights are absolute in a society. Freedom of expression is somewhat limited (yelling fire in a crowded theatre). Religious expression is no different.

Well no, it's not. That's why you can't get out of a murder charge claiming your religion mandates human sacrifice, and why no person here's defending, say, the religious freedoms of the Order of the Solar Temple, etc. But putting actual lives in danger is dramatically different than a flimsy piece of fabric you're uncomfortable seeing out on the streets.

 

[Johnny Au]

Well no, it's not. That's why you can't get out of a murder charge claiming your religion mandates human sacrifice, and why no person here's defending, say, the religious freedoms of the Order of the Solar Temple, etc. But putting actual lives in danger is dramatically different than a flimsy piece of fabric you're uncomfortable seeing out on the streets.

[sarcasm]What about those who want to bring back Aztec religion? How would they do to prevent the world from ending if human sacrifice were abolished? How would Huitzilopochtli get his beating human hearts to eat?[/sarcasm]

 

[Ex-Montreal Girl]

Toronto was ascendant anyways. The stock exchange had been larger for decades before the PQ. What bill101 did was hasten everything along. Toronto was just a better place for business.

The bill in principle seems like an enlightened secular path but the truth is, it's an attempt at social engineering and those always fail. It might work in certain European jurisdictions (it won't) where immigrants are definitely second class citizens but it doesn't really wash in a country that is essentially made up of successive immigrant populations (despite how long your people might have been here -excluding its original inhabitants). But in the end it's probably just a chess move by Pauline to shore up support in an us (Quebecois) versus them (ROC) way. Manipulative politicking at its worst.

A couple of points that I think have been missed.

Bill 101 came *AFTER* the peak of the exodus which was in the early 1970s. Part of it had to do with the ellection of a few separatists and the October Crisis. But most of it was about the rise of the west -- oil in Alberta, Pacific trade in BC etc. That meant the banks and other financial institutions had to start moving. They started building those King/Bay bank towers in the 60s. (eg. Commerce Court, TD Centre) and the Montreal-based ones (BMO and RBC) had to move to compete.

The early 70s were also when the baby boomers started looking for jobs/careers and there was a general wave to the west. I came here for work, not out of fear or because I like donuts. (What is up with Toronto and donuts anyway?)

There are a lot of churches and former monasteries/nunneries in Montreal now converted to condos. A lot. That says something.

Quebec is more feminist than any other province. It was the first, and as far as I know, the only province to make a woman's birth name her legal name. It has state-funded daycare. It has an active and organized feminist movement, unlike the rest of Canada. That movement pushed, among other things, for the gun laws, and succeeded in keeping the long gun registry alive in Quebec when the Harper government killed it. I believe it has the lowest marriage rate in Canada, with the majority of babies born outside the convention of I do.

Organized religion in the west has always been about the subjugation and subordination of women and the supremacy of the male. Islam is no worse than Judaism or churches founded on the teachings of Paul and Augustine and all those other misogynists. JC embraced women. They were the only ones who believed in his resurrection and did not abandon him in the end. But you never hear that in Church where it's all about virgins and whores.

 

[Johnny Au]

Never forget about how Vatican City is the most misogynistic country in the world.

 

[Ex-Montreal Girl]

Never forget about how Vatican City is the most misogynistic country in the world.

I don't forget. Ever. And talk about condoning pedophilia ...

 

[Johnny Au]

I don't forget. Ever. And talk about condoning pedophilia ...

That too.

 

[Tewder]

Organized religion in the west has always been about the subjugation and subordination of women and the supremacy of the male. Islam is no worse than Judaism or churches founded on the teachings of Paul and Augustine and all those other misogynists. JC embraced women. They were the only ones who believed in his resurrection and did not abandon him in the end. But you never hear that in Church where it's all about virgins and whores.

Agreed, and I already raised the issue of the invisibility of heterosexism in these discussions. I suspect that those who are being cavalier here about expressions of religion in government are straight dudes, both white and coloured ones.

Quebec is more feminist than any other province. It was the first, and as far as I know, the only province to make a woman's birth name her legal name. It has state-funded daycare. It has an active and organized feminist movement, unlike the rest of Canada. That movement pushed, among other things, for the gun laws, and succeeded in keeping the long gun registry alive in Quebec when the Harper government killed it. I believe it has the lowest marriage rate in Canada, with the majority of babies born outside the convention of I do.

Ex-Montreal Girl, I think we all agree that the Charter of Values as presented is flawed, and that there is without doubt a distinct measure of politicking going on here in the background. What I'm curious to know though is what you feel about those who label Quebec as racist or intolerant based on this issue? Do you think it's fair to say that some are being blinded by an Ontario-centric perspective, judging Quebec unfairly because of it? As you say, Quebec has been a leader on feminism in Canada, and it has certainly also been a leader on gay rights and other social issues. That Quebec chooses immigrants based on linguistic priorities or imposes ideals of secularism - an historic perspective in the French 'motherland' too - might be unthinkable to some in Ontario where we have essentially abolished through social engineering any sense of a collective identity, this is simply not the case in Quebec, and avowedly not so. This may be a different perspective, clearly, but is it necessarily wrong? Is a society within its rights to establish such parameters?

 

[toraerach]

Agreed, and I already raised the issue of the invisibility of heterosexism in these discussions. I suspect that those who are being cavalier here about expressions of religion in government are straight dudes, both white and coloured ones.

As a gay man, I'm uncomfortable when anyone's singled out or marginalized. We've been there and we should know it doesn't feel good.

I remember that as a student at Trent there was a spate of hate crimes in Peterborough targeting, well, anyone who was different - Queer people, immigrants, and anyone wearing the kind of religious symbols Quebec's now going after. Having some jackass drive down the main stretch hurling slurs at you is a terrible experience, whether he's calling you a "faggot" or a "terrorist." We had to work together, learn to respect each other and, importantly, learn how to empathize with each other before we could join together to demand change. That's the background I bring with me to this issue.

 

[Tewder]

As a gay man, I'm uncomfortable when anyone's singled out or marginalized. We've been there and we should know it doesn't feel good.

I agree the Quebec charter is flawed on this point because it allows for crosses, otherwise how is it singling out or marginalizing anybody if all religious symbols are treated the same?

 

[Johnny Au]

In the Quebec National Assembly, a female protester arrived wearing her birthday suit.

 

[egotrippin]

Nowhere in the qu'ran does it say the face should be covered. Niqabs should be removed when entering banks, airports, government buildings.etc

If get you pulled over for speeding on a motorcycle and you're wearing one of those helmets that cover your face. The officer will ask you to remove your helmet. Now if a cop stops someone wearing Niqab would the officer ask the person to remove the mask?

Incorrect. Well, incorrect to a degree. The justification for the niqab is directly related to interpretations of the hadith from the Qur'an, and herein the issue stems from the many different interpretations by various branches and beliefs in Islam.

So I suppose you're correct in the sense that the Qur'an doesn't say "completely cover women from head to toe" much the same way that the Bible doesn't say "burn the homosexuals". That said there are so many interpretations of religious texts that people have used to dictate and justify beliefs, and many of these don't coalesce with the Canadian system (or many other Western systems that are becoming "less accepting" of certain religious practices for that matter).

So we could say that it's disgusting and intolerant to ban certain religious garb, or rather, we address the issue that some religious interpretation is at odds with the values of our country and by moving here you accept that there are some concessions that have to be made to be part of our society. Personally I think no one's face should be covered in public, except in the case of dangerously low temperatures where tissue damage is a risk; otherwise there's no reason to cover one's face completely.

 

[Johnny Au]

In the Old Testament, it mentions the prohibition of wearing clothing of mixed fabric, which even many non-atheists find absurd.

Sadly, there are some people who find mixed fabric immoral.

This video is informative:

[video=youtube;hSS-88ShJfo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSS-88ShJfo[/video]

 

[kbdid]

My cut/paste/quote skills are nil, so to whoever was quoting the Q'ran as a hate manual, perhaps you didn't realize you were quoting sections devoted to Lot and Sodom and Gomorrah (which does not mention lesbianism, btw). There is debate, as within Christianity, whether the true affront was homosexuality or rape. There are also some nice little nuggets promising young boys to men. Before calling another religious text a hate manual, I'd suggest a reread of the Old Testament.

fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/quran-homo.asp

To the topic, I'd say any doctor, lawyer, teacher etc affected by this ban, so clearly aimed at non Christians, would make Toronto a better place. I do hope, however, that this doesn't pass and it becomes a non issue.

 

[Tewder]

Kbdid, would the issue change for you if all religious symbols were banned equally, including Christian ones?