Boy do I disagree with this law - and I'm not affected
Congrats old Christian white guy on confining women to their home based on their religion.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-niqab-burka-bill-62-1.4360121
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
-
Weight loss is more than calories in and calories out. Research using a pool of 10,000 participants. People tend to gain weight back. Differ...
-
We were in Edmonton so I took the opportunity to visit the Microsoft Store, check out the Go and finally purchased it. I knew there was a ... -
Have you checked out your google info? Now much clearer! https://www.androidcentral.com/google-account-page-android-updated-new-ui-and-featu...
This guy is a total idiot. I'm sorry, but this has so many things wrong with it... religious discrimination, ignorance, and the slippery slope aspect as well.
ReplyDeleteClothing bans only serve to re victimize these women.
ReplyDeleteWhat should be banned are male guardianship laws and customs.
When unopposed by such things, these women take their veils off on their own.
The veil, and the culture and laws behind it are directly antithetical to western concepts of freedom, of body autonomy, of self determination.
When someone wants to be racist or xenophobic, they find excuses that can be framed as just basic neutrality or procedural efficiency.
ReplyDeleteGotta love the naming ... Religious Neutrality ... how in a boiling pot of poop is this crap neutral?
ReplyDelete/facepalm for that province... really?
ReplyDeleteWhat I'm hearing here is that religion should hold more power/value than the law. Next, there will be laws on the "right" religions. Then, legal requirements to be subject of the government's chosen religion. Sound familiar?
ReplyDeleteYeah, yeah, I get it. People in a country that won't stone/kill you for not covering their face in public are afraid of the laws of a country they don't live in, on the other side of the planet somehow being forced upon them. If my 'religion' said that instead of covering my face, I should go out and kill all anglo-saxon males over 5'6" tall ... would that still be cool? The 'religion' demands it! Exactly. It wouldn't be okay. So if the law said show us your face to access public services, so that the person responsible for preventing fraud/abuse can see who they're giving services to ... I can't make myself disagree with it. Otherwise ANYONE can cover up, claim they're someone, and get whatever services/ID/etc they want based on ... a slit of their eyes?
Public transit seems a stretch to me. But for government services that require identifying the person receiving service? I'm cool with that. It's a far cry from you can't leave your house with your face covered. Religious beliefs shouldn't have power over law in a country where the two are supposed to be mutually exclusive.
Chris Pollard Biometrics like registering iris scans should fit the bill for identification.
ReplyDeleteFor me it's not religious overriding public safety. It's more about not assuming someone with a covered face is doing so for nefarious purposes. And the part that gets me most is the bus.
I agree with the bus part. That's just stupid. But what happens if iris scan Tech isn't available in every office of every town - or, because it NEVER happens, something crashes or breaks? A simple look at a face matching a picture is really, really easy for any employed human without visual impairment. If they don't want to show their face publicly, I'm sure arrangements could be made to show it privately, like a voting booth.
ReplyDeleteThen there are the implications and objections to government collecting our biometric data and misusing it. I guess we could ask for blood samples instead of just getting a look at a face? That's probably more reasonable...
This has LITERALLY nothing to do with identification, or balaclavas.... Such suggestions re nothing more than smokescreens to cover, especially in Quebec's case, RAMPANT bigotry.
ReplyDeleteThere is no province SO steeped in bigotry as Quebec. Canada should be ashamed that we let them dictate SO much to us.
It's well past time we put an end to it
Gareth Owen you need to create a religion that requires the helmet, as well as wearing balaclavas when banking, then claim religious discrimination when they complain. Religion makes it all okay!
ReplyDeleteClinton Hammond - I don't entirely agree OR disagree with you. There are valid points on both sides. Unfortunately, because it's government, whatever they come up with will be overreaching and entirely too broadly interpreted/misinterpreted. Do I agree that a person should be identifiable to request/receive certain government services? Yes. Should that include things like riding a transit bus? Of course not. But you can be sure whatever law they try to/do create won't bother with distinguishing between any of it. It will just be blanket statements that won't do anything but divide. For THAT reason, I hope they fail to pass the legislation. But buried in it all, there ARE some nuggets worth considering.
I often wonder what the world would look like, if nobody had EVER created the concept of religion and it simply didn't exist. I think a guy wrote a song about that a long time ago ... got all sorts of flack over it at the time. Singer in some bug-themed band ... Lenin? Oh, right, Lennon. ;)
John Lennon liked to beat up women.... His take on ANYTHING is garbage.
ReplyDelete"Do I agree that a person should be identifiable to request/receive certain government services? "
There are respectful methods that can be employed.... methods that assist these victimized women to integrate better into Western Society....
Quebec bigotry is the exact wrong weapon, hitting the exact worse target to address this issue.
Exactly. As far as Islam is concerned, they shouldn't show their face to strange men. A private setting where the female would voluntarily remove her hijab, herself in presence of a female officer would be acceptable. If they refuse that, then there's a problem.
ReplyDeleteI say this despite my disdain for the severe oppression that is hijab and the religion that enforces it through means as deplorable as lashing and honor killings. I don't, however, let my disdain for a religion affect my opinion of its followers.
Clinton Hammond: In the interest of accuracy, John Lennon at one time was a batterer of women. After about 1965, he stopped. He soon told the whole story of his violence against women in an interview, and he asked that the 1963 song "You Can't Do That," not be played any longer. He had written the song in the voice of a possessive male teenager threatening his girlfriend. John Lennon in fact was one of the first males to face his abusive ways and denounce domestic violence. This isn't to flack for him or make him out to be a saint. But let's be fair.
ReplyDelete