[QBall]

$1:

The bill is widely expected to become law, despite the concerns of many French Muslims, who fear it will stigmatize them.

Yeah, it's the burqa that's going to stigmatize you guys, not the blowing buildings/subways/markets and killing people around the world thing.

[kenmore]

If the Muslim Counsil of Canada is in favour of banning them, then we should. Nobody should be allowed to cover their face in society. And as for choice.. if muslim women told the truth about the issue they would say they were forced by the husbands to wear them. I work with a guy at the hospital who had a pre-arranged marriage and when his wife came here she wore one. He made her take it off and now she is happier than hell to be free of it. Have you ever seen these women at the beach? They flop arround in the water with 100 lbs of clothes on.... get real!

[GreenTiger]

I believe that any woman who want to wear a burka in a free society has got to be mentally Ill and need a healthy dose of self confidence.

I think its a barbaric to make a woman wear this especially in hot climates.

[BartSimpson]

The burqha is a tool of repression and banning it gives women who are oppressed a valid reason not to wear it.

[GreenTiger]

QBall QBall:

$1:

The bill is widely expected to become law, despite the concerns of many French Muslims, who fear it will stigmatize them.

Yeah, it's the burqa that's going to stigmatize you guys, not the blowing buildings/subways/markets and killing people around the world thing.

Yes, the idea that if we don't force our women to wear a tent we will look bad is a curious argument. They don't mind killing people, blowing up subways and market places. Those are apparently a better Islamic Image than women not wearing this instrument of enslavement.

[Zipperfish]

Meh. It's a free country. I can't see anyone hiring someone with a burqua to work with the public. I certainly wouldn't. It's creepy. And for voting and various other official functions, it makes sense to have to prove your identity. They shouldsn't be allowed in schools, given their dress codes. Other than that, fill your boots.

If we don't want the place crawling with burquas, then we need to limit immigration from countries where they are popular.

They should be free to wear them, but then also have to accept the consequences of those decisions--being chronically unemployable, for instance.

If we removed "Freedom of religion" from the Charter, this wouldn't be an issue. All these religious wingnuts going to court so they don't have to wear hardhats, or they want to carry their ceremonial knife in prison, or they're mortally offended by Christmas trees wouldn't have a case.

[martin14]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

They should be free to wear them, but then also have to accept the consequences of those decisions--being chronically unemployable, for instance.

The Kadhrs seem to be getting along just fine.

[Zipperfish]

martin14 martin14:

The Kadhrs seem to be getting along just fine.

I don't know, I don't think Omar's doing that well. Shot up all to fuck, stuck in Guantanamo. His dad got fragged. Life could be better.

[andyt]

martin14 martin14:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

They should be free to wear them, but then also have to accept the consequences of those decisions--being chronically unemployable, for instance.

The Kadhrs seem to be getting along just fine.

Well, one daughter married a judge's son - maybe he gives them all money. I always wonder how these people seem to have money to travel around the world etc, yet never seem to hold a job. There's that guy, (from Somalia) that's suspected of being a terrorist, so it's illgeal to give him support, including a job. Yet he's got a lawyer, seems to be doing alright. Why isn't he living out of a cardboard box somewhere?

[andyt]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Meh. It's a free country. I can't see anyone hiring someone with a burqua to work with the public. I certainly wouldn't. It's creepy. And for voting and various other official functions, it makes sense to have to prove your identity. They shouldsn't be allowed in schools, given their dress codes. Other than that, fill your boots.

If we don't want the place crawling with burquas, then we need to limit immigration from countries where they are popular.

They should be free to wear them, but then also have to accept the consequences of those decisions--being chronically unemployable, for instance.

If we removed "Freedom of religion" from the Charter, this wouldn't be an issue. All these religious wingnuts going to court so they don't have to wear hardhats, or they want to carry their ceremonial knife in prison, or they're mortally offended by Christmas trees wouldn't have a case.

I agree. Wear what you want (or nothing if you want) as long as it doesn't interfere with others. Ie security, employment etc. But really, if we allow burkas we should be allowing people to walk around nekkid too - as long as they bring a towel for when they sit down.

[Zipperfish]

andyt andyt:

I agree. Wear what you want (or nothing if you want) as long as it doesn't interfere with others. Ie security, employment etc. But really, if we allow burkas we should be allowing people to walk around nekkid too - as long as they bring a towel for when they sit down.

I fully agree. There are some hygenic reasons for underpants, but forcing women to wear tops is just a "bosom burqua." We force them to wear tops because of an ancient morality code. LIke the muslims wearing burquas, when you point out to women that (at least in some provicnes) it is techncally legal to go topless, they indicate that they wouldn't because they would feel "shame."

I'm not making the moral equivalency argument (because, unlike fundamentlaist Muslims, our values have changed to the point that as long you have band-aids over your nipples and piece of dental floss to cover your butt crack, you're good to go). I am pointing out that we are subject to the same impulses, but we don't realize it, generally, because we are so used to it.

[andyt]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

andyt andyt:

I agree. Wear what you want (or nothing if you want) as long as it doesn't interfere with others. Ie security, employment etc. But really, if we allow burkas we should be allowing people to walk around nekkid too - as long as they bring a towel for when they sit down.

I fully agree. There are some hygenic reasons for underpants, but forcing women to wear tops is just a "bosom burqua." We force them to wear tops because of an ancient morality code. LIke the muslims wearing burquas, when you point out to women that (at least in some provicnes) it is techncally legal to go topless, they indicate that they wouldn't because they would feel "shame."

I'm not making the moral equivalency argument (because, unlike fundamentlaist Muslims, our values have changed to the point that as long you have band-aids over your nipples and piece of dental floss to cover your butt crack, you're good to go). I am pointing out that we are subject to the same impulses, but we don't realize it, generally, because we are so used to it.

Actually in both BC and Ontario it's perfectly legal for women to walk around topless. Unfortunately most of them aren't inclined to do so.

[Choban]

$1:

Actually in both BC and Ontario it's perfectly legal for women to walk around topless. Unfortunately most of them aren't inclined to do so.

You beat me to it.

[Zipperfish]

andyt andyt:

Actually in both BC and Ontario it's perfectly legal for women to walk around topless. Unfortunately most of them aren't inclined to do so.

The same thing that happenes when you tell stone-age Muslims that they don't have to wear their burquas. Most of them aren't inclined to do so--and for the same reasons.

While it may be legal in BC to be topless, it certainly isn't "perfectly legal." In fact it is quite the quagmire, and I'd argue that you'd likely be arrested in most places in BC for going topless.

[CanadianJeff]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Meh. It's a free country. I can't see anyone hiring someone with a burqua to work with the public. I certainly wouldn't. It's creepy. And for voting and various other official functions, it makes sense to have to prove your identity. They shouldsn't be allowed in schools, given their dress codes. Other than that, fill your boots.

If we don't want the place crawling with burquas, then we need to limit immigration from countries where they are popular.

They should be free to wear them, but then also have to accept the consequences of those decisions--being chronically unemployable, for instance.

If we removed "Freedom of religion" from the Charter, this wouldn't be an issue. All these religious wingnuts going to court so they don't have to wear hardhats, or they want to carry their ceremonial knife in prison, or they're mortally offended by Christmas trees wouldn't have a case.

Someone that is chronically unemployable shouldn't be allowed to immigrate anyway.

I'd also like to point out to peoples attention that not quite so long ago many Christians forced their daughters to wear chastity belts.

Is this also a matter of freedom? Should we allow people to wear something so repressive to their sexuality by choice? It's really not much different is it?