Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Should countries outlaw the hijab, niqab and burka?
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 329 of 372 (774181)
12-14-2015 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 321 by Greatest I am
12-13-2015 3:15 PM


Re: Not in MY Courtroom!
Greatest I am writes:
Slave ownership and misogyny are not a right.
Then why are you promoting misogyny? Why not let women decide for themselves what they wear? If they say they are wearing something voluntarily, why not take their word for it? The women's expressed opinions don't figure into your policy at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 321 by Greatest I am, posted 12-13-2015 3:15 PM Greatest I am has not replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 330 of 372 (774182)
12-14-2015 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 322 by Greatest I am
12-13-2015 3:16 PM


Greatest I am writes:
"First they came for the Jews, but I did nothing because I'm not a Jew. Then they came for the socialists, but I did nothing because I'm not a socialist. Then they came for the Catholics, but I did nothing because I'm not a Catholic. Finally, they came for me, but by then there was no one left to help me." — Pastor Father Niemoller (1946)
First they wanted to ban the hijab and you did nothing because you're not a Muslim. Then they wanted to keep Muslims out entirely and you did nothing because you're not a Muslim....
Apparently, you missed the entire point of Niemoller's quote: If you let them persecute one group, eventually they'll come for you. We all have to stick together.
By rejecting your proposed discrimination against Muslims, we're protecting you. Ironic, ain't it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 322 by Greatest I am, posted 12-13-2015 3:16 PM Greatest I am has not replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 331 of 372 (774183)
12-14-2015 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 323 by Tangle
12-13-2015 5:56 PM


Tangle writes:
There is no other test other than individual opinion - yours against the European Court of Human Rights.
Canadian courts have ruled that banning the niqab is not legitimate, so I'm not alone. Maybe Europe just needs to catch up.
Tangle writes:
Only if you wish to artificially seperate one form of female oppression from another.
What we're talking about here is oppression of women by dictating what they wear: oppression BY government.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 323 by Tangle, posted 12-13-2015 5:56 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 332 by Tangle, posted 12-14-2015 11:12 AM ringo has replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 333 of 372 (774187)
12-14-2015 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 332 by Tangle
12-14-2015 11:12 AM


Tangle writes:
I'd like to read that judgement - do you have a reference?
I should clarify that the specific case involved wearing the niqab at a citizenship ceremony. From what I Googled:
quote:
In the recent ruling, the court said that the government had gone too far by implementing the ban on wearing face veils during citizenship oath ceremonies, and said the ban hindered the citizenship judge’s legal obligation to make sure that the "greatest possible freedom" is given to people taking the Canadian oath of citizenship.link
Other courts have ruled that a woman must remove her niqab for identification purposes. I have no problem with that.
Tangle writes:
And of course it is the restriction of a freedom but it is done in order to benefit the community as a whole and to protect some women from worse oppression and subjugation.
But it doesn't "benefit the community" any more than banning crosses or banning bindis or banning turbans would benefit the community. And it doesn't protect women from worse oppression and subjugation; it just drives them underground. Banning [arbitrary items of clothing] accomplishes no more than banning alcohol.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 332 by Tangle, posted 12-14-2015 11:12 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 334 by Tangle, posted 12-14-2015 11:38 AM ringo has replied
 Message 335 by Tangle, posted 12-14-2015 11:44 AM ringo has replied
 Message 338 by Tangle, posted 12-14-2015 12:12 PM ringo has replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 336 of 372 (774192)
12-14-2015 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 334 by Tangle
12-14-2015 11:38 AM


Tangle writes:
But we know that it is not, it's a requirement which under some forms of islam is enforced.
Under some forms of Christianity, wearing skirts is enforced. Let's ban skirts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 334 by Tangle, posted 12-14-2015 11:38 AM Tangle has not replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 337 of 372 (774193)
12-14-2015 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 335 by Tangle
12-14-2015 11:44 AM


Tangle writes:
Once again, it benefits the community for the reasons that have been presented several times, just saying no it doesn't is not terribly convincing.
I haven't seen any remotely convincing arguments that a dress code for women "benefits the community". Feel free to refresh my memory.
Tangle writes:
The clothing is not arbitrary nor is it equivalent to crosses or turbans.
How is a hijab different from a turban? How is a hijab different from a bindi?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 335 by Tangle, posted 12-14-2015 11:44 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 340 by Tangle, posted 12-14-2015 12:30 PM ringo has replied
 Message 341 by Tangle, posted 12-14-2015 12:51 PM ringo has replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 339 of 372 (774199)
12-14-2015 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 338 by Tangle
12-14-2015 12:12 PM


Tangle writes:
From what I can gather, your government introduced a law banning niqabs in 2011. There have been legal challenges which look like will result in a Supreme Court hearing.
Our newly-elected government has promised to drop the appeal to the Supreme Court. link
Edited by ringo, : Added reference.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 338 by Tangle, posted 12-14-2015 12:12 PM Tangle has not replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 345 of 372 (774256)
12-15-2015 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 340 by Tangle
12-14-2015 12:30 PM


Tangle writes:
ringo writes:
How is a hijab different from a turban? How is a hijab different from a bindi?
blah blah blah
Yes, we've been through that "symbol" nonsense before. My response has always been that removing the symbol doesn't remove the oppression.
By what mechanism is banning the hijab supposed to prevent oppression? It's illegal to wear the hijab in public, so an oppressive husband forbids his wife and daughters to go out in public. The oppression magically disappears.
It's the same as making alcohol magically disappear. Look, not a single bar in the whole town! Maybe Muslims will have to open speakeasies where they're free to practice their religion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 340 by Tangle, posted 12-14-2015 12:30 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 347 by Tangle, posted 12-15-2015 11:11 AM ringo has replied
 Message 351 by Greatest I am, posted 12-15-2015 12:50 PM ringo has replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 346 of 372 (774258)
12-15-2015 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 341 by Tangle
12-14-2015 12:51 PM


Tangle writes:
ringo writes:
I haven't seen any remotely convincing arguments that a dress code for women "benefits the community". Feel free to refresh my memory.
The judgement is here....
A court ruling is not evidence of benefits to the community.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 341 by Tangle, posted 12-14-2015 12:51 PM Tangle has not replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 348 of 372 (774265)
12-15-2015 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 347 by Tangle
12-15-2015 11:11 AM


Tangle writes:
Do you really think that if a woman is forced to wear a black bag, head to foot with only a small veiled slit at the eyes....
Why do you keep trying to bait and switch? What part of "hijab" do you not understand? I've never seen a burqa in my life but I see the hijab every day, so let's stick with reality for the moment. If you can establish a sensible reason for banning the hijab, we can move on.
I challenge you to even define what a hijab is. I've seen women wearing a scarf in the manner of a hijab. It gets cold in Canada, so scarves are quite common. Are you going to dictate how all women can wear their scarves? Or are you going to ban scarves altogether?
Tangle writes:
ringo writes:
It's the same as making alcohol magically disappear
No it's not.
Nuh-uh isn't a very powerful answer. Tell us how banning one thing is different from banning another thing. Tell us how prohibition of the hijab will work better than prohibition of alcohol.
Tangle writes:
Smoking isn't banned, it's taxed heavily, restricted and institutionally frowned upon.
So don't ban the hijab. Tax it heavily. The Scarf Tax should be a big revenue boost in Canada.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 347 by Tangle, posted 12-15-2015 11:11 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 354 by Tangle, posted 12-15-2015 1:58 PM ringo has replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 361 of 372 (774347)
12-16-2015 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 351 by Greatest I am
12-15-2015 12:50 PM


Greatest I am writes:
But why do you think that governments are forbidding smoking even where the smoke would not offend or reach people?
if they are, they shouldn't be.
Greatest I am writes:
Do you still think that the law should ignore the 75% just to appease the 25% whose indoctrination tells them that their invisible and absentee God wants them to cover their heads and faces?
Yes yes yes yes yes yes yes.... The answer doesn't change just because you repeat the question.
The majority does not have a right to oppress the minority, period.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 351 by Greatest I am, posted 12-15-2015 12:50 PM Greatest I am has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 368 by Greatest I am, posted 12-17-2015 3:58 PM ringo has replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 362 of 372 (774348)
12-16-2015 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 354 by Tangle
12-15-2015 1:58 PM


Tangle writes:
We've done this, we're not only discussing the hijab.
I mention the hijab and you respond to the burqa. That's dishonest.
There is a fundamental difference between the hijab and the niqab/burqa. The niqab/burqa present problems of identification, the hijab does not. So let's decide whether or not it's acceptable to ban the hijab and then we can move on.
Tangle writes:
ringo writes:
I've never seen a burqa in my life
That is, of course, totally irrelevant.
It's thoroughly relevant. Identification issues are separate from forced assimilation issues. The burqa represents both, the hijab only one. So let's deal with the forced assimilation issue first and then we can move on.
Tangle writes:
No one is going to be prosecuted for ownership or dealing in burkas no matter how many they have. You get the difference?
How do you propose to enforce the prohibition from wearing them in public without some form of sanction?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 354 by Tangle, posted 12-15-2015 1:58 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 363 by Tangle, posted 12-16-2015 3:22 PM ringo has replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 364 of 372 (774353)
12-16-2015 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 363 by Tangle
12-16-2015 3:22 PM


Tangle writes:
Instead why don't you reread this this thread and count the number of times that I've told you that there is no fucking problem with the hijab - as far as bans are concerned.
You could take your own advice and count how many times I've mentioned the niqab/burqa as opposed to the hijab. I say hijab and you respond to niqab/burqa. If you don't disagree with what I'm saying about the hijab, you can stop arguing with what I'm saying about the hijab.
Tangle writes:
ringo writes:
How do you propose to enforce the prohibition from wearing them in public without some form of sanction?
This is becoming idiotic.
So you have no answer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 363 by Tangle, posted 12-16-2015 3:22 PM Tangle has not replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 369 of 372 (774477)
12-18-2015 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 368 by Greatest I am
12-17-2015 3:58 PM


Greatest I am writes:
Seems you are wrong as it happens in many countries now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5mixM0gChI
Stop trying to argue by bare links. If you have a point, make it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 368 by Greatest I am, posted 12-17-2015 3:58 PM Greatest I am has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 370 by Greatest I am, posted 12-26-2015 1:49 PM ringo has replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 371 of 372 (775108)
12-28-2015 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 370 by Greatest I am
12-26-2015 1:49 PM


Greatest I am writes:
ringo writes:
Stop trying to argue by bare links. If you have a point, make it.
I just did.
What was it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 370 by Greatest I am, posted 12-26-2015 1:49 PM Greatest I am has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024