Support NeoGAF

[matthewwhatever]

Justin Trudeau has announced that if elected, the 2015 election would be the last under a FPTP system. While they haven't committed to one system over another since they still want to 'study the issue' they're now flat out stating the system will change no matter what.

Cue Azih ranting about AV in 3...2...1...

I think if any party is going to move away from the ~30/30/30 pack, it's going to be in Quebec. Basically no one watched this recent debate as it was not broadcast widely and I don't think we're going to see any movement due to it. The upcoming Munk debate is also not going to be broadcast widely either. With a lack of future major events in English Canada, it's hard to see why English Canadians would change their minds from where they are now.

In contrast the upcoming Quebec debate will be broadcast on CBC widely in Quebec. As well there is the popular Tout le Monde en Parle show in which Trudeau and Mulcair will be appearing. Plenty of opportunities for making a good impression on the public or making a major gaffe.

I don't think Quebec can move the polls in the direction you're hoping for, though. The NDP is already polling at 50% or so in the province, so if they're not already at their ceiling there, they must be close to it.

 

[Ledhead]

Upcoming Radio-Canada debate should be interesting. Is the Munk debate the only other significant debate?

 

[Kifimbo]

Another day, another drop for the NDP in Québec in the Nanos daily poll. Now below 40% for the first time since the start of the campaign. Meanwhile, the Liberals are gaining.

 

[gutter_trash]

Another day, another drop for the NDP in Québec in the Nanos daily poll. Now below 40% for the first time since the start of the campaign. Meanwhile, the Liberals are gaining.

Canada slowly returning back to the Natural Governing Party of good Prime Ministers

 

[Apathy]

One thing Trudeau has mentioned before, but I don't think he'll implement or anyone else, is Mandatory Voting. I would love to see Mandatory Voting implemented personally.

You'll need to either create rules around workplace / company regulations on treating their employees required to vote and potential exception declarations, or you'll need to implement a national holiday, actually potentially all 3, but I think it's worth it.

There's a decent amount of nations out there that have mandatory voting.

Here's the list actually:

You forgot north Korea lol. Also the mandatory voting in Brazil spawns this

http://youtube.com/watch?v=-n6hvPP06Rs

 

[gutter_trash]

You forgot north Korea lol. Also the mandatory voting in Brazil spawns this

http://youtube.com/watch?v=-n6hvPP06Rs

False equivalency case making.

You can't relate Brazil's high curuption and huge wealth gap among classes to Canada

 

[Tiktaalik]

I don't think Quebec can move the polls in the direction you're hoping for, though. The NDP is already polling at 50% or so in the province, so if they're not already at their ceiling there, they must be close to it.

Yes. If anything changes at all It'd be an NDP collapse. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

 

[CitizenVectron]

Canada slowly returning back to the Natural Governing Party of good Prime Ministers

You of all people should want the NDP to dominate in Quebec. Every point they drop, the higher the chance of the Bloc vote increasing and winning seats, keeping them alive.

 

[Azih]

I don't actually have a problem with bill 94 and I fail to see the "issue". Guess this makes me a typical Québec bigot for wanting government employees to show their faces. *rolls eyes*

The requirement to take off the niqab to even get service is the really horrible part of the bill.

And I would totally understand if an employee felt uncomfortable serving a person with a hidden face as well.

So anybody wearing a face covering should be fine with not getting served anywhere by anyone because some people are made 'ucomfortable'? Plenty of people are 'uncomfortable' about the kirpan and the hijab as well. The horrible videos of women getting harassed in Qeuebec were wearing the hijab not the niqab after all. Turban wearing Sikhs get caught in the crossfire as well. Saying it's okay to discriminate because of discomfort over a visible display of diversity in manner of clothing is a bad idea.

I agree it probably was not worth making a law over, since it's not a big deal, and I'm not going to staunchly defend that law or whatever, but it's not rooted in racism or bigotry like you keep insisting.

it's an imposition on a person's right to wear what they wish based on nothing more than 'discomfort'. That is a problem. A society should only restrict freedoms if there's a damn good reason for it and that good reason just has not been demonstrated here.

It's also funny that earlier you said women didn't even actually care (FYI I am a woman) and that it was only about old white men, yet your own link quotes a woman from a feminist group saying she thought the law was a good thing for women's equality. Oops.

Telling a woman that if she wears what she wants she's gonna get denied service by the state seems like a bizarre way of achieving equality.

All I'll say is that Quebec seems to be much closer to the idea that a minority has to be assimilate to be considered equal to everyone whereas English Canada is closer to the idea that a minority has to demonstrate a willingness to get along with everyone else to be considered equal. The latter is far more open to diversity and to my mind understands far better what it takes to live with harmony in a diverse world. This is getting incredibly OT so I'm not going to say anything more about the niqab in this thread other than shame on the BQ and the Cons for playing on fears of and attacking a disadvantaged minority group in this country in a crass attempt to get votes from some members of the scared majority. That's not Canadian.

Justin Trudeau has announced that if elected, the 2015 election would be the last under a FPTP system. While they haven't committed to one system over another since they still want to 'study the issue' they're now flat out stating the system will change no matter what.

Yeah but will it change to a better system or a system that doesn't really address the problem that we have.

Cue Azih ranting about AV in 3...2...1...

Look you can be as snarky as you want. It doesn't change the fact that what happened in 2011 is that Stephen Harper was able to get full majority power to do whatever the hell he wanted even though he only got 39% of the vote. This is bullshit. What seems to be the preferred alternate system from the Trudeau inner trust is a system that can create the same levels of distortion and false majorities. That will continue to suppress small parties such as the Greens and continue to exaggerate the power of big parties and regional parties.

Take a look at this really in depth blog that shows why Trudeau's preferred system isn't any better than FPTP.

http://thoughtundermined.com/2013/0...ing-isnt-the-solution-some-think-it-might-be/

In many ways, it can lead to even more distorted results than FPTP currently does, e.g. a single party winning even more seats than it might have under FPTP. It is not at all proportional, so it won’t put an end to majority governments formed by a party with much less than majority support, meaning many voters will continue to feel as if their votes don’t count.

and more here:

http://thoughtundermined.com/tag/alternative-vote/

In the vast majority of cases, based on the Australian experience, the candidate with the plurality of the vote (how you win in FPTP) ends up winning the riding anyway under AV.

What we should be voting for in this election isn't just kicking Harper out. It can also be to prevent something like Harper ever happening again. That's what you need PR for and the Liberals to their discredit just refuse to commit to it under Trudeau unlike the NDP and the Greens.

And gutter. By far the best Liberal PM of the 20th century was Lester B. Pearson and a large reason for that was that he engaged with Tommy Douglas and the NDP in a non majority situation.

 

[CitizenVectron]

I agree on Pearson. The LPC propped up by NDP was the best government we had. I think the same situation now (or reversed) would be equally as good (and needed).

In other news, Trudeau just said under no conditions will he prop up a CPC minority. That implies he is willing to work with the NDP, it seems.

 

[Walpurgis]

Because it's stupid and fallacious to think that being uncomfortable with being served by a masked person = bigotry. I don't have a problem with being served by a Muslim woman wearing a hijab. We're talking about showing one's face, not preventing them from practicing their whole faith. The latter is oppressive, the former isn't.


I don't understand what you mean. It affects me indirectly (hypothetically), in that I wouldn't want to be dealing with a government official who isn't showing her face, anymore than I'd want them to be working with a ski mask on. And I would totally understand if an employee felt uncomfortable serving a person with a hidden face as well.


I agree it probably was not worth making a law over, since it's not a big deal, and I'm not going to staunchly defend that law or whatever, but it's not rooted in racism or bigotry like you keep insisting. I don't see what you mean by "other motivations". Clearly there are people uncomfortable with being served by masked employees (or serving masked people), and they complained, and since they were federal employees it had to be written in law.

It's also funny that earlier you said women didn't even actually care (FYI I am a woman) and that it was only about old white men, yet your own link quotes a woman from a feminist group saying she thought the law was a good thing for women's equality. Oops.

Canada is a free and multicultural society. If you don't like the way someone else's food smells or how they dress or whatever, that's your problem. In a free and multicultural society, these things are allowed. You may not have a problem with a woman wearing a hijab but plenty of people do and I expect that to be banned in Quebec like it is in France somewhere down the line. As for the niqab, who suffers more? You for having the displeasure of being served by a woman wearing a niqab, or the woman who is forced to choose between her religion and her job? You wouldn't even be seeing these women since there are only several in the province.

The law is absolutely rooted in racism and bigotry. According to this, the official reason isn't security reasons or even about people covering their faces.

"This is a symbol of affirmation and respect — first of all, for ourselves, and also for those to whom we open our arms," Charest said.

"This is not about making our home less welcoming, but about stressing the values that unite us ...

"An accommodation cannot be granted unless it respects the principle of equality between men and women, and the religious neutrality of the state."

So, they removed basic rights from women, marginalised and oppressed them, not unlike the Taliban, and pushed their Quebec Christian rooted-atheistic ideology on them (that's what religious neutrality of the state means in Quebec). How do you not see this? Quebec is the only place in North America where this happens.

I said that the law is for old white men who wish to stomp on the weakest group in the country and I stand by that. That woman may support the law but she didn't introduce it. I don't weigh that Quebec "feminist" group's words very heavily. They don't seem to have a clue what they are talking about and sound like they are putting "Quebec values" over actual feminism. Either way, the only women that matter are the women being targeted.

Bill 94 was welcomed by the Quebec Council on the Status of Women, a government advisory body.

The bill is an important step towards preserving the equality of women, said Christiane Pelchat, the group’s president.

"When you live in a society there's a minimum of common rules that has to be respected," said Pelchat.

The real impact of the bill will be to prevent women who are wearing religious headdresses from integrating into Quebec society, said Salam Elmenyawi, chairman of the Muslim Council of Montreal.

"We travel thousands of miles and kilometers to go to … Afghanistan to teach woman in [niqabs], because we claim the Taliban denies an education," said Elmenyawi. "When they come to us here in Montreal, we tell them, no, we won't give you access. What is the difference between them and the actions of Taliban?"

Some human rights groups also expressed concern about the legislation, warning it could create a slippery slope.

"Where the bill can be problematic is the possibility of creating a precedent," said Fo Niemi, director of the Centre for Research Action on Race Relations.

"Today it is the niqab, tomorrow it could be the hijab the day after that it could be the Sikh turban … and then afterwards … how far we go? Will we even go to the point that we withdraw funding from the Jewish hospital or require that the Jewish hospital remove its Jewishness because the state shall not fund or support religious expression?"

 

[CitizenVectron]

A question that should be asked is, would an Atheist woman be allowed to wear a niqab under a proposed law banning them? It would have nothing to do with religious pressure, just her own choice.

 

[Pedrito]

A question that should be asked is, would an Atheist woman be allowed to wear a niqab under a proposed law banning them? It would have nothing to do with religious pressure, just her own choice.

No.
The law will mention "showing their face", not clothing items in particular. It would apply to a guy wearing a cagula as well.

 

[gutter_trash]

A question that should be asked is, would an Atheist woman be allowed to wear a niqab under a proposed law banning them? It would have nothing to do with religious pressure, just her own choice.

is it always her choice or her husband's choice?

As Liberal as I am, I don't believe that all are doing it by choice.

In Quebec, they said no to the Catholic Church in the late 60s in recent history, ask a Baby Boomer woman who witnessed her mom pop 12 babies to accept the Niquab today is not that a question at all

gotta be balanced IMO

It's not 100% choice and it's not 100% imposed but some are imposed and that is what bothers secularists in Quebec and you can't blame the Baby Boomers or older who saw their moms live throw the pressure of making lots of babies.

Before getting into Quebec bashing, you got to walk in their shoes of what they lived through in the past before the Quiet Revolution.

It's not black and white

 

[maharg]

Women are forced to cover up their breasts for reasons largely rooted in religious puritanism. Does this mean every woman wearing a shirt is doing it because of a false consciousness and we should ban shirts?

This argument is absurd. You cannot claim to be supporting the rights of women while dictating by law what they can and cannot wear. Especially when you're dictating more heavily constrained rules to one specific, already disadvantaged in our society for other reasons, particular kind of person. It's inherently contradictory.

 

[Walpurgis]

Women are forced to cover up their breasts for reasons largely rooted in religious puritanism. Does this mean every woman wearing a shirt is doing it because of a false consciousness and we should ban shirts?

This argument is absurd. You cannot claim to be supporting the rights of women while dictating by law what they can and cannot wear. Especially when you're dictating more heavily constrained rules to one specific, already disadvantaged in our society for other reasons, particular kind of person. It's inherently contradictory.

Thank you. Well put.

 

[Apathy]

Canada is a free and multicultural society. If you don't like the way someone else's food smells or how they dress or whatever, that's your problem. In a free and multicultural society, these things are allowed. You may not have a problem with a woman wearing a hijab but plenty of people do and I expect that to be banned in Quebec like it is in France somewhere down the line. As for the niqab, who suffers more? You for having the displeasure of being served by a woman wearing a niqab, or the woman who is forced to choose between her religion and her job? You wouldn't even be seeing these women since there are only several in the province.

The law is absolutely rooted in racism and bigotry. According to this, the official reason isn't security reasons or even about people covering their faces.

So, they removed basic rights from women, marginalised and oppressed them, not unlike the Taliban, and pushed their Quebec Christian rooted-atheistic ideology on them (that's what religious neutrality of the state means in Quebec). How do you not see this? Quebec is the only place in North America where this happens.

I said that the law is for old white men who wish to stomp on the weakest group in the country and I stand by that. That woman may support the law but she didn't introduce it. I don't weigh that Quebec "feminist" group's words very heavily. They don't seem to have a clue what they are talking about and sound like they are putting "Quebec values" over actual feminism. Either way, the only women that matter are the women being targeted.

So any restriction of religion is bigotted and racist? Regardless of whether it's in their holy books or how people interpret it? Cause the niqaab is a thing because of interpretation of what's in the quran. Then how do you feel about people being oppressed by not being allowed to practice polygamy? Or having underage brides? These are not allowed but do you call those laws racist and bigoted?

Women are forced to cover up their breasts for reasons largely rooted in religious puritanism. Does this mean every woman wearing a shirt is doing it because of a false consciousness and we should ban shirts?

This argument is absurd. You cannot claim to be supporting the rights of women while dictating by law what they can and cannot wear. Especially when you're dictating more heavily constrained rules to one specific, already disadvantaged in our society for other reasons, particular kind of person. It's inherently contradictory.

Thank you. Well put.

Not really, female toplessness is not illegal in many places in Canada. In fact, it's perfectly legal in Ontario, and several have been acquitted in BC and Saskatchewan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topfreedom_in_Canada

 

[maharg]

So any restriction of religion is bigotted and racist? Regardless of whether it's in their holy books or how people interpret it? Cause the niqaab is a thing because of interpretation of what's in the quran. Then how do you feel about people being oppressed by not being allowed to practice polygamy? Or having underage brides? These are not allowed but do you call those laws racist and bigoted?

If you can't tell the difference between an adult wearing a piece of clothing and a minor being involved in a romantic and sexual contract with an adult you've really lost the plot. Slippery slopes are not valid arguments.

Not really, female toplessness is not illegal in many places in Canada. In fact, it's perfectly legal in Ontario, and several have been acquitted in BC and Saskatchewan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topfreedom_in_Canada

I'm aware, and it's entirely beside the point. Wearing a niqab is also not illegal, afaik, anywhere in Canada. The point is that some handwavy argument about false consciousness (the idea that people are basically unable to consent to something because some hidden force demands it of them) is not sufficient to justify the restriction of rights for everyone. I am not proposing we actually ban toplessness, I am in fact entirely fine with getting rid of such archaic modesty rules. I am also fine with people wearing things that cover their faces, hair, feet, ankles, breasts, testicles, fingers, eyes, or just their left ear.

 

[gutter_trash]

I believe that the rule of law overrides religious beliefs that contradict the rule of law

 

[Pedrito]

Women are forced to cover up their breasts for reasons largely rooted in religious puritanism. Does this mean every woman wearing a shirt is doing it because of a false consciousness and we should ban shirts?

This argument is absurd. You cannot claim to be supporting the rights of women while dictating by law what they can and cannot wear. Especially when you're dictating more heavily constrained rules to one specific, already disadvantaged in our society for other reasons, particular kind of person. It's inherently contradictory.

Thank you. Well put.

No offense, but the shirt comparaison is quite weak. Guys can't go to school, the hospital or the DMV shirtless either. They will be asked to put a shirt on. Wearing clothes is just basic decency and has nothing to do with religion or gender.

Look, for many, the niqab/burka is a prime example of subjugation of women. You might disagree. You might think it's none of their business, but their belief is just as valid as your (Walpurgis) belief that they're all bigots.

 

[maharg]

No offense, but the shirt comparaison is quite weak. Guys can't go to school, the hospital or the DMV shirtless either. They will be asked to put a shirt on.

I think guys should be able to wear a niqab if they want too.

FFS. The point is they're *both* weak arguments.

 

[Walpurgis]

So any restriction of religion is bigotted and racist? Regardless of whether it's in their holy books or how people interpret it? Cause the niqaab is a thing because of interpretation of what's in the quran. Then how do you feel about people being oppressed by not being allowed to practice polygamy? Or having underage brides? These are not allowed but do you call those laws racist and bigoted?

We're talking about niqabs. They aren't even comparable to the examples that you provided. I don't think having underage brides is a requirement for any religion. I'm not sure about polygamy. Either way, there are valid arguments against those because those can lead to victims. Who is the victim of a niqab?

Not really, female toplessness is not illegal in many places in Canada. In fact, it's perfectly legal in Ontario, and several have been acquitted in BC and Saskatchewan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topfreedom_in_Canada

You missed his point.

I believe that the rule of law overrides religious beliefs that contradict the rule of law

I agree if we're talking about the Charter. If we're talking about Quebec's illegal laws, then I disagree.

No offense, but the shirt comparaison is quite weak. Guys can't go to school, the hospital or the DMV shirtless either. They will be asked to put a shirt on. Wearing clothes is just basic decency and has nothing to do with religion or gender.

Look, for many, the niqab/burka is a prime example of subjugation of women. You might disagree. You might think it's none of their business, but their belief is just as valid as your (Walpurgis) belief that they're all bigots.

If I were a woman and tried to teach a swimming class without a shirt, I would be fired. I've done this as a male and no one batted an eye.

 

[gutter_trash]

I think guys should be able to wear a niqab if they want too.

FFS. The point is they're *both* weak arguments.

but are they wearing out of sheer will or by spousal or cultural or religious pressure?

in Quebec, gender equality trumps everything

 

[Silexx]

I believe that the rule of law overrides religious beliefs that contradict the rule of law

And the Courts override laws that contradict the values of the Charter. Thus, the courts have quite clearly stated the niqab is a legitimate religious practice that is protected by the Charter within reasonable limits.

 

[Alavard]

but are they wearing out of sheer will or by spousal or cultural or religious pressure?

Doesn't matter.

A man could potentially force almost anything on his wife through religious/cultural pressure. He could force her to wear a silly hat, for example. But we don't ban wearing silly hats.

 

[Walpurgis]

One thing is certain, if the niqab were banned, women would not be going without it out of sheer will.

 

[maharg]

but are they wearing out of sheer will or by spousal or cultural or religious pressure?

A shirt or a niqab? The former, yes, probably spousal, cultural, and religious pressure play a part in why they're wearing a shirt. Absolutely. A man wearing a niqab? Well, I'm sure it might happen.

There is no other part of the body where religious strictures on showing/not showing them has resulted in a ban forcing women to show them. Women are not required to wear shorts or short skirts because it is in some communities worthy of exile to wear a skirt that goes above your ankles.

The whole argument that because some women are forced to wear something, all women must refrain is asinine and denies women and particularly women of colour agency. That is not equality.

in Quebec, gender equality trumps everything

Yeah, sure. Ok.

Since we've now gone in a circle I'm going to refrain for a while. I find your arguments deeply uncompelling.

 

[SRG01]

The whole problem with the niqab debate is that it's frequently conflated as a values debate when it is actually a state powers issue at its core. The state is has never been capable of *compelling* people to change the way they express their religiously held beliefs outside of clearly discriminatory behavior towards other people.

Reframing it as a Canadian-values debate is dangerous politics, because it appeals to fear and deeply-held beliefs against freedom and self-determination.

 

[gutter_trash]

if a 70 year old Quebec woman doesn't like ultra conservative religious garb because it reminds her of a time where her mom was expected to pop a gazillion babies because the Church ruled Quebec pre-1960s then she is justified to think that way and she is justified to not like the Niqab.


Walk in their shoes before bashing them.

 

[Alavard]

if a 70 year old Quebec woman doesn't like ultra conservative religious garb because it reminds her of a time where her mom was expected to pop a gazillion babies because the Church ruled Quebec pre-1960s then she is justified to think that way and she is justified to not like the Niqab.


Walk in their shoes before bashing them.

She's justified to feel whatever she feels, fine. But she's not justified in telling anybody that they can't wear one.

 

[CitizenVectron]

No offense, but the shirt comparaison is quite weak. Guys can't go to school, the hospital or the DMV shirtless either. They will be asked to put a shirt on. Wearing clothes is just basic decency and has nothing to do with religion or gender.

Actually, it is religion that dictated what decency was, and it has continued on with cultural momentum. People in ancient western civilizations didn't bemoan nudity (Greeks, early Romans), it was only with the advent of later religions (Judaism, Christianity) that the whole shame aspect was levied on people. For a direct example, look head coverings in our shared history. Traditionally many women in Christian families had to wear head coverings to church, or even once they got married (from eastern Europe). But we dropped that over time. Then it was considered against religious common sense (and therefore cultural common sense) for women to show their ankles, then their legs, then their stomachs, etc. But now bikinis are considered acceptable on the beach or in parks, etc. We are still influenced by our religious past, and that's why we continue to wear clothes even when it's warm enough not to need them.

 

[CitizenVectron]

if a 70 year old Quebec woman doesn't like ultra conservative religious garb because it reminds her of a time where her mom was expected to pop a gazillion babies because the Church ruled Quebec pre-1960s then she is justified to think that way and she is justified to not like the Niqab.


Walk in their shoes before bashing them.

Fine, then she feels that way. And? If she also feels that black people shouldn't be allowed to serve white people because she's an old-fashioned bigot, should we try to ban that if enough agree with her?

 

[gutter_trash]

Fine, then she feels that way. And? If she also feels that black people shouldn't be allowed to serve white people because she's an old-fashioned bigot, should we try to ban that if enough agree with her?

what?
I think your reading skills are off

i'm talking about subjugation of women whose job was only to make babies pre-1960s who don't want religious conservatism to return.
What does that have to do with historical racism out of slavery it the US?

 

[Silexx]

what?
I think your reading skills are off

i'm talking about subjugation of women whose job was only to make babies pre-1960s who don't want religious conservatism to return.
What does that have to do with historical racism out of slavery it the US?

You're arguments all basically amount to begging the question.

 

[GuessMyUserName]

if a 70 year old Quebec woman doesn't like ultra conservative religious garb because it reminds her of a time where her mom was expected to pop a gazillion babies because the Church ruled Quebec pre-1960s then she is justified to think that way and she is justified to not like the Niqab.


Walk in their shoes before bashing them.

Having a personal opinion on the niqab and dictating whether or not women should be allowed to wear it are two incredibly different things.

 

[Azih]

In any case I appreciate Justin Trudeau's strong stand in speaking out against the disgusting and ugly politics playing out over the niqab.

I'm.. okay.. with the screwy position Mulcair finds himself in (as evidenced by the people in this very thread who want the niqab banned for no good reason) as he's said he's accepted the repeated court rulings that state unequivocally that a niqab ban during the Citizenship Ceremony violates the Charter.

If it wasn't for the overriding need to prevent anything like Harper happening again by implementing PR this would do a lot to push me towards the Liberals.

 

[Dr.Acula]

If I'm not allowed to wear a scarf over my face and a toque low over my brow when it's -20, I'm gonna be upset!

 

[Walpurgis]

In any case I appreciate Justin Trudeau's strong stand in speaking out against the disgusting and ugly politics playing out over the niqab.

I'm.. okay.. with the screwy position Mulcair finds himself in (as evidenced by the people in this very thread who want the niqab banned for no good reason) as he's said he's accepted the repeated court rulings that state unequivocally that a niqab ban during the Citizenship Ceremony violates the Charter.

If it wasn't for the overriding need to prevent anything like Harper happening again by implementing PR this would do a lot to push me towards the Liberals.

Mulcair has spoken on the subject before and fought for the niqab. I can accept his silence since it is the only way to get votes in Quebec. The NDP has earned my trust on this so I'll let it slide. It's for the greater good.

 

[Pedrito]

Having a personal opinion on the niqab and dictating whether or not women should be allowed to wear it are two incredibly different things.

But they're allowed to wear it 99.9% of the time. They just have to show their face in a handful of situations, and I assume they could do it in front of a woman if they ask.

There must be something weird in the water in Québec because it's pretty much a concensus here that it's quite reasonnable. I guess we could all be racist bigots but why isn't the hijab targetted then?

Personally, I don't really care one way or the other as long as there isn't a question of security or identification involved. I just can't believe it became a serious electoral issue.

 

[Tiktaalik]

And the Courts override laws that contradict the values of the Charter. Thus, the courts have quite clearly stated the niqab is a legitimate religious practice that is protected by the Charter within reasonable limits.

There's nothing preventing a Strong, Stable Conservative Majority Government from using the notwithstanding clause to shield a law from Charter challenges for five years. The only reason we don't see this more often is that "it's just not done."

Chantel Herbert has a good article that suggests that it the Conservatives could use it on an anti-niqab bill.

 

[Azih]

But they're allowed to wear it 99.9% of the time. They just have to show their face in a handful of situations, and I assume they could do it in front of a woman if they ask.

This whole thing blew up and continues to because Stephen Harper won't allow Zunera Ishaq to take part in her Canadian Citizenship Ceremony while wearing a niqab (she has no issue with taking the niqab off for identification purposes) and she fought back against the man instead of submitting to his patronizing bigotry. The courts and the law keep siding with her and he won't let it go because he senses a way to bash Muslims to gain votes.

 

[CitizenVectron]

This whole thing blew up and continues to because Stephen Harper won't allow Zunera Ishaq to take part in her Canadian Citizenship Ceremony while wearing a niqab (she has no issue with taking the niqab off for identification purposes) and she fought back against the man instead of submitting to his patronizing bigotry. The courts and the law keep siding with her and he won't let it go because he senses a way to bash Muslims to gain votes.

Exactly. I think it's reasonable to ask women to remove it to discern identity (even before swearing the oath, to make sure it's really them). But to actually take the oath and accept the certificate? It doesn't affect it in any way, so why ban it? It's just racist politics masquerading as a women's equality issue.

 

[Pedrito]

This whole thing blew up and continues to because Stephen Harper won't allow Zunera Ishaq to take part in her Canadian Citizenship Ceremony while wearing a niqab (she has no issue with taking the niqab off for identification purposes) and she fought back against the man instead of submitting to his patronizing bigotry. The courts and the law keep siding with her and he won't let it go because he senses a way to bash Muslims to gain votes.

I know. I'm talking about stuff like Bill 94 and posters saying that these women are not allowed to wear the niqab, as if it was forbiden to walk in the street wearing one.

As for the case of Zunera Ishaq, yeah, all parties are trying to score cheap political points (LPC aside I guess) and it's disapointing that people are biting.

 

[GuessMyUserName]

But they're allowed to wear it 99.9% of the time. They just have to show their face in a handful of situations, and I assume they could do it in front of a woman if they ask.

There must be something weird in the water in Québec because it's pretty much a concensus here that it's quite reasonnable. I guess we could all be racist bigots but why isn't the hijab targetted then?

Personally, I don't really care one way or the other as long as there isn't a question of security or identification involved. I just can't believe it became a serious electoral issue.

But why?

This has never ever been a problem ever, why do we suddenly have to restrict their freedom now? Because it made Harper uncomfortable? There's just been absolutely no valid cause for this action, and it really says a lot how, despite the overwhelming anti-niqab sentiment throughout Canada, we're only just now realizing the garb hasn't been banned - because it's never been a problem.

 

[Pedrito]

But why?

This has never ever been a problem ever, why do we suddenly have to restrict their freedom now? Because it made Harper uncomfortable? There's just been absolutely no valid cause for this action, and it really says a lot how, despite the overwhelming anti-niqab sentiment throughout Canada, we're only just now realizing the garb hasn't been banned - because it's never been a problem.

Rhetorical question?

Because it's an especially big issue in Québec. Because the CPC and the Bloc know they can steal votes from the NDP and the PLC by making it sounds like it's a much bigger issue than it really is. Because dumb people will vote based on issues that don't even affect them.Etc.

 

[Walpurgis]

But they're allowed to wear it 99.9% of the time. They just have to show their face in a handful of situations, and I assume they could do it in front of a woman if they ask.

There must be something weird in the water in Québec because it's pretty much a concensus here that it's quite reasonnable. I guess we could all be racist bigots but why isn't the hijab targetted then?

Personally, I don't really care one way or the other as long as there isn't a question of security or identification involved. I just can't believe it became a serious electoral issue.

This reminds me of those times when we had pizza in class and I told the teacher that I don't eat pork and would like a cheese pizza. Many times the teacher would tell me to just take the pepperoni off and eat the pizza. It doesn't work that way. These women wear the niqab to hide their face from men. They can't take it off "just for a second".

There definitely is something weird about Quebec. I think it has to do with French culture since hijabs are banned over there for public workers. Hijabs have been targeted in Quebec by politicians in a similar manner and the proposal was quite popular. With Quebec, it's not a question of if, but when hijabs will be banned for public workers. I also expect a full on niqab ban like in France.

 

[gutter_trash]

Walpurgis, Marois lost in 2013. I don't understand why you are still talking about 2013 that won't ever get repeated again.
Premier Couillard is in the house until 2018.

 

[Walpurgis]

Walpurgis, Marois lost in 2013. I don't understand why you are still talking about 2013 that won't ever get repeated again.
Premier Couillard is in the house until 2018.

Because it happened. Those sentiments didn't just disappear. The current resurrection of the niqab debate is also fueling the flames and bringing us closer to that day. I believe that there is something about French culture and nationalism that leads them to these laws. Quebec is the only place on the continent with a law like bill 94. The Quebec charter was the natural evolution of that. I know that the charter is dead now, just like the separatist issue, but I expect both to come back somewhere down the line.

 

[Lebon14]

I am one of the canadians here that simply despise Stephen Harper. He fucked up our economy, he fucked up employment insurance, he created and passed C51, doesn't care about environment... the list goes on.

You know Denis Lebel? One of the only elected conservative candidate in Quebec. ...and I live in the region this guy won. Yeah. He pretty gave no f* whatsoever to our region in general. AFAIK, nothing good came from him. And to top it off, he's 5% ahead NDP according to a survey (but within error margin). Article here (in French):
http://www.nouvelleshebdo.com/Actua...09-21/article-4284285/Denis-Lebel-en-danger/1

As my voting intentions, since last election, I'm NDP. Full on NDP. I like Mulcair. I like what he stands for.

As for the niqab, as long as they show their faces when it matters so they respect our rules, I'm OK with it. Seriously. Why is it such a big deal?

 

[Kifimbo]

In Montreal. Trudeau riding.

Quoting myself, because here is another one, in MTL again.