| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
 Posted: Sun Sep 30, 2007 6:57 am Post subject: Quebec women's group targets hijab, yarmulke |
 |
|
| Quote: |
has its way, teachers, doctors and anyone working in a public institution in this province would not be permitted to wear hijabs or yarmulkes.
The council is calling on the Quebec government to ban what it calls visible religious symbols.
While a crucifix or a Star of David on a necklace would be acceptable, council president Christiane Pelchat said, public employees should not be permitted to wear such overt symbols as the hijab, a head covering worn by Muslim women, or the yarmulke, a skullcap worn by Jewish men.
The council plans to argue for a ban on religious symbols before Quebec's roving commission on "reasonable accommodation" of immigrants and religious minorities.
The commission's hearings are to wrap up Nov. 30.
|
Personally, I can't see these recommendations, if passed, holding up to a Charter challenge. (For non-Canadians: the Charter is the rough equivalent of the US Bill Of Rights.) However, Quebec has in the past shown itself willing to invoke Section 33, which gives governments the right to overrule court decisions.
http://tinyurl.com/2h9ddb |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
yawarakaijin
Joined: 08 Aug 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 30, 2007 9:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
When I read these articles, about the banning of the wearing of overt articles of faith, it always makes me wonder. Would these motions ever be introduced if the average day, run of the mill christians wore some kind of crazy Jesus hat? I doubt it.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CentralCali
Joined: 17 May 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 30, 2007 9:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I don't see them getting that passed so long as they "permit a crucifix or Star of David." That shows that the proposed legislation is intended to be prejudicial to particular religions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pligganease
Joined: 14 Sep 2004
Location: The deep south...
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 30, 2007 9:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CentralCali wrote: |
| I don't see them getting that passed so long as they "permit a crucifix or Star of David." That shows that the proposed legislation is intended to be prejudicial to particular religions. |
Yeah, but no one forces 7-year-old girls to wear the crucifix or Star of David as a way of ostracizing them from the rest of the community. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alyallen
Joined: 29 Mar 2004
Location: The 4th Greatest Place on Earth = Jeonju!!!
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 30, 2007 10:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pligganease wrote: |
| CentralCali wrote: |
| I don't see them getting that passed so long as they "permit a crucifix or Star of David." That shows that the proposed legislation is intended to be prejudicial to particular religions. |
Yeah, but no one forces 7-year-old girls to wear the crucifix or Star of David as a way of ostracizing them from the rest of the community. |
How is it ostracizing? I mean 2 or 3 decades ago, wearing a star of David may not have been appreciated by most people. Why? Because they are ill-informed. I suppose it's Islam's turn.
I personally don't care what anyone wears on their head or around their neck as long as it doesn't interfere with their job performance. I had teachers and classmates who wore hijabs and I don't feel like I need to be oppressed. I had classmates who were sikhs and covered their heads, I had Jehovah's witness friends who couldn't wear pants and somehow I made it though unscathed. Sometimes people really make a mountain out of a molehill.....  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CentralCali
Joined: 17 May 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 30, 2007 10:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pligganease wrote: |
| CentralCali wrote: |
| I don't see them getting that passed so long as they "permit a crucifix or Star of David." That shows that the proposed legislation is intended to be prejudicial to particular religions. |
Yeah, but no one forces 7-year-old girls to wear the crucifix or Star of David as a way of ostracizing them from the rest of the community. |
It's not "a means of ostracizing them from the rest of the community." It has to do with modesty. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thiophene
Joined: 15 Sep 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 30, 2007 11:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CentralCali wrote: |
| I don't see them getting that passed so long as they "permit a crucifix or Star of David." That shows that the proposed legislation is intended to be prejudicial to particular religions. |
I don't know, parts of Quebec seem to be going backwards for a while. I wouldn't be too suprised. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yawarakaijin
Joined: 08 Aug 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2007 12:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Pligganease wrote: |
| CentralCali wrote: |
| I don't see them getting that passed so long as they "permit a crucifix or Star of David." That shows that the proposed legislation is intended to be prejudicial to particular religions. |
Yeah, but no one forces 7-year-old girls to wear the crucifix or Star of David as a way of ostracizing them from the rest of the community. |
This line of reasoning always gets me and it is usually always due to an annoying little thing called ethnocentricity. Seriously, we label societies that wear these symbols as oppressive and then when they come back with retorts like "your women dress like whores" we just shrug it off like " a well, some do but that is just their way of empowering themselves".
Jesus H Christ, if we are all as enlightened as we pretend to be than this would be an absolute non issue. For all our education and enlightenment we have yet to grasp the simple idea that not all people share the same beliefs.
It is funny to think of the things that have become acceptable within our own culture and the things we abhor of other cultures.
I taught Iranian and Saudi women for almost 5 years in Canada. NOT ONE ever even hinted that she dressed the way she did because of her husband or that she was forced. The majority said it was simply because they wanted to be modest. Others said it was a sign of faith.
The only response I had was. "F-that biatch! put on this mini skirt now, let me see that T-back and show me some damn cleavage! Your in Canada now!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2007 2:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think this is the most problematic aspect of the proposal, for me...
| Quote: |
The council also stated it believes the right to equality between men and women trumps the rights to freedom of religion.
She used the following example to show how reasonable accommodation would impinge upon the right to equality between the sexes: A teacher in a public elementary school converts to the Muslim faith and wishes to wear the niqab, a veil that covers the entire face except for the eyes. But the government should not let her display the religious symbol, the council argues.
"The niqab ... sends a message of the submission of a woman, which should not be conveyed to young children as part of a secular education that is required to promote equality between men and women," the council said in a statement issued Thursday.
The council has determined that the niqab is a religious sign that is discriminatory toward women, Pelchat said.
"It is only women who are covered," she said. "Are there Muslim men who are covered up?"
|
The concept of "sending a message of submission" is a little bit too subjective for my tastes. Some people might think that a woman wearing a tight sweater is "sending a message of submission", because she's putting her body on display for men. As just one example.
Personally, I do lean toward regarding "modest" clothing as a sign of female submission, if only because I've found that the defenders of such garb are a little too quick to haul out the argument about how it's all done for the woman's protection. The idea that it's a woman's responsibility to control male lust by wearing modest clothes is a tad retro, I think. But I don't think that alone is enough to warrant banning headscarves etc from government offices. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2007 6:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I say ban all religious clothing, symbols from government school/offices. Apply it to all religions, seems fair. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alyallen
Joined: 29 Mar 2004
Location: The 4th Greatest Place on Earth = Jeonju!!!
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2007 6:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| JMO wrote: |
| I say ban all religious clothing, symbols from government school/offices. Apply it to all religions, seems fair. |
Why is this an issue in the first place? I'm not trying to be flippant but if the west is about personal freedom, why does this issue wind up in the cross hairs of politicians and governments? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2007 7:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
I say ban all religious clothing, symbols from government school/offices. Apply it to all religions, seems fair.
|
I dunno. If you take that to its logical conclusion, you could end up with a lot of common, everyday type images being banned.
Not to mention zodiac jewelery, celtic paraphanalia, rasta t-shirts, and so on and so forth.
I guess the French do manage to enforce a general ban on all religious imagery over a certain size. I'd be curious to know, though, how they deal with sacred imagery being used for largely decorative purposes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pligganease
Joined: 14 Sep 2004
Location: The deep south...
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2007 3:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| yawarakaijin wrote: |
| I taught Iranian and Saudi women for almost 5 years in Canada. NOT ONE ever even hinted that she dressed the way she did because of her husband or that she was forced. |
Of course not. I doubt anyone wants to admit to another person that they dress like they do because the times that they said they didn't want to their fathers beat the absolute crap out of them or told them they would go to hell if they didn't.
And, please, other posters, tell me the reasons for wearing the bee-keeper suits other than to say, "I am a woman. Therefore, I must cover up my entire body because I am the property of only my husband or my father. They are the only ones that can see me without my bee-keeper suit."
No, I get it. Now that they are of age, it's their choice. It's just like a girl who gets molested her entire life and then becomes a stripper or a prostitute. Hey, it's her choice now, right? But, I guess we forget that the reasons for her confused world outlook come from the sadistic and opportunistic influences from her childhood.
You guys are right though. I'm sorry. You're enlightened, and I'm not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yawarakaijin
Joined: 08 Aug 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2007 3:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Let me ask you this. Would you be willing to accept an Iranian, Saudi, Somali explanation as to why western women dress the way they do and what it say about OUR society? I highly doubt it. You would deride all their conclusions as being ridiculous. "Oh those silly muslims, they just don't understand our culture."
And yet I am supposed to take ,as an absolute truth,some white dude from middle america's view that those nasty, freedom hating muslims force all their women to cover their bodies as an act of subjugation? Gimme a break. Enlighten me please. Just how many middle eastern women have you met, taught, visited their homes, met their husbands? Enlighten me how they all lied to you and were cowering in fear of their husband's frightening muslim wrath.
The day I allow George Bush to educate me about the intricacies of muslim culture is the day I accept Ahmadinejad's theories on the west. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
crusher_of_heads
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Location: kimbop and kimchi for kimberly!!!!
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2007 3:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Get rid of the hijab the sooner the better. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
